Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Yeah, and so is Ann Coulter

Please forgive me; although I try to stick to policy and not get personal, I couldn't let this one slip by.

Micheal Moore now believes he is "in the mainstream," arguing that American sentiment has caught up with his documentaries, though they were controversial upon their release.

Michael uses his trademark fuzzy correlation. As for Roger & Me, in which he took on General Motors, Moore notes that "they are near bankruptcy." The film describes the human impact of closing several factories. Closing factories (as opposed to relocating them) is kind of a sign of financial difficulty. Mightn't General Motors be "near bankruptcy" regardless? Besides, a company's economic performance is not necessarily an indication of changing public sentiment. Perhaps competition had something to do with it? Nah. It's much more likely that the American People, outraged at the human cost of closing GM factories, decided to boycott GM forcing them more factories.

In Bowling for Columbine, Moore attempts to blame gun violence in the U.S., illustrated by the Columbine incident among others, on a culture of violence. Apparently this is mainstream now because of the VA Tech shooting. Honestly, though prepared for it, I didn't hear much of a call for broad bans of personal firearms after the VA Tech tragedy. Instead we tried to close the particular loophole exploited by the gunman to avoid waiting periods and registration (and though I love me some guns, I think these are fairly reasonable restrictions). I suppose our gun culture endures just as before.

Then in Fahrenheit 9/11 Moore criticized the Bush Administration, The War on Terrorism, and the Iraq War. Perhaps here, Moore has his best argument for public sentiment catching up to him. Nonetheless it's rather specious to claim that declining support for a war that Moore always opposed indicates that he is now mainstream. We'd have to go a little deeper into why people now oppose the war. Is it because it was always a bad idea (point for Moore) ? Is it because we have other more compelling foreign policy interests to pursue (maybe point for Moore)? Is it because we aren't acting strongly enough (Point against Moore)? There are probably as many reasons for opposing the war as there are opposers.

Michael Moore is just as delusional and egotistical as ever.
Update: David Whelan at Forbes discusses Moore's upcoming Sicko. About halfway through Whelan makes points that are often overlooked or ignored by proponents of socialized healthcare, but seem all too obvious to anyone with but a cursory knowledge of markets.

No comments: