** PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS POSTING WAS PUBLISHED PRIOR TO HANNITY’S INTERVIEW WITH MICHAEL MOORE**

I have just seen Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story. I did not pay to watch this film, and as such, I don’t think that anyone should pay to watch this film either. Doing so would just make Moore richer, and according to this movie, America should be moving away from making people, like him, richer.

Just like all of Moore’s movies, this is yet another one which presents his sensationalistic one-sidedness. At first I noticed that one of Paramount’s subsidiaries put this movie out. This is interesting to me, because the only interest that a company like Paramount would have in releasing a film like this, is nothing more than to make money. In other words, Paramount knows that Michael Moore’s films create controversy, and that people pay to learn about and become a part of controversy. In effect, this is an investment, to make money off of an anti-capitalistic movie- its an anti-capitalistic captialist investment. One should note that the total gross for this film thus far exceeds $5,000,000.00 which, granted, is not a lot of money for a feature film, but then again this is not a franchise film, nor a box office blockbuster. Rather, it is a near three hour twisted history lesson with amateur special effects.

To be fair, there were some interesting “factoids” which this movie brought to light that piqued my interest, but that’s not the purpose of this review. Rather, I think it is important to review the things which I witnessed the audience’s most animated responses. It is my belief that because Moore is good at mixing images with dialogue that are antagonistic to each other, he is able to manipulate and convey messages of his choosing. Additionally, there are other things that I think Moore did not give the audience a fair opportunity understand, and all of the aforementioned combined, plus some feeble minded movie-goers who take Moore’s word as gospel, makes for a heck of a social experiment.

On to the analysis…

At a point in the film, Moore convinces the audience that he is exposing greedy corporations because they are profiting off of the death of their employees. In other words, Moore explains how corporations take out insurance policies on their employees. When the employee dies, the corporation, as beneficiary, is paid according to the policy. This, juxtaposed with a family who lost a mother/wife that worked for one of these corporations and did not receive any money, makes the audience shreek in horror. Though, when one stops to think about the situation there really is nothing wrong with this because the corporation, as the employer, has an insurable interest in their employees. Why should the corporation’s rights under the insurance policy be impaired because the private individual, or the family, failed to take out its own private policy? The answer is: it shouldn’t. But, with all life insurance policies the owner of the policy and the policy provider have interests which are diametrically opposed. The policy provider hopes that the insured (the person who’s death will trigger the pay out) keeps living. This ensures the continuation of premium payments, and the prevention of the policy provider from having to pay out a large lump sum of money. On the other hand, the policy owner (who sometimes can be, and often is, the insured) is basically saying: Hey insurance company! I know how to beat you, all I have to do is die. This is the basic fundamental’s of life insurance. It is not as morbid of a concept as Moore makes it out to be, instead life insurance is an investment tool to protect those who rely on others, when that “other” is no longer there. It is a type of risk avoidance.

At various other points in the film, Moore “captures” several families who are going through foreclosure. Scenes of ejectment and eviction cause the audience to watch in shame. Moore, then uses these images and superimposes them with scenes of “greedy corporations.” The fallacy of all of this is that at no point does Mr. Moore assess any personal responsibly on the borrower/mortgagor for taking out a loan that they couldn’t afford- instead, it is the fault of predatory lenders, who, as it would seem from watching the film, forced families to buy houses that were unaffordable. At no point did it appear to me that any audience members saw that Mr. Moore was guilty for the same thing which he was proselytizing banks for. Michael Moore is making money off of people who are losing their homes by capturing their loss on video, and selling it to an audience. No where in the movie did Moore say that he would contribute any of his profits to the families who lost their homes and helped make his film sell. To me, this is just as egregious and exploitative.

Moore also faults businesses for going kaput. It would seem that he is almost suggesting that business is always supposed to be profitable. From the beginning Moore projects 50’s utopian images of the American worker. These images, taken together, capture the evolution of Horatio Alger’s dream, the American Dream. Moore then shows the results of failing businesses- that is, dilapidated neighborhoods, and the increase of the jobless. Subsequently, Moore calls for higher taxes for the rich, which mind you, it is the rich who create jobs, not the poor. This is another inconsistency of Moore’s because if you tax the rich, that is less money that the rich can use for things like: reinvestment into small closely held businesses, to buy products which takes laborer’s to create, or to purchase accessions which need to be installed by other skilled laborers. So much for Moore’s solution to unemployment.

