Sicko (Michael Moore, 2007)

Message

tavernier · #101 Post by **tavernier** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:40 am

Jesus, even fucking Kurt Loder is on the right-wing payroll. When MTV starts trashing you, you're finished!

#102 Post by **domino harvey** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:50 am

I don't know about you but I sure want to hear opinions on the necessity of insurance from newspaper and entertainment reporters who make at least $60k a year.

tavernier · #103 Post by **tavernier** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:56 am

domino harvey wrote:I don't know about you but I sure want to hear opinions on the necessity of insurance from newspaper and entertainment reporters who make at least $60k a year.

Loder's been around for decades; he's got to be making at least $150K. He still occasionally writes for Rolling Stone too.

margot · #104 Post by **margot** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:10 am

tavernier wrote:Jesus, even fucking Kurt Loder is on the right-wing payroll. When MTV starts trashing you, you're finished!

Why does this guy think anyone gives a shit about reviews from MTV? I can't even remember the last time I heard any TV spot use a quote from an MTV reviewer (unless it was an MTV movie)

edit: Just as clarification I meant Kurt Loder, not tavernier.

tavernier · #105 Post by **tavernier** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:23 am

Raoul Duke wrote:
tavernier wrote:Jesus, even fucking Kurt Loder is on the right-wing payroll. When MTV starts trashing you, you're finished!
Why does this guy think anyone gives a shit about reviews from MTV? I can't even remember the last time I heard any TV spot use a quote from an MTV reviewer (unless it was an MTV movie)

It's all part of a concerted effort to trash Moore from all angles.

The Invunche · #106 Post by **The Invunche** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:45 am

Or maybe people with different views from you guys actually exist. I'm sorry to see this thread turning into tinfoil crap.

tavernier · #107 Post by **tavernier** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:53 am

The Invunche wrote:Or maybe people with different views from you guys actually exist. I'm sorry to see this thread turning into tinfoil crap.

Are you actually reading what we're linking to?

The Invunche · #108 Post by **The Invunche** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:59 am

Not everything, but the idea that Kurt Loder is part of a right-wing conspiracy is at best silly.

Is it really that unreasonable when Loder points out Cuba's 40 year history of human rights abuse?

tavernier · #109 Post by **tavernier** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:02 am

The Invunche wrote:Not everything, but the idea that Kurt Loder is part of a right-wing conspiracy is at best silly.

Is it really that unreasonable that Loder points out Cuba's 40 year history of human rights abuse?

If that's all you took out of Loder's hit piece, then he did his job, I guess. (And he's laughing himself silly somewhere in Manhattan.)

#110 Post by **domino harvey** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:04 am

The Invunche wrote:Not everything, but the idea that Kurt Loder is part of a right-wing conspiracy is at best silly.

Is it really that unreasonable when Loder points out Cuba's 40 year history of human rights abuse?

Tell me more about human rights

The Invunche · #111 Post by **The Invunche** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:05 am

Of course that's not all, but don't you think he has a point or does speaking out against the movie discount everything Loder has to say?

The Invunche · #112 Post by **The Invunche** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:07 am

domino harvey wrote:Tell me more about human rights

Oh for fucks sake. Is this the level of discussion here? Loder can not talk about human rights abuses in Cuba because the US used nuclear bombs in Japan? Everyone might as well shut up then.

#113 Post by **domino harvey** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:13 am

The Invunche wrote:
domino harvey wrote:Tell me more about human rights
Oh for fucks sake. Is this the level of discussion here? Loder can not talk about human rights abuses in Cuba because the US used nuclear bombs in Japan? Everyone might as well shut up then.

Or maybe people with different views from you actually exist.

The Invunche · #114 Post by **The Invunche** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:15 am

I know they do, but I doubt they have to be conspiring to express those views.

tavernier · #115 Post by **tavernier** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:15 am

The Invunche wrote:Of course that's not all, but don't you think he has a point or does speaking out against the movie discount everything Loder has to say?

So if Moore had prefaced the Cuba scene by saying something like, "Hey--we all know about the human rights abuses under Castro, but there's actually better health care here than in the U.S.," would that have made you and Loder happy?

In other words, does Moore really have to spell every little thing out so that no one can nitpick? Jesus Fucking Christ!

The Invunche · #116 Post by **The Invunche** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:17 am

What would have made Loder happy, and that's clear from the article, is for Moore to have told the audience that the excellent medical care in Cuba is actually not for regular Cubans. That's not nitpicking.

tavernier · #117 Post by **tavernier** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:40 am

If you want, you can check up on Moore's factchecking:

Apparently--and not surprisingly--Loder didn't: he baldly insists that Moore says that 18 million Americans will die this year due to lack of insurance; in the film, Moore says 18 thousand. (I wouldn't be surprised if this is corrected soon; I'll save the original page.)

All that doesn't matter, I guess, when a writer known solely for his rock articles in Rolling Stone and fluffy interviews on MTV suddenly writes a long diatribe against a film which has it in for the very companies that buy lots of commercial time on his own corporate bosses' network, CBS/Viacom, namely the pharmeceutical/drug companies. It sounds like Loder is positioning himself for a spot higher than the low rung he currently occupies.

Nope, no conspiracy to see here, no sirree.

The Invunche · #118 Post by **The Invunche** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:49 am

tavernier wrote:It sounds like Loder is positioning himself for a spot higher than the low rung he currently occupies.

And this is what happens when political debate becomes as polarized as they have in America. Everyone who doesn't agree with me (and there's no room for shades of gray here) must have some kind of evil motive because I surely can't be wrong.

