How did I never hear about this? According to a journal article I just read (Moody, Kim, "Covert Censorship in Libraries: A Discussion Paper," Australian Library Journal 54), Michael Moore's Stupid White Men was originally set to be released on September 11, 2001. Needless to say, the publisher (Harper Collins) asked to postpone the release even though the books had already been printed, and Moore agreed. When Moore contacted them some time later to see when the book would be distributed, Harper Collins demanded they be allowed to redact parts of the book, such as the criticisms of George W. Bush. When he refused, they said they would pulp the books.
Thankfully, the ALA pressured Harper Collins to release the book, which they eventually did.
Showing posts with label Michael Moore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Moore. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Friday, August 10, 2007
Hillary Clinton: "I have never supported socialized medicine"
Via dKos, we get this quote from Hillary:
First off, there is ultimately one answer, and only one answer, to our health care woes: socialized f*%king medicine. Private, profit-seeking insurance companies and HMO's lower the quality of care for the bottom 90% of the country by their very existence. The only function they provide is to siphon money out of the system and into the hands of their corporate elite by squeezing patients and denying access. They and tobacco companies share the dubious distinction of being two business models where profit is attained primarily by killing one's own customers, and if Clinton or any of the other candidates had the spine or decency to do what's right, they'd commit to "socialized medicine" if for no other reason than to exterminate those parasites from the American health care system.
In order to oversee the people's needs and keep the system running smoothly, the government, like it or not, has to occupy precisely the position currently filled by HMO's. It's at that spot in the economy, the payer/price negotiator/middleman, where our system goes awry, and the reason for that is that the current occupants of said role are not honest brokers. The problem is that they cannot be honest brokers because their primary loyalty is not to the people they represent (i.e., patients), but rather to the wallets of their shareholders. Thus, the party performing that role in a functioning system is not motivated by profit, but rather it genuinely represents, and is accountable to, the people. Put another way, using the popular "car" metaphor for the state, on the only road in sight to well-functioning health care, there's only place for HMO's: on the shoulder, as roadkill.
Interestingly, however, she follows it with this:
Of course, Medicare is socialized medicine. That's sort of the point. We know socialized medicine works not only from foreign examples, but from a program we already have. Perhaps, as some of her supporters have suggested, this is merely an attempt to brush off an unpopular term without replacing the thing it represents, such as people did earlier this decade with the term "liberal." Supposedly Hil is crafting a health care strategy that she will unveil soon; I wonder how close it will actually be to universal health care. How do you think it will treat HMO's? Let's just say that, after seeing SiCKO, I'm a little skeptical of Clinton's commitment to doing what must be done to fix the system.
"Number one, I have never advocated socialized medicine, and I hope all the journalists hear that loudly and clearly because that has been a right-wing attack on me for 15 years, and it is wrong."
First off, there is ultimately one answer, and only one answer, to our health care woes: socialized f*%king medicine. Private, profit-seeking insurance companies and HMO's lower the quality of care for the bottom 90% of the country by their very existence. The only function they provide is to siphon money out of the system and into the hands of their corporate elite by squeezing patients and denying access. They and tobacco companies share the dubious distinction of being two business models where profit is attained primarily by killing one's own customers, and if Clinton or any of the other candidates had the spine or decency to do what's right, they'd commit to "socialized medicine" if for no other reason than to exterminate those parasites from the American health care system.
In order to oversee the people's needs and keep the system running smoothly, the government, like it or not, has to occupy precisely the position currently filled by HMO's. It's at that spot in the economy, the payer/price negotiator/middleman, where our system goes awry, and the reason for that is that the current occupants of said role are not honest brokers. The problem is that they cannot be honest brokers because their primary loyalty is not to the people they represent (i.e., patients), but rather to the wallets of their shareholders. Thus, the party performing that role in a functioning system is not motivated by profit, but rather it genuinely represents, and is accountable to, the people. Put another way, using the popular "car" metaphor for the state, on the only road in sight to well-functioning health care, there's only place for HMO's: on the shoulder, as roadkill.
Interestingly, however, she follows it with this:
"Do you think Medicare is socialized medicine?" she challenged him. "To a degree it is," Ashanti said. "Well, then you are in a small minority in America because Medicare has literally saved the lives and saved the resources of countless generations of seniors in our country."
Of course, Medicare is socialized medicine. That's sort of the point. We know socialized medicine works not only from foreign examples, but from a program we already have. Perhaps, as some of her supporters have suggested, this is merely an attempt to brush off an unpopular term without replacing the thing it represents, such as people did earlier this decade with the term "liberal." Supposedly Hil is crafting a health care strategy that she will unveil soon; I wonder how close it will actually be to universal health care. How do you think it will treat HMO's? Let's just say that, after seeing SiCKO, I'm a little skeptical of Clinton's commitment to doing what must be done to fix the system.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Michael Moore has something to tell you
Supposedly Michael Moore will be on Leno tonight and "will be making a special announcement on the show." Dunno what that means, but thought I'd give a heads up.
Monday, July 09, 2007
SiCKO
Well done. Devastating. Go see it.
It was pointed out to me earlier today that movement conservatives have a specific litany of complaints about nationalized healthcare systems: you have to wait in long lines, you get low-quality care, you'll have to consult a bureaucrat instead of a doctor for your serious medical questions, doctors aren't given incentive to take the best care of you...
The interesting thing about that list is that, of all the healthcare systems in the western world, you know which one these characteristics describe most accurately?
Ours.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Um, what?
It's truly amazing what an acute case of "The Stupid" conservatives come down with for 3 months after Michael Moore makes a movie. It's like suddenly every new event or statistic that anyone mentions about anything must be marshaled to refute Michael Moore and whatever he's advocating at all costs, no matter how much of a stretch it is. Logic is no longer necessary; merely the faintest whiff of logic will suffice.
Honestly, I don't even get what some of these people are trying to argue.
Honestly, I don't even get what some of these people are trying to argue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)