Michael Moore & the documentary

[Ziggurat]

It may be a rhetorical ploy, but it isn't cheap. It helped to illustrate the larger point that Moore made later in the movie, which was that Army recruiters tend to avoid affluent kids and target poorer kids, so you end up with a war being fought by poor people's kids, or illegal immigrants, etc.

If that's really the complaint, then there's at least one easy thing to do to change that: bring more military recruiters onto prestigious college campuses. And yet, the same folks who complain about the army being made up of only poor kids often end up protesting army recruiters on campuses, doing everything they can to limit their effectiveness.

Oh, and it's still cheap, even if it's rhetorically effective, because politicians can't make their kids go into the military even if they want to.

I also doubt that there are that many illegal immigrants in the armed forces. There are a good number of legal immigrants, and it's a good route to citizenship - I don't have a problem with that, do you?

 

[Unabogie]

If that's really the complaint, then there's at least one easy thing to do to change that: bring more military recruiters onto prestigious college campuses. And yet, the same folks who complain about the army being made up of only poor kids often end up protesting army recruiters on campuses, doing everything they can to limit their effectiveness.

Oh, and it's still cheap, even if it's rhetorically effective, because politicians can't make their kids go into the military even if they want to.

Moore can't do that. But if he had brought recruiters onto the Yale campus and accosted some young Republicans, then I'm sure he'd get lambasted for that as well. But that would have been a good stunt.

And as I said, it's not cheap, since it's a powerful use of comedy to underscore a point. And you just admitted that you found it effective.

And that's without having even seen the film.

I also doubt that there are that many illegal immigrants in the armed forces. There are a good number of legal immigrants, and it's a good route to citizenship - I don't have a problem with that, do you?

Yes, you're right. They are non-citizens, but are legally here. I stand corrected. However, the new bill seeks to change that.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=46369

And I do have a problem with our armed forces being a place where primarily the poor serve. And that's the trend as I see it.

 

[luchog]

One woman finds the inhaler that she spends $120 for selling in Cuba for 5 cents. Yes, 5 cents.

Of course, the fact that that inhaler is manufactured somewhere which very likely does not have the same quality control enforcement that the US does, may or may not actually contain the drug that it claims to, and may or may not be contaminated with other toxic substances, is completely irrelevant, right? See http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...ffd72b&k=30442 for an example of the problem with drugs manufactured overseas.

 

[jimtron]

I think Moore's general point about Cuba is a good one: if a dysfunctional country like Cuba can give its citizens free health care, how come one of the richest, most sophisticated, countries has 40-50 (or whatever the number is) million uninsured? And how come we pay so much (the most?) but rate low in care?

Again, so often I find that discussions about Moore's films tend to be about nitpicking instead of about the important issues he raises.

 

[Snide]

Again, so often I find that discussions about Moore's films tend to be about nitpicking instead of about the important issues he raises.

Indeed. And I'd always heard from the right that the leftists were whiners!!

Anyway, Moore made it very clear on a recent TV interview that his point is not that Cuba's or Europe's systems are superior to the US. Just that the US is broken and could learn from some of what the other countries are doing, and the others could learn from what works in the US. He just doesn't think that enough does work here right now.

But let's keep nitpciking about how he made Mark Kennedy look in Columbine (Kennedy did fine making himself look inept while losing the senate race to Klobuchar), so we don't have to address the real issues...

 

[Unabogie]

Of course, the fact that that inhaler is manufactured somewhere which very likely does not have the same quality control enforcement that the US does

Since when is your assumption the same as a fact? Do you have evidence that the inhaler in question was made in a different place and is not the same inhaler? It looked identical.

may or may not actually contain the drug that it claims to,

Evidence that this was the case?

and may or may not be contaminated with other toxic substances

Evidence of this?

is completely irrelevant, right? See http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...ffd72b&k=30442 for an example of the problem with drugs manufactured overseas.

It would be relevant if it were proven to be true. But you think that asserting that it's true is the same as it actually being true? Could the answer also be that it's more expensive here because it's a proprietary formula under U.S. patent protection?

By the way, your link seems broken.

 

[luchog]

Moore addresses this site's claims on his website and has his own version of events. I'm not qualified to judge between them, but I think it just proves the point that while Moore will pick and choose from the details to make his point, he generally does not actually lie.

Not outright, no. He's smart enough to never lie openly and directly. But with his juxtaposition of events, his editing, and his cherry-picking of statistics and images, it's clear that he is encouraging a particular conclusion which is often false. He doesn't lie by comission, but he often lies by omission or implication. A type of lie which is far more insidious and difficult to defend against.

 

[luchog]

Again, the guy could have responded and pointed out that the question was flawed, or whatever. If you're an elected official, you better be articulate and able to handle tough questions--that's an important part of your job. He was asked a tough question, and if he ended up looking bad (in your opinion), I say that's his own fault for not answering the question better..

