Michael Moore's "Sicko" is hot internet news

[Alram]

Thorny issues here which are not as clearcut as they might seem.
I have been a healthcare professional since 1977, and I've worked in many different settings--corporate, nonprofit, etc. We do have government sponsored healthcare in the USA: medicare and medicaid.
No matter what system I have worked in, there have always been problems, inequities, and inane regulations when it comes to payment for services. You definitely do not want the government running a nationalized healthcare system.

Another nasty side to this debate are issues like abortion and euthanasia (legal in the Netherlands). People on both sides of the issue will have strong arguments.

Remember the dictum. Every solution brings new problems.

[Chaerophon]

FWIW,

I just spent a year living in Toronto and I have to say that it is a very safe and welcoming place to live. Of course, some areas are better than others, but I can honestly say, without exaggeration (having travelled very extensively within the city as a "resident tourist"), that there is not a single street within a five mile radius of the downtown core that I wouldn't feel relatively comfortable walking at any time, day or night. I've spent most of my life in Vancouver, and I have to say that I actually felt safer in Toronto. Having spent varying amounts of time in a number of major American cities on both coasts, I'm pretty confident that there is no comparison (which is not to say that I wouldn't absolutely jump at the chance to live in Chicago or New York for a year). I was very surprised and impressed by just how safe Toronto "feels".

[Hammerskjold]

>I just spent a year living in Toronto and I have to say that it is a very safe and welcoming place to live. Of course, some areas are better than others, but I can honestly say, without exaggeration, that there is not a single street within a five mile radius of the downtown core that I wouldn't feel completely comfortable walking at any time, day or night. I've spent most of my life in Vancouver, and I have to say that I actually felt safer in Toronto.




The key points for me is like you say, the area. Without rehashing my whole beef with Moore's methods, the not locking the doors at night bit was one of the things I found bizarre.

Anyway, it's been a while, so don't quote me on this exactly. About 2 years ago me and my friend was walking off a couple of beers, at around 2 AM. This was near the Zanzibar strip club area, the Dundas areas I believe.

I was smoking a cigarette and walking along the street with my buddy, when someone from across the street ran across and asked me for a spare cig. I said this was my last, he then proceeded to ask for a drag. Me and my buddy proceeded to act calm and obliged him (as calm as possible with more than a few drinks in us anyway). After a brief chit chat with this guy, he asked if we're interested in buying any coke. I don't mean the drinking kind.

We politely declined, and just started walking away. Nothing violent happened, he didn't pull a weapon on us or anything like that. But let's just say even though we're both inebriated slightly, the guy didn't 'smell' like a narc. He gave a vibe that yes he really was offering coke for sale.

Now I spent about 2 weeks near that area, because I had to curate an art show. And I remember during daylight hours, there was a pretty eclectic atmosphere to the neighbourhood. At night however, it wasn't uncommon to find crack pipes (and crack heads) littered near the building complex I was in. Break-ins, theft, and squatting by crack addicts were not unheard of. This situation didn't develop overnight obviously.

Was it as 'bad' as some of the neighbourhood I've been in like Washington DC, Buffalo NY, or some places in Asia though? I'd say no. But it's still pretty far from the picturesque ideal I saw on screen. And I could very well be wrong, but some of the landmarks seems to be edited to give a false impression that it is all one area, but from my own experience at least they are iirc actually span a far larger area. Ie: Some area looks very out of place for a downtown core, it seems to be more likely somewhere in an older area or something like Rosedale.

I understand that this visual compression can happen when you edit something in any film, but that's not what bothered me. What bothered me was it seems that it was a broad composite picture that was presented as one seamless location.

>Compared with any of the Northeastern American cities of comparable size, Toronto has not got a single "bad" area.

In that sense, I agree with you. I find the 'bad' area at least nowadays, tend to roam a lot more and move into the suburb areas.

ps. Just to give a sense of perspective of my own view and biases, I've spent about 10+ years in Toronto. Before my family settled down in Canada, I grew up in Asia and briefly spent some time in the states. Out of all the places I've been, yes Toronto is still relatively safe. Key word of course, relatively speaking. As for welcoming, I'd say Toronto is perhaps more polite than say, some places in New York. YMMV.

One thing I do like about Toronto even after all these years, I can hear many different languages being spoken everytime I take the subway, well when passengers are not hooked up to their white Ipod earbuds at least.

And I'd say T.O. is has a lot of beautiful women. There are times when I'm walking around downtown and I seriously wonder is there some sort of hidden femmebot factory that churns them out? The only thing IMHO that can seriously rival TO in the fairer sex department is probably Montreal. But that's my personal bias and I'm sticking to it.

[ShadowHM]

I have no intention of squandering any of my time watching Sicko. If I want some polemic, I can find other sources with ease.

