Moore, Michael

see how bossie spent years trying to beat MM< failed repeatedly, then lucked into ultimately jiu jitsu?!!

===

flint indep paper funded by harry chapin concerts; his body ID'd by pocketwatch

an 7 24

Progressive filmmaker Michael Moore on Monday unveiled his battle plan to win the 2024 presidential election with an article titled, "Now, We Crush Trump: 100 Days to a Better World."

Moore begins by documenting the massive jolt in enthusiasm that has greeted Vice President Kamala Harris's entrance into the 2024 presidential campaign at the top of the Democratic ticket.

"A euphoric nation exploded in a joyful belief that finally the promise of the American Dream was no longer just a 'promise' nor a 'dream' but a roaring reality that immediately took off like a rocket," Moore writes of Harris' candidacy. "And each day this week has seen a new record set for a Presidential campaign."

He then goes on to list off the massive fundraising, volunteer signups, and new voter registrations that took place in the wake of Harris ascending as the likely Democratic nominee as evidence that Democrats are gearing up to deliver a final blow to former President Donald Trump's political ambitions.

ALSO READ:**Bad news for Trump: Harris will bring the receipts on Dobbs abortion decision**

In fact, he believes the impact of Harris' candidacy is going to hit Trump like a pile of bricks.

"Mr. Trump — how do you expect to win when what you believe in is the opposite of what more than two-thirds of the country believes regarding many of the major issues of the day?!" he asked. "You are running as a right wing whackadoodle in a country that has seriously become more open and progressive. The majority of Americans HATE what you stand for."

He then says that the only way Harris can lose is by depressing the Democratic base by tacking too far to the center, which he said would be akin to "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."

"If too many people sense it’s the same old political hoo-ha, the Democratic vote will be seriously depressed, millions will stay stuck in their despair, and all of this may lead to a Trump victory," he argued. "This must not happen."

Read the full analysis here.

===

https://www.alternet.org/2021/03/michael-moore-joke/

cdv

The right-wing "cancel culture" mob has once again grabbed their torches and pitchforks. Their newest target is documentary filmmaker and political commentator Michael Moore.

What is Moore's most recent offense?

In response to Monday's mass shooting in Boulder, Colorado, Moore tweeted"The life of Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa shows that people can come from all over the world and truly assimilate into our beloved American culture," and included an image of the Statue of Liberty.

Alissa is the alleged shooter in the Boulder tragedy. He was born in Syria but came to the United States as a child in 2002.

Reasonable persons may choose to disagree with Moore's timing, or his tone. But the fact remains that his comments about the Boulder mass shooting are largely correct.

Those on the right and elsewhere who are performatively "outraged" at Moore's comment are just angry because he spoke the truth about America's gun culture and our societal addiction to mass shootings and gun violence.

A society's culture is not a buffet where a person chooses the things they like and then ignores or denies the existence of those they do not. Such thinking is immature, simplistic and lacks nuance. In other words, it confirms what research by social psychologists, neuroscientists and others has shown about how conservatives and right-wing authoritarians think about morality, politics and society more generally.

As demonstrated by historian Richard Slotkin in his landmark book "Gunfighter Nation", guns and gun violence are central to America's culture and identity.

During an interview with Bill Moyers about the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, Slotkin elaborated:

And what we have in this country is we have a history in which certain kinds of violence are associated for us with the growth of the republic, with the definition of what it is to be an American. And because we are also devoted to the notion of democratic individualism, we take that glorification of social violence, historical violence, political violence, and we grant the individual a kind of parallel right to exercise it, not only to protect life and property but to protect one's honor and to protect one's social or racial status. In the past that has been a legitimate grounds.

To that end, mass shootings and other examples of gun violence are one of the principal ways that America is truly an "exceptional" nation.

As I explained in an earlier essay at Salon:

The U.S. has the highest rate of gun-related deaths among wealthy nations. The number of deaths from gun violence would be even higher if not for dramatic recent advances in trauma and emergency medicine.

The U.S. has more guns per capita than any other country in the world — even more than Yemen, a nation torn apart for years by a bloody civil war. In fact, there are more guns in the United States than there are people. Gun violence is estimated to cost the U.S. economy more than $200 billion a year, according to a 2019 report.