None of you have a shred of evidence of what you're accusing Loder of.

tavernier · #119 Post by **tavernier** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:56 am

The Invunche wrote:
tavernier wrote:It sounds like Loder is positioning himself for a spot higher than the low rung he currently occupies.
And this is what happens when political debate becomes as polarized as they have in America. Everyone who doesn't agree with me (and there's no room for shades of gray here) must have some kind of evil motive because I surely can't be wrong.

None of you have a shred of evidence of what you're accusing Loder of.

Well, obviously I have no "evidence," as you say. When I read that Loder piece, it seemed too good to be true, so to speak, and I can't believe that it's merely coincidental that this guy is suddenly a social critic who nitpicks (yes, there's that word again) about a film that just so happens to be against everything his corporate bosses stand for.

I don't give a shit that I don't agree with him: I give a shit that his arguments against the film are so specious and unpersuasive. I've read other criticisms of the film (and other Moore films) that are well thought out and reasoned; this one isn't.

The Invunche · #120 Post by **The Invunche** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:08 am

I think Loder's point about Cuba's human rights history is very valid and most relevant to the movie. If it's true that the level of medical care shown in the movie is not available to the regular Cuban then the segment is at best disingenuous and pointing that out is far from nitpicking.

tavernier · #121 Post by **tavernier** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:16 am

The Invunche wrote:I think Loder's point about Cuba's human rights history is very valid and most relevant to the movie. If it's true that the level of medical care shown in the movie is not available to the regular Cuban then the segment is at best disingenuous and pointing that out is far from nitpicking.

So you're not giving up, huh? Not even when Moore himself has posted where he got his facts regarding Cuba's health care, but you would rather believe Loder's anti-Moore position, regardless of who fed Loder his "facts."

I'm sure Loder was hoping for a response like yours: now if only more people are swayed by his disingenuous piece, he's got it made!

essrog · #122 Post by **essrog** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:27 am

As a former journalist, I can't believe I'm defending Kurt Loder, but what is so horribly wrong about his article? I'm not comparing him to Woodward and Bernstein here, but he did do enough research (even though he probably didn't have to go farther than the documentary he cites and the Google search engine) to form a reasonable counterargument against some of what Moore's film portrays, while still acknowledging its power in some scenes. (For what it's worth, Loder's egregious factual error has been corrected.)

For a forum that prides itself (rightly) on critical thinking, I'm surprised by the free pass Moore seems to get here. Liberals (and I'm one of them) should demand more.

tavernier wrote:
The Invunche wrote:I think Loder's point about Cuba's human rights history is very valid and most relevant to the movie. If it's true that the level of medical care shown in the movie is not available to the regular Cuban then the segment is at best disingenuous and pointing that out is far from nitpicking.
So you're not giving up, huh? Not even when Moore himself has posted where he got his facts regarding Cuba's health care, but you would rather believe Loder's anti-Moore position, regardless of who fed Loder his "facts."

Well, Loder's most persuasive fact regarding Cuba was a quote obtained by an award-winning investigative journalist.

Steven H · #123 Post by **Steven H** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:31 am

Loder's reasoning is fatuous at best. We could go through and cherry pick items from his article that either get it completely wrong or distort, just as he's done with Sicko. Sicko is a message film, and it's wrong to stray too far from the message and focus on the details, which, while technically true, Moore plays for emotional or humorous effect. His calling Moore a "socialist" reminds me of the great point the film made about the government protecting people with police and firemen; those things are outside of the dangerous free market "bell curve of God" because of their lack of profitability, and in that case we'll bend our ideology back and forth for it. But Loder can still use "socialist" as a slur, why? I have no clue. I doubt he's part of a right wing conspiracy, but the bosses have their bosses, who have their bosses, and a company man is a company man. Make'em proud, Kurt!

My extremely rich boss has a granddaughter who is so sick, and I forget what the name of her disease is, that ever since she was born it takes two full time nurses (she's never eaten a bite of food, all of it is given intravenously), near daily doctor visits, monthly hospital stays, etc. If my boss wasn't rich, that kid would be dead on the ground right now. She wouldn't have been cared for in such a manner, and if she had been, just to stay alive, her parents would have been so far in debt as to probably secretly wish her dead anyway. I have tons of examples of people, friends, associates, being "swept towards the crack," as one character in Moore's film says, and I'm sure nearly every other American on this board does as well. People who live with an amazing amount of debt or have just died (like a friend's mom who, coincidentaly after the local hospitals had cut staff for "budgetary reasons", was misdiagnosed with a common cold while she in fact had an inflamed appendix which burst and then killed her.)

Regarding Cuba, Loder can talk to someone else about waiting lines, maybe someone who never had a line to wait in in the first place. The place still has an equitable infant mortality rate and lifespan as even the most economically successful countries, when it can't even control it's black market or corruption (and we really have no right to talk about human rights abuses.) Also, Loder conveniently left out that tourism has deeply affected nearly all Caribbean and Latin American countries in negative ways. I suppose it's impossible to respect both sides of an issue when you're trying to make a point.

Michael Kerpan · #124 Post by **Michael Kerpan** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:40 am

Would the right-wing apologists on our list care to venture a guess about what kind of health care (and education) was available to ordinary working class (and poorer) Cubans during the era of US puppet Batista? And do they care about what kind of health care is available to ordinary people anywhere?

#125 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:49 am

Steven H wrote:Sicko is a message film, and it's wrong to stray too far from the message and focus on the details, which, while technically true, Moore plays for emotional or humorous effect.

So then "messages" are inherently made out of vague generalities? They're not made out of accumulated observation of the details of this or that subject?

Moreover, what exactly is "wrong" with maintaining a perspective different (if only slightly) from the one taken by the movie, especially when said movie is tendentious and has a palpable and admitted design upon the viewer?