Towards the end of the film, in humor, Moore rents a brinks truck and tries to perform a “citizen’s arrest” on entire Boards of Directors for some of the world’s largest banks. He tries to ask for our, the taxpayer’s money back, but is rejected and he is often escorted off private bank premises by security guards and police.

I do agree that Moore does raise some interesting issues: For instance, the relationship between Goldman Sachs and the approval and enactment of the $700,000,000,000.00 recovery act. But, again, this seven hundred billion dollar figure is actually a misrepresentation of what is needed to dilute toxic assets because most people do not consider the fact that not all of the assets which the money ($700bil) is being used to purchase, are toxic. Moore explains that the only reason that this bill was passed was due to fear mongering on behalf of the media, and corporate tycoons who had their hands in the pockets of big government.

Moore then goes to Washington to visit the constitution. He asks the security guard where he should check in the constitution to see where it guarantee’s a capitalistic financial system. This is just more misplaced humor because according to Moore, the security guard qualified as an expert on constitutional interpretation. The inference that people may have missed is that the constitution is a fundamental document of American democracy. The document promotes individual liberties and freedoms. Capitalism is the crystallization of free individuals and the ability of those individuals to determine on their own, how to spend or invest their money in a free society. Remember, their money, our money, your money, is a representation of the fruits of labor. In any other economic system, where there is government intervention, there is less freedom, and thus a more attenuated connection with the guarantees of the American constitution.

Over all though I agree with the general theme of this film and that is: People do some pretty bad things for a buck or two. Additionally, I am a strong believer that there is a price for everything. At the end of the film, Moore calls for a revolution. For someone with a networth exceeding $50 million dollars, this is a sick joke because Moore is not a revolutionary. Rather, he is someone who has been successful for taking advantage of a capitalistic system that allows him to reproduce his thoughts and images at a markup. To me, that is romantic.

CHOP CUP from :weareom: on Vimeo.

Remember it now?

Although there are many things that I don’t understand, as of right now, two are of the utmost importance. The first thing that I don’t understand is what to  say to someone who has won over 150,000 tickets in virtual skee-ball? The second thing is: how does one write a song that nobody can legitimately dislike?
While I don’t know what you would say to the individual with a lack of social life for being the most achieved virtual skee ball player, I do know that Bill Withers’ Lean on Me is a classic. No, wait. It is better than a classic, because sometimes there are people who dislike certain “classics.” This is where Lean on Me wins by a long shot because no one can ever dislike this song.
Lean on Me is not just a song, it’s an existential/emotional guide for the ill. Though Withers’ other songs include Aint No Sunshie, and Just the Two of Us, it is my opinion that Lean on Me continues to subvert the mainstream (although it is and was mainstream at a point) by being buried in history, only to be used on certain occasions. What makes this song an anachronism is that it will always be perfect.
So, what do you tell the individual who has the highest amount of virtual tickets earned in virtual skee ball? Well, how about “…we all have sorrow, but if we are wise, we know that there is always tomorrow. Lean on me”?

It’s a “S550″ Chrysler?

“Honk if you like unicorns.”

I don’t get it.

Um…

I don’t know… who dat? (sic)
Courtesy of L.A.

Yes, thank you.

Just the guy I was looking for.

– Posted Mobilly From My iPhone

________________________________________________________

Purchase all three prints above for $40. Click here to buy.

__________________________________________________

I find myself stuck in a dilemma. It is imperative that I get my hair cut. This is because each day I appear to look more as though I am homeless and I have two events that I must go to where I am certain that things will not go well if I resemble a homo neanderthalus (sp). The problem is that my barber is in the hospital. He is an older gentleman, and recently he had a heart attack with a side of blood poisoning. This is not good because I need a haircut and he gives the best one you can buy for thirteen bucks. But, this is only part of the larger issue: ultimately we expect our barbers to be immortal. Dammit! They are immortal.

Furthermore, it is important that you trust your barber, because if you don’t, you may end up leaving the shop looking like a scalopped potato, or a caveman.