However, since I have lived in Toronto for all of my adult life, I am bemused to learn (via this thread) that Toronto is being held up as some epitome of safety. Just as with any large city, it depends on where you live. There are a number of neighbourhoods where just walking down the street is a hazard to your health. Driftwood and Jamestown are notoriously unsafe. Sections of Parkdale are dangerous: despite some 'gentrification' there are still crack houses there, with the attendant petty theft and occasional shoot-outs. And drunks who wander Kensington Market at night do get mugged, no matter how cute and touristy it is in the daytime. :rolleyes: I know that one because my idiot sons were the ones mugged there last week. :P

On the other hand, there definitely are neighbourhoods that are remarkably safe. Not safe enough to leave your doors unlocked as a matter of habit :whistling:, but safe enough that if you come home drunk one night, you probably won't get mugged or stolen from if you do forget to lock up that one time. ;)

[Chaerophon]

First off: I haven't seen the film, but it sounds like Moore clearly did exaggerate when discussing Toronto in his movie. Of course there are some areas that are worse than others. But isn't it a rather unique feature of city that the worst of the neighbourhoods you mention isn't even part of the City of Toronto, but located somewhere in the realm of 10-15 miles north of downtown? I must admit that I don't know much about the Jamestown neighbourhood, but I have walked through the Kensington Market area many times at night and I can honestly say that I really don't find it all that threatening. I wouldn't send my wife off for a stroll in the area on her own, but it's far from being a true "problem area". In fact, there's not a single place in the entire GTA where "people don't go" (including Jane and Finch), and the downtown area is remarkably inviting. The "bad areas" of Toronto don't even really compare with the further reaches and sidestreets of the East Hastings area in Vancouver, which are relatively safe in their own right (the Hastings "main drag" - where all the action is - isn't really problematic at all for the average passerby thanks to all the traffic, though the scenery is quite interesting).

I take your point, but still think that Toronto is probably "safer" than virtually any other major city in North America, with but a few possible (Canadian) exceptions.

[Alram]

Some have suggested here that Michael Moore is fully within his rights to cut and paste his films to make his points. So I have done the same by taking a quote directly from his own words at his own website.

American people are too stupid

He did in fact write these words; I quote them out of context which produces a result quite different than he intended. He does that all the time -- except he masquerades it as truth.

[NuurAbSaal]

American people are too stupid

I read it on the internet, it must be true!
:ph34r:

I'd have to agree that Mr. Moore is quite unscrupulous with the editing of his films*. However, there are politicians all around the globe that have much the same approach towards "The Truth" and that should perhaps be a lot more worrying than the lack of ethics from some attention whor...prost... well, you know.


take care
Tarabulus


*unscrupulous "with" or unscrupulous "about"? Both wrong? Help please, kthxbye

[--Pete]

Hi,

However, there are politicians all around the globe that have much the same approach towards "The Truth" and that should perhaps be a lot more worrying than the lack of ethics from some attention whor...prost... well, you know.

Well, first, I'd guess more people world wide see a Moore film than pay attention to any given politician. Also, everone with more than two neurons pretty well accepts that politicians lie whenever their mouth is open. Documentaries, on the other had, are supposed to have some slim basis in truth. And to imply that Moore is a whore or a prostitute is an offense to a lot of hard working pros.

*unscrupulous "with" or unscrupulous "about"? Both wrong? Help please, kthxbye

"I'd have to agree that Mr. Moore is quite unscrupulous in editing his films."

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Of course, you could build into an environmental policy a credit for being poor, offset by more substantial contributions by the wealthy.

But, then, that would be socialism.

-Jester

Ah, more blood from the same old working class stones. There is a limit, which results in an economic depression. When you say "substantial contributions by the wealthy", I still don't see how the wealthy contribute currently.

I can't see how liberals can support burning food (corn) for fuel (ethanol). What's next, burning our clothes for heat? Isn't the big veggie movement based partly on the inefficiencies of using grain to feed cattle? Why would they then support converting corn into ethanol, which consumes 1.25 times the fossil fuels to produce the same energy value of the fossil fuel it replaces. Pretty stupid if you ask me. The support for this failed over subsidized policy is all political, and not based on good science, good economics or common sense. In fact, if you ask folks who own large refineries why they are not building more, they would tell you that it makes no sense since the political will is to legislate another 25% increase in ethanol mandates. So when you consider that for every gallon of ethanol burnt results in 1.25 gallons of petroleum burnt you can see why the big oil companies are laughing their way to the bank.

[Jester]

For what it's worth, the big supporters of ethanol biofuels in Canada are the Conservatives.

-Jester

[eppie]

I can't see how liberals can support burning food (corn) for fuel (ethanol).

And there has been much misunderstanding. Most of the supporters of bio fuel didn't know either about the burning down of rain forest to produce palm-oil. These ridiculous things should be stopped immediately.
Using more grain (or other material) to make fuel in principle is not a problem, however it can never be at the cost of food shortage or destruction of rain forest.

