From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
Michael Moore's Sicko not just about health care

September 10, 2006 12:43 AM

ImJohnGalt saw the first clips from Michael Moore's upcoming Sicko:

In Canada, he said, we are raised with the concept of "we're all in this boat together", and that if one of us suffers, we collectively suffer a little bit. In America, he says, it's always been "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", and "I got mine, fuck you".

Using this as a jumping-off point, Moore said (I'm paraphrasing here) that Sicko will be more about how American Exceptionalism (on a global scale), and an "I want mine" attitude (on the domestic front) affects the quality of life of people not in the highest income brackets. While it may focus on the health care and health insurance industry, it will do so only as a way to support his larger questions about who Americans are "at their core", as he put it.

Kinda gives more meaning to "Sicko" dontcha think?

Cheers, Mr. Moore!

More from the archive in Movies.

Michael Moore's Sicko not just about health care (09.10.2006)

Next Entry: 9/11 was not a clash of civilizations (09.11.2006)
Previous Entry: Voting in America is "broken from the ground up." (09.08.2006)

Read the 7 comments.

Right Wing Robby:

His 9/11 movie has been since proven mostly false and full of outright lies. If you choose to ignore that truth, thats your choice but it doesnt change the facts.

Why should anyone even bother to read the cover of this one? No doubt is full of lies again.

Mon Sep 11 2006 8:17 AM


bobbie:

As one that has participated in both cultures for an extended time I fully agree with his differentiation between the cultures. It's why we returned to Canada when given the choice. The good of the whole is a far better ideal to base a society on than 'get while the gettings good' we found stateside.

And as the American in the marriage I am shocked that I would have ever considered this. 10-15 years ago I was a 'blue state' as they come.

Mon Sep 11 2006 9:19 AM


Paul:

It's weird arguing with Christians about how we need to try to help the poor to feed their kids and help the jobless to get training and find employment. American Christians aren't into that kind of stuff any more. I feel that they have become very materialistic.

I realize I am painting with a broad brush, and many American Christians are not that way. Still, the majority seem to think that spirituality doesn't entail any responsibility to others - only to God (tithing, worship, service to the Church, etc.).

Mon Sep 11 2006 11:31 AM


Paul:

I don't want to get into the mode of "blame the Christians", but Christians kind of get away with attacking the culture of the country when they are as responsible for it as anyone. If there was a little less witnessing, and maybe a little more money or time donated toward good charitable organizations, the country and the world would be a better place.

Christians are the base of the Republican Party, which prevents a national system of healthcare, because they say we can't afford it. Yet, they are the same group chiefly responsible for the Iraq war. Somehow, we can afford half a trillion dollars for an unnecessary war, but we can't afford national healthcare?

Mon Sep 11 2006 12:01 PM


Mike of the Great White North:

Paul.

There's a huge and monumental difference between all manners of 'christianity'. I can only speak to the 2 i am intimatly aware of.

Roman Catholic, of which i grew into, but discarded for hypocracy reasons. Yet even with the silly contadictions, the belief in faith over reason, and the status barriers of men vs. women, i could accept it much better, especially because while i did not ascribe to the message, i had a respect for the Pope (John Paul 2) and its clear stance towards helping the suffering and clear refusal to accept the US war in Iraq as being in any way legal, or 'just'. Roman Catholic teaching of Jesus is that of the gentle warrior, through words and thoughtful action, not of barbaric butchery. His golden rule of treating others as you would have yourself be treated, and to view and treat all strangers as though they were Jesus.

This is not what i see of evangelicals. Turn the other cheek is not in their rulebook. Killing misquitos with shotguns is perfectly legit, collateral damage be damned.(specailly if they ain't amerikan) The majority of whom see Christ as a warrior figure. One who smites enemies, find obscure biblical passsages to legitimize their 'crusades' and to give them 'moral clarity' when participating in the most unholy of actions. Whether it is sheer greed and utmost contempt in their fellow man because of being born into more cumbersome situations, the pure uber-capitalist methodology, the 'i earned mine, fuck off n die' attitutde is prevelant amongst many of these Christian warriors. Not all, but MOST of these evangelicals, are indeed the other side of the coin of fanatical Islamists. The hatred and venom they spew, their diatribes, their undying belief in a vengeful and warrior god who will bath the world in the blood of non-believers, its insatiable.

My fear is that one faction can kill hundreds, if not thousands at any given moment. The other faction can obliterate the human race because they have the ear of a born-again president with his finger on the button.

Mon Sep 11 2006 7:23 PM


rebecca:

What Michael Moore does, more or less, is just tip the iceburg for further debate. He is a man who believes in Freedom of Speech, so he will make a movie that will get everyone talking!

For instance, since watching MMoore films, I have continued to tap into the alternative news such as www.Democracynow.org, Alex Jones documentaries, crooksandliars.com, and also www.pot-tv.com. It seems that the more people who believe in these fundamental freedom, we will all rise above a bleak possibility of whatever is at this planet's end.

Please be advised,
thanks,
Becca

Thu Jan 18 2007 10:13 PM


Alex Jones? LOL:

Alex Jones? In his "dorkumentaries", all he does is refer to other films for "proof and elaborationg" on his talking points, in which he bounces quickly from one thing to another from how the government made 9-11 happen from the inside, attatching it to the illuminatti - who of course is made of global conspirators. Im not saying this isnt the case, but when you decide that you trust a source, do yourself a favor, and do some counter research.

Youll see them shoot holes in everything you believe in, and youll see counter researchers shooting holes in their arguments. Its best to let the critics blow out their hot water, and come out later as an informed person who is aware of both sides, sticking ONLY to the factual aspects.

Yes, christans bend the bible and the wordings of things to make themselves invincible, and the republicans want omnipotency, but when nutjobs like Alex Jones and Mike Mooremoney come out, all it does is make Liberals look bad.

Do we want republicans toting around a discredited film-maker (who doesent claim to be making a documentary but a comedy), (and who isnt a journalist), and toting them around as "average liberals" so they can make their extremist stances seem middle ground?

I agree with all of mikes points, and with his message, but theres no proactive formula for change. And its sad when so many liberals are forced to look stupid in debates because the most mainstream liberals in the media are weasals. Hes like Rush, Hannity and Glen Beck.

And i think when we liberals take up michael moore on our side, all it does is sideline the real point to tabloidize serious issues. We win a good public speaker, at the cost of better talking points to make a joke. we win a good film we cant use in debates. we lose credibility.

So, is he really a right winger out to make liberalism look whacko so that rampant conservatism can be viewed as "fair and balanced"? Either way, thats whats happening.

Wed May 2 2007 1:25 AM


Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam

Email:







Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Last.fm Weekly Artists Chart