Hardly his own fault. Yes, they are elected to handle tough questions, but not in that format. Very few people are able to react that quickly, in that much of an off-the-cuff manner. Most people require time to think about a problem and formulate an appropriate response. Particularly with such an out-of-nowhere ridiculous question like that. Congresscritters very often have staffs of several, if not dozens, of people to do research, fact checking, evaluation of alternatives, etc. I, for one, would be very suspicious of someone who responded to difficult issues in such an offhand manner.

Keep in mind, also, that questions like that are difficult to answer in a way that cannot be cast in a negative light. They cannot be properly answered in a neat little sound bite. I am certain that no matter what answer the congressman gave MM, he would have found a way to give it a very negative spin. Or, if the answer had been a very good one, then MM would most likely have dropped it entirely.

As for the congressman looking flustered, it could be that he did evaluate MM's question, and decided that it couldn't be quickly answered in a way that wouldn't be given a negative spin. We don't know without talking to the congressman himself. Moore certainly didn't give him sufficient time. Or maybe he did, and cut the answer because it didn't fit his propaganda?

And how do we know that the congressman even had a son of military age? Or that the son would have even been eligible to enlist? How many congresscritters have children eligible to enlist? Just because someone is old enough, doesn't mean that they're going to meet eligibility requirements.

 

[luchog]

I also doubt that there are that many illegal immigrants in the armed forces. There are a good number of legal immigrants, and it's a good route to citizenship - I don't have a problem with that, do you?

There are no illegal immigrants in the US military. The requirement for serving in the enlisted ranks is a minimum of a legal resident alien with either a permanent resident visa, or a visa with an expiration date longer than their military service. Non-citizens are also only permitted a single tour of duty, and cannot re-enlist unless they obtain US citizenship. Only US citizens are permitted to become comissioned officers.

And while it's theoretically possible that someone could forge a resident alien card or visa; the background check process makes it highly unlikely that they'd manage to do so successfully.

 

[luchog]

And I do have a problem with our armed forces being a place where primarily the poor serve. And that's the trend as I see it.

That's the way that all militaries have been throughout history. The rank and file is invariably those of lower economic brackets. Aside from the fact that there are simply more of them, the middle and upper classes typically do not choose to serve if they don't have to. The only militaries that are not formed predominantly from the lower classes are those in countries that have mandatory service requirements with very limited exemptions.

Personally, with a purely voluntary military enlistment system, I don't really see the problem. People do what they choose to do, for any number of different reasons. They aren't forced to serve, and indeed, many are not even eligible to serve.

 

[epepke]

MM is far from perfect, and certainly is not above criticism, but IMHO he gets more than he deserves. The common complaints I hear are that he gets facts wrong, and/or that he is misleading, unobjective, unfair, only shows one side of the story, etc.

So my question to the Moore critics: who said that film documentaries should be balanced and objective (this is a sincere, not a rhetorical question)? Which documentaries or doc filmmakers that deal with politics or current events are more fair, or more factually accurate than Moore?

I pretty much ignored Moore until he won that "best documentary" award, though I liked Canadian Bacon.

The reason he gets criticism is that he gets so much praise. And he really is very poor. I've seen many fictional movies that were more accurate and better as documentaries than any of Michael Moore's work. Even Good Night And Good Luck was better.

 

[Unabogie]

That's the way that all militaries have been throughout history. The rank and file is invariably those of lower economic brackets. Aside from the fact that there are simply more of them, the middle and upper classes typically do not choose to serve if they don't have to. The only militaries that are not formed predominantly from the lower classes are those in countries that have mandatory service requirements with very limited exemptions.

Personally, with a purely voluntary military enlistment system, I don't really see the problem. People do what they choose to do, for any number of different reasons. They aren't forced to serve, and indeed, many are not even eligible to serve.

The problem is in moving toward a society which is two tiered. Where wealthy people enjoy the benefits for which they do not sacrifice the same way that everyone else does.

Where wealthy people have good health care, while poor people are denied care.

Where wealthy people get good educations, while poor get poor educations (or if the right wing were successful, no education)

Where wealthy people don't serve in the military, but poor people see it as their only way to pay for college or find a job.

Where those same wealthy people decide where that military is used, while poor people have less and less say what the government decides.

What I've described is, in my opinion, a bad society to move towards. That's why I'm against a huge concentration of poor people in the military.

 

[luchog]

Since when is your assumption the same as a fact? Do you have evidence that the inhaler in question was made in a different place and is not the same inhaler? It looked identical.

Show me where I stated as a fact that it was not the same. I never stated that. But it's a known fact that low-quality counterfeit drugs are a huge problem, particularly in developing countries. There is a strong likelihood that it's not the same. A risk I, for one, am not willing to take. Can you state categorically that the drug is manufactured to a high standard of quality-control? Can you provide evidence to support that?

It would be relevant if it were proven to be true. But you think that asserting that it's true is the same as it actually being true?

No, it does not need to be proven that that particular case is or isn't true. It's relevant since it's a well-established fact that low-quality counterfeit drugs are widely available in many Third World regions (and increasingly so in First World countries thanks to Internet sales); because of their cheapness of manufacture.

Could the answer also be that it's more expensive here because it's a proprietary formula under U.S. patent protection?

That could explain explain it if the price discrepancy were not so dramatic. That's simply far too extreme a difference to be simply a difference in patent and licensing. Even if the cost had been 5 dollars, it still would have been too dramatic to be believable. Drugs are not free to make. Components, precursors, other materials, labour, and quality-control all cost money. And for some medications, the components and process are so expensive that even generics are extremely expensive to produce. Generics are typically between 25% and 60% of the brand-name cost. I've never heard of a generic drug manufactured to US purity and quality requirements that sold for less than .05% of the brand-name cost. And I'm not aware of a single generic drug that sells in the US or Canada for less than 5 cents per dose, let along a longer-term supply (inhalers are typically expected to last roughly 30-60 days, or 100-200 doses).

The mechanical part of the inhaler alone would cost more than 5 cents US to manufacture. Refilling used inhalers with counterfeit or sub-standard drugs wouldn't. Nor would dumping sub-standard drugs which failed quality control for First World markets; which is a huge problem in Latin America right now.

By the way, your link seems broken.

They changed the location of the article on their server since I got the link. Here are a few others on the same subject which should work.

World Heath Organization Fact sheet N°275 - Counterfeit Medicines
American Council on Science and Health, Counterfeit Drugs: Coming to a Pharmacy Near You
Medscape, Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals: Current Status and Future (mentions Cuba directly as a source of counterfeit and substandard pharmaceuticals)
Science Week, Medical Biology: On Counterfeit Drugs
The Scotsman, Counterfeit drug cases double as gangs target NHS supply chain
Medical News Today, Internet Drug Death A Warning To Canadians

There is also an article in Nature about counterfeit and substandard drugs that specifically mentions Cuba as a source; but it's available only through paid subscription or a $30 download. I was also able to find a couple other articles from the WHO and peer-reviewed journals addressing the issue of Cuban-manufactured counterfeit and substandard drugs, but again, they're only available as paid downloads. If you're interested in paying for them, you can find them easily enough by doing a quick Google search.

Another interesting, related article:
An Associated Press article with further critiques of Moore's factual inaccuracy in Sicko.

 

[Gurdur]

If that's really the complaint, then there's at least one easy thing to do to change that: bring more military recruiters onto prestigious college campuses. And yet, the same folks who complain about the army being made up of only poor kids often end up protesting army recruiters on campuses, doing everything they can to limit their effectiveness.

This is an interesting point. Sadly, often the "left" in the USA is so revolted by various things that it counts itself right out of many of the civic things that it should be doing, such as jury duty or armed service. This unfortunate tendency creates a very wide gulf in the society.

There are no illegal immigrants in the US military. ....

This is both true and untrue.

The fact that makes it untrue is the spirit of the claim -- there are in fact many in the US armed forces who were illegal immigrants, but had their residency status legalised in various ways.

One of the very first US serviceman to die in Iraq2 was one of them:

From Military Times: Honor The Fallen

Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, 22, a rifleman with the Marines, died in a firefight March 21 [2003] near Umm Qasr.

Born in Guatemala, Gutierrez held permanent U.S. resident status, which he obtained in 1999.

At 14, with his parents dead, Gutierrez followed the path of 700,000 of his countrymen to California. He made the 2,000-mile journey from his Guatemala City neighborhood without entry papers. He hopped 14 freight trains to get through Mexico. U.S. immigration authorities detained him.

Fernando Castillo, Guatemala’s consul general in Los Angeles, says the United States doesn’t deport Guatemalan minors who arrive without family. Gutierrez was made a ward of Los Angeles Juvenile Court. .....

Apparently, according to the US National Center for Immigration Law, five percent of those serving in the US armed forces fall into such a category, though I have not yet found the original source for their statement.

 

[luchog]

The problem is in moving toward a society which is two tiered. Where wealthy people enjoy the benefits for which they do not sacrifice the same way that everyone else does.

Wealthy people are not prohibited from joining the military. In fact, a lot of commissioned officers come from the upper echelons of society, because of the higher educational requirements.

Where wealthy people have good health care, while poor people are denied care.

Denied by who? Last I checked, poor people have a number of government provided health resources in the US. Plus emergency treatment services (which are frequently used for non-emergencies). Who is denying them medical care?