I find myself sitting in the barbershop right now as I write this. I am waiting for another scissor slinger whom I don’t trust. I don’t trust him primarily because he is wearing a Movado wristwatch. These people, movado-wearing people, cannot be trusted. This is primarily because movado watches represent a false sense of sophistication and an even less of a sense of class.

Here goes nothing…

… And ultimately I was right. Don’t trust people with movados, and for pete’s sake, don’t trust people without sideburns.

– Posted Mobilly From My iPhone

The Adverts first sang about Bored Teenagers in the late ‘70’s. Today, Justin Bieber, a 15 year old that looks like he is 10, sings about looooooove in his song One Time. You should know that I am ready for his advice because I often look to pop music, and teenagers for opinions on life experience when I am not sitting around at home making fun of Brink’s Home security commercials.

Although it appears to me that Justin has not reached puberty, his music video features Usher. This either says a lot about Mr. Beiber, or very little about Usher. In his video, One Time, Bieber bounces around, points his finger, makes goofy faces, and “interacts” with the opposite sex at a house party for middle schoolers. This is a party that I would have never been invited to, and after watching this video, I now have a new appreciation of faith. [You may view the music video here]

It's a boy!

Because Justin sounds like a girl, dresses like a hipster, talks to Usher, and floats around on a skateboard, he has eliminated any possibility of obtaining credibility. But, this is ok, because I believe he has sold over 1 million albums. This means several things: First, it means that I have not a clue what I am talking about, and second, it simultaneously means that people enjoy superficial trash with a beat. You should be aware that the second point vitiates the former point, which means that I may be on to something.

Despite my cynicism, I think Beiber did it right. Following in the footsteps of teen-beat sex idol, Jonathan Taylor Thomas (JTT!), Beiber has and continues to build a name for himself, which one day he might actually have to rely upon. He will forever be known as the young woman that sold his soul for the sake of popularity. Tonight, Justin Bieber, we salute you.

Housewives gone wild

There is a lady on my television. She has awkwardly large nostrils and keeps mentioning the words “AARP”, “Healthcare”, and “Endorse” while standing up within what appears to be an intimate room in front of many people. It has become apparent to me that she knows nothing about the relationship of those words, nor how to use them. As she yells, not only do her nostrils inflame, but so do the behaviors of the people around her. She almost sounds good. She is a suburban rhetorician and right before the end of her diatribe, people began to clap. Her name is probably Suzan, but it is likely that her husband calls her “Sue.” This was her 30 seconds of fame.

There are many people like Sue, dentist-wives who have become bored engaging in oft-consuming activities such as consuming (shopping), and have now begun to channel their energies to “learning” about social-political changes without actually learning. This is her new hobby, Sue’s new hobby, and it’s free- Blind Advocacy. Her husband works, and while she has great health care, she likes to put on a show for those around her. She is a victim to media hype, she is now just another silly sensationalist.

Bright Signs make you right

But this is becoming all too common. Another woman in Pensylvania was reported using words such as “founders”, “constitution”, and “restore”. She believes she is the new Erwin Chemerinsky, though nobody else does, but she is mad, and we all known how that works: If you appear mad, and you are yelling, well, then, you must be right. However, this is a problem because I am genuinely concerned about the alleged point this woman was trying to make in regards to the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. Though, i’m struggling, after much thought I believe this woman is trying to make the argument that the original framers of the constitution did not intend to create policies which might, in our retrospective modernistic approach, be considered socialistic. Ok, so what? Historians and constitutional law scholars have argued for years on what they believed to be the original intent of the framers. This is nothing new and I certainly am not willing to take watered down advice from a mom who probably knows more about waffles than Madison and Jefferson. Although I am willing to coincide that I might be wrong if she could just somehow prove to me that somewhere in her expensive name brand purse, there exists a copy of the federalist papers.

Ultimately it is my belief that these women, while proponents of something that some of the greatest minds don’t understand, are just victims- blind advocates. Certainly, imbued in modern social policies are arguments for and against, which have underpinnings of “liberal” and “conservative” political ideology. I believe that it is no more than her support for one of these ideologies that she believed she was representing (probably the latter). The issue I take, however, is that people are vehemently advocating things that they probably know nothing about and they are getting airtime! It should be obvious that I can never be certain whether or not these people are scholars of some sort which, if they were, would lend them credibility on these issues, but I can say one thing with certainty and that is: Scholars are slightly more revered.