[Alram]

Commodities futures are already up.

Poor Mexicans have been affected adversely by the cost of corn.

[kandrathe]

And there has been much misunderstanding. Most of the supporters of bio fuel didn't know either about the burning down of rain forest to produce palm-oil. These ridiculous things should be stopped immediately.
Using more grain (or other material) to make fuel in principle is not a problem, however it can never be at the cost of food shortage or destruction of rain forest.

A red letter day. Jester, eppie and I appear to agree on something.

[eppie]

A red letter day. Jester, eppie and I appear to agree on something.

Welllll....:)

No I reacted on your "I can't see how liberals can support burning food (corn) for fuel (ethanol)" because I found it a bit misplaced ironic.

I am a vegetarian for idealistic reasons, I support eating soy bean protein (made in to burger or steak form), but when I hear that in brazil they are cutting down the rainforrest to grow soy I fo course cannot agree with that. Luckily the products I eat have certificates that they don't use this kind of soy. (probably the soy grown in brazil is used for cattle food).

What I am trying to say is that we try to do our best to lessen the impact we have on the world. Sometimes things are wrong anyway. E.g. the fact that apparantly meat that is produced in new Zealand has less of an impact on the environment than meat produced in western europe and of course this is including the trasnportation costs and fuel use, meaning that using locally produced food is not always best. These things are than subsequently used by the right wing media to "show" that people that care about the environment are actually very bad people.................while of course the only right conclusion you can get from this fact is that it is time to start producing more environmentally friendly ourselves.....instead of oversubsidizing farmers to enable them to make a living of commercially not viable production methods.

....I forgot was this thread was about......

[NuurAbSaal]

Well, first, I'd guess more people world wide see a Moore film than pay attention to any given politician. Also, everone with more than two neurons pretty well accepts that politicians lie whenever their mouth is open.

And that's a far bigger problem than Moore. I should have tried harder to make my point.

Elaboration:
1. Micheal Moore is a filmmaker and should present facts in his documentaries. He fails to do so.
2. Politicians (supposedly) work for the greater good of the communities they were elected to run. Nobody pays attention to them and they lie whenever their mouth is open.
(simplification)

Now, we should be more bothered about Moore than the politicians?

Documentaries, on the other had, are supposed to have some slim basis in truth.

I thought the same thing about politics, naive mountain-dweller that I am:o

"I'd have to agree that Mr. Moore is quite unscrupulous in editing his films."

--Pete

Thanks, my written English lags behind my oral skills, oddly enough. Help is always appreciated:)

For the record, I'm pretty sure I have more than two neurons, if that was a jab at me.

take care
Tarabulus

[--Pete]

Hi,

Now, we should be more bothered about Moore than the politicians?

Yep. Because, ultimately, it is what people believe that determines what happens. More people are influenced by Moore than by politicians for the reasons I gave.

I thought the same thing about politics, naive mountain-dweller that I am:o

Around the turn of the sixteenth century, Niccolò wrote a fine explanation of what politics is really all about. I don't remember him mentioning 'truth' except to dismiss it as unneeded;)

Thanks, my written English lags behind my oral skills, oddly enough. Help is always appreciated:)

Your written English is fine. Indeed, it is much better than that of many of the people who were raised in the language.

For the record, I'm pretty sure I have more than two neurons, if that was a jab at me.

I don't doubt it at all. 'Twas not a jab at anyone, just a classification. And it was most certainly not aimed at you.

--Pete

[NuurAbSaal]

Hi,
Yep. Because, ultimately, it is what people believe that determines what happens. More people are influenced by Moore than by politicians for the reasons I gave.

That's a very interesting view on it that I completely missed, apparently:)

/blush and thanks for the rest

take care
Tarabulus

[Hammerskjold]

>If you think many people really start hating Wolfowitz because of this than you even have a worse view of humanity than I have. You cannot not seriously think people to fall for these things right? and I also don't think Moore believes this. Or maybe he does...maybe he thinks that the part of the population that would believe the cheap lies of Bush just because he acts "so strong" would also believe the things he said.....well if this is the fact than you are right.

Left, Right, Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, Republican, Tomay-toe, Tomah-toe. Is there really such a big difference if someone uses half-truths to gain what they want? I'm sure they will say some ends does justify any and all means. Especially if those ends are noble and good. It's all done for the greater good right? Heh, does that line sound familiar to you?


>I think you are grown up enough to make up your own mind. As I said before I guess (I hope) you don't believe anything that is one TV, so don't treat the rest of the population like they do.

Weren't you the one that said a large segment of the population believed the lies of the 'Decider'? Like oh say, Saddam was directly involved and responsible for the 9\11 attacks? But now you're telling me I should not see them so readily to accept anything shown on screen?