Where wealthy people get good educations, while poor get poor educations (or if the right wing were successful, no education)

Last I checked, lunatic fringe, radical, anti-religion anarcho-capitalists were not typical nor representative of the mainstream Right in America.

Public schools are not going away anytime soon. There are some issues with the quality of education in some areas; but that's a completely different, and completely non-partisan, issue.

Where wealthy people don't serve in the military, but poor people see it as their only way to pay for college or find a job.

Who says wealthy people don't serve? Do you have statistics to point to?

How about this:

In summary, we found that, on average, 1999 recruits were more highly educated than the equivalent general population, more rural and less urban in origin, and of similar income status. We did not find evidence of minority racial exploitation (by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). We did find evidence of a "Southern military tradition" in that some states, notably in the South and West, provide a much higher proportion of enlisted troops by population.

The household income of recruits generally matches the income distribution of the American population. There are slightly higher proportions of recruits from the middle class and slightly lower proportions from low-income brackets. However, the proportion of high-income recruits rose to a disproportionately high level after the war on terrorism began, as did the proportion of highly educated enlistees. All of the demographic evidence that we analyzed contradicts the pro-draft case.

"Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11" by Tim Kane, Ph.D. Center for Data Analysis Report #05-08

A similar article in The Quarterly Journal of Economics is paid-access only.

Where those same wealthy people decide where that military is used, while poor people have less and less say what the government decides.

Maybe if they'd bother voting they'd have more say, since they outnumber the "wealthy", and overall voter turnout is typically around 50%.

What I've described is, in my opinion, a bad society to move towards. That's why I'm against a huge concentration of poor people in the military.

Fortunately, neither one is the case right now, nor does it show any signs of becoming the case in the forseeable future.

 

[Gurdur]

.....Denied by who? Last I checked, poor people have a number of government provided health resources in the US. Plus emergency treatment services (which are frequently used for non-emergencies). Who is denying them medical care?

That is a crap claim; the fact is, that in the USA medical care for anything not officially deemed an emergency IS often denied those with no insurance and no means to pay for it otherwise.

BTW, luchog, I'm still waiting for you to clear up the contradictions in your own story about receiving CAT scan diagnosis treatment.

 

[Gurdur]

And just to illustrate the crappiness of that claim of yours, luchog, consider the following story:


Poor Kids Without Dental Insurance Can Suffer Deadly Consequences
Dentists Often Won't Accept Medicaid Because of Low Reimbursement Rates

Deamonte Driver was a typical 12-year-old boy. He died from tooth decay.
......

Driver was entitled to dental coverage under Medicaid, but his struggling mother couldn't find a dentist to treat him even with the help of a lawyer.
....
ABC News went to Medicaid for answers.
"Well, the Medicaid program does in fact cover these services," said Leslie Norwalk, acting administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. "It was a failure on many levels."

 

[Unabogie]

Wealthy people are not prohibited from joining the military. In fact, a lot of commissioned officers come from the upper echelons of society, because of the higher educational requirements.

Denied by who? Last I checked, poor people have a number of government provided health resources in the US. Plus emergency treatment services (which are frequently used for non-emergencies). Who is denying them medical care?

Last I checked, lunatic fringe, radical, anti-religion anarcho-capitalists were not typical nor representative of the mainstream Right in America.

Public schools are not going away anytime soon. There are some issues with the quality of education in some areas; but that's a completely different, and completely non-partisan, issue.

Who says wealthy people don't serve? Do you have statistics to point to?

How about this:

"Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11" by Tim Kane, Ph.D. Center for Data Analysis Report #05-08

A similar article in The Quarterly Journal of Economics is paid-access only.

Maybe if they'd bother voting they'd have more say, since they outnumber the "wealthy", and overall voter turnout is typically around 50%.

Fortunately, neither one is the case right now, nor does it show any signs of becoming the case in the forseeable future.

You seem to have some trouble with reading comprehension today. Where do I claim that this is the current state of affairs? You stated that you don;t see anything wrong with offering citizenship to illegal aliens in exchange for service. I answered that I think that this is a step in the wrong direction, towards the society I described above. Re-read my post, then try again.

 

[Unabogie]

Show me where I stated as a fact that it was not the same. I never stated that.

Uh...

Of course, the fact that that inhaler is manufactured somewhere which very likely does not have the same quality control enforcement that the US does

You have no idea where the Cuban inhaler was made, yet you stated as fact that it was different. It could easily have been made in the same place.

How much clearer could you have been?

 

[luchog]

This is both true and untrue.

It's true, period. They may have entered the country illegally, but were made legal residents prior to their enlistment. They could not have enlisted otherwise.

And you make it sound as if they're being forced into the military. They're not. They have to actively volunteer. And despite what some here like to think, the military has fairly high standards that must be met.