You see, Government oversight is complex. In fact, it is purposely designed to be comprehensive and complex. Arguments that oversimplify something that is designed to be comprehensive and complex appears to make people angry. The line between opinions and truth has become blurred, and for some made up reason people feel intelligent by crafting what have historically been seen to be “intellectual” arguments that are best set aside for similar issues, which in the past, have appeared to make people appear “intelligent.” Because those who run the news might be incoherent, there is no reason why they should aid in making the rest of us so by airing thoughtless arguments superglued together by people who have little or no experience on the issue just for the sake of “feeling like” they are now part of a “cause.”

I’ll admit it, I’m a guy and I went to see 500 Days of Summer (voluntarily). But, this was only after I saw the preview of this film which enlightened me to what I could expect to be on the soundtrack for this flick (ie., artists such as: Regina Spektor, and The Smiths). Though none of this could have prepared me for the conundrum of what this movie is about to do to our culture.

Let me explain…

Within the past two years or so, there seems to appear a new type of character in modern cinema. Slowly, this character has made her way into the critical dynamics of the protagonist’s life. This character, a female, is the post-modern, metro-independent, iconoclastic, semi-feminist incantation of Dorothy Day meets Dorris Day. She is beautiful but not in the way we normally understand and have come to understand beauty through our bleach-blonde-bulimic-obsessed hype. Rather, she is beautiful for not being beautiful and she is sexy because is she commonly being pursued by the protagonist. In this film, her name is Summer (Zooey Deschanel), but in Adam Sandler’s Funny People her name was Daisy (Aubrey Plaza). Both women have dark hair, are sophisticated, exist in their mid thirties, live in modern urban environments, and at times, expressly refer to their independence. If this is not a statement by and for the “modern-woman,” then I don’t know what is.

These women want what men have historically had: The freedom just to be free and now they have it. But there is a problem, a big problem (albeit there is an inherent fallacy that this is being written by a man), and that problem is that the historical notion of the relationship is under attack. Understandably this can be criticized as me being too androcentric, and I think that is an argument better made for another place and time because the crux of my argument is that gender roles are slowly being recharacterized, and the relationship is being reengineered- not that I am, or have feelings which encourage the diminution of a woman’s freedoms.

The result of the implementation of these characters into movies leads to the development of the modern relationship- An open, anti-label, less-than-semi-emotional dynamic between two human beings who are just trying to live. That would make this simultaneously existential and nihilistic.

These characters are placed into movies intentionally by Hollywood so as to manipulate and mold customary human interaction and relationships. It is my opinion that this will be accomplished by women, who watch these movies, and then slowly begin to reproduce the attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and ideas of these neo-women characters, these archetypal iconoclastic sandbags, and introduce these newly engineered frameworks for relationships into every day life.

But what’s the big deal?

Firstly, it can be seen that this style of relationship will perpetuate casual intercourse. This will, in effect, lead to an increase in transmission of infectious diseases.

Secondly, this type of modern relationship, will slowly digest the emotional aspect of the relationship, making love and attraction historical anecdotes.

Finally, this modern relationship will contribute to the destruction of our historical understanding of gender roles.

These are all serious concerns and I admit, maybe it is for the better. Maybe the good outweighs the bad. For instance, a possible positive attribute could be the fact that this modern type of relationship will give people an opportunity to “be with” more people which in turn, will give the individuals a better understanding of who or what their ideal candidate for a partner is. Furthermore, that might lead to an increase in happier, longer-sustainable relationships, which will decrease the amount of divorces. Therefore, this type of relationship could inadvertently contribute to the restoration of historical values including monogamy.

Another serious problem is that this is a subtle attempt by Hollywood to manipulate the dynamics of human interaction and impact the relationship man and women naturally have, though I’ll be the first to admit that “natural” is a very amorphous term. This furthers the influence and puppeteering perpetrated by Hollywood, which makes people less free and less independent. Thus, the image of the independent women would be, and is, a myth built by smoke screens and blue screens. It is a complete fabrication built on a stage that plays into the values and desires which people have been encouraged to regard highly.