So let's see, half-truths and massaged messages are EVIL BAD when it comes from the camp you personally don't like. But when it comes from the camp you like or perhaps identify more closely with, it's more acceptable?

There's a word for that I believe. It's called tribalism. Don't worry though Eppie, you and I are not special in that regard, all human beings are emotional and tribal first, rational and universal second. Sometimes a very distant second, sometimes never.


>Moore's movie have not changed my mind, but I found them quite entertaining and am happy to have watched them.

You know you've thrown the phrase 'anti-Moore advocate' around. Allow me to throw something back.
I think M. Moore was\is one of the, if not -THE- pioneer who showed that documentaries can be entertaining, agitating, and humorous as well as informative. His style paved the way for others to follow.

I still think 'TV Nation' was his best work, followed closely by 'The Awful Truth'. I even gave him respect for trying out something slightly different when he did 'Canadian Bacon'.

It was Moore who inspired me when he demonstrated that no matter who you are, a CEO or not, you can and should be held accountable for the consequences of your actions. Especially if those actions carry negative consequences. To me, he wielded his camera and PR stunts like a goddamn champion for the average working folks and their community. It was Moore that inspired me that the search for truth is still worth a damn.

Somewhere along the line however, I do think something happened that made him change his priorities. Perhaps he believes that what he's doing previously is not getting the results fast enough. Maybe he thinks it's too important, and the methods doesn't matter because the goal is worthy enough for any methods at his disposal to be employed. Hell, maybe he started to believe in his own hype. Only he really knows for sure.

Maybe you think I criticize and disagree with Moore and his recent methods because I read and go along with his critics? Feel free to think so Eppie, I can only say that I get my 'ammunition' directly from the man's recent work itself. I did not have to buy it from Walmart.



>Finally I think it is clear that he has a goal with his documovie (or whatever you want to call them)....I think he doesn't deny that right?

It's Moore's past work that instilled in myself, a sense of accountability and responsibility for those who has power. (Moore does have power, not the same kind of power as the Decider, but as someone here correctly observed, his films can make more people tune in with their eyeballs. Hell, we're still talking about it now aren't we?) So I should not disagree with his methods, because he's what? Michael Moore? Ok Eppie, aren't we then really talking about 'do as I say, don't do as I do?'

And yes, Moore said himself he does have a goal.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/...Date=2004-09-06

Unless that site was hacked by one of those bad anti-Moore advocates. Those are his own words. And let's get something straight, I'm not focusing on him not submitting Fahrenheit as a doc category due to technical reasons. That's irrelevant. What is relevant to me is he says it's a documentary, and when it suits him better, it's just a movie.

'Howard the Duck' was just a movie. Calling something a documentary when it's filled with opinions and agendas masked as 'facts', is propaganda to me. Calling it a left wing, right wing, state made, non state made is irrelevant. Once you enter that territory they're meaningless labels to me.

Do half-truths really tastes better when it's served with your favourite label slapped on the outside? Because I bet ya Eppie, once the label is removed it probably taste like the same crap both sides are serving.

[eppie]

Weren't you the one that said a large segment of the population believed the lies of the 'Decider'? Like oh say, Saddam was directly involved and responsible for the 9\11 attacks? But now you're telling me I should not see them so readily to accept anything shown on screen?

Well it depends what is right and what is wrong....and what your opinion is. Mine was that the Bush government used teh 9/11 attacks to force it's neoconservative agenda on the country and the world, I am against legalized guns, I think that the health insurance system in the US is not perfect. So for me it is maybe easier to go along with what is said.
This doesn't mean that I think wallmart is responsible for shooting deaths (they are just responsible for only selling music CD's with lyrics that are christian friendly:)), I also don't think Wolfowitz is a salivaing monkey or all the other things. I can distinguish clearly between facts and populist cutting and pasting. Remember that even at the time of Colin Powells speech about the "proofs" of the WMD in Iraq (remember the satalite pictures) I was still sure of the non existence of these things.

If people that are less sharp would just reflect, you see that (and I'm talking about the big point) about the WMDs they were lied to, while when Moore wants to show that the Bush goverment has used terrorism for political gain, he has been (at least) much more right. I say much more because such a thing never will be proven solidly, but things look like that.
The difference between trying to make your point like he does, and outright lying what Colin Powell did, is huge, you must admit that.

For the rest I can agree with most things in your last post. I think finally we have not so much different opinions. Maybe like Pete remarked I have a much too high opinion about normal people with respect to this.
I will when I have some time visit one of these anti moore webpages, which want to show where Moore lies. Juts to have more of an idea of the thing you meant.
cheers,
eppie

[Tris]

Holy... I haven't seen a TIm Hortons since I left Ohio. I've never been in one, but that brought back memories:)