It is especially worth noting that just 3 percent of gun owners possess half the total number of guns in America. Some of these "super-owners" have dozens of guns. They are overwhelmingly white and male. …

While gun "advocates" have created superhero narratives, such as the fantasy about "a good guy with a gun" who stops "a bad guy with a gun," the reality is that a gun owner is much more likely to shoot a family member, a neighbor, a friend or themselves — by accident or suicide — than a criminal assailant. "Defensive gun use" statistics are inaccurate and wildly exaggerated.

Many members of the right-wing chattering class and others of that tribe are responding to Michael Moore's basic observations about guns and American culture as though they had suffered a narcissistic injury. This is true more generally in how the American right responds to nearly all attempts to enact reasonable gun safety laws.

But what is the source of this injury? For many gun owners, especially right-wing white men, the gun is a key part of their core identities in terms of privilege, sense of self and power. It is not just the gun that they fear will be regulated — they believe their literal personal existence will be imperiled if access to guns were to somehow be even marginally curtailed. Such deep attachment to guns as an extension of the self is largely explained by what social psychologists have termed "terror management theory."

This posits that because human beings are aware of their own mortality, they therefore develop compensatory behaviors which include cultural institutions like religion and patriotism. Symbols such as flags, and in the case of Christianity the crucifix, have a totem-like power which gives the believer and follower a sense of immortality. These systems of meaning and dynamics are at work on both a conscious and subconscious level, for individuals and society as a whole.

In American culture, guns have effectively become sacred objects. In that role, the gun is a means of symbolic and literal protection from death. It is also a tool for getting and keeping one group's power over others as seen with the genocide of Native Americans, the enslavement of black people, militarized policing, and the creation and maintenance of American empire.

Moore's tweet about guns and American culture were even more triggering for conservatives and other members of the right because he included an image of the Statue of Liberty, a sacred object in the national imagination.

It is no coincidence that death anxieties are a key factor that correlate with high levels of support for Trumpism and other authoritarian movements.

Public opinion polls show that as mass shootings and other gun violence has increased in America, Republicans actually oppose gun safety efforts even more. Predictably — and far more logically — Democrats and liberals respond to mass shootings and other gun-violence tragedies with greater support for gun safety laws.

Death anxiety has a profound influence on American politics in other ways as well: In red-state regions where coronavirus rates (and death rates) are highest, support for Donald Trump during the 2020 Election was also at its highest. In essence, death and sickness have made Trump's followers increasingly loyal to him and the Republican Party.

Ultimately, America's inability to create and enforce effective gun laws is rooted in competing conceptions of freedom. Conservatives emphasize "negative freedom" and a belief that government should be shrunk down to the bare minimum, and that "freedom from" is the most important aspect of democracy and human existence.

Liberals, progressives and other more humane thinkers understand that government can play a positive role in society. In this conception, "positive freedom" means that citizens can live better and more productive lives where, for example, they are free from anxieties about being killed in a mass shooting, or free from the fear that they may fall ill and not have access to health care, or free from the fear that their environment is dangerously polluted.

To state this equation differently, a gun owner's freedom ends at the boundaries and limits of public safety. Likewise, the "personal freedom" not to wear a mask during the coronavirus pandemic ends at the health and safety of other people.

A healthy democracy always involves a balance between these positive and negative understandings of freedom.

What Michael Moore hinted at in his tweet about gun violence is the reality that we need to embrace a new form of American patriotism, one grounded in the facts and realities of American history, life and culture.

If the American people keep on lying to themselves about who they are, then the plague of mass shootings and gun violence will continue — and all the other existential problems in our society that feed into this epidemic of violence will keep getting worse as well.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

‘Renewables are ineffective and more damaging than fossil fuels and nuclear’

The US-based libertarian Heartland Institute, which hosts “counter-summits” alongside UN climate conferences and has taken funding from fossil fuel interests including oil major ExxonMobil, was quick to host a podcast episode dedicated to Moore’s documentary.

One of the Heartland employees contributing to the podcast praised it for doing a “really good job of ticking off all the downsides” to renewables, which he claimed were the “least efficient way that you can try to generate electricity”.

Another said the “green weenies” could have “learned all of this stuff about the folly of wind and solar” by “coming to Heartland Institute conferences and reading our website”.

Myron Ebell, Director of Energy and Environment at the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and a regular speaker at Heartland conferences, has written a blog lauding the film. In the article, since reposted by the UK-based climate science denial campaign group the Global Warming Policy Foundation,Ebell claims the film “exposes” every type of green energy as “phony, useless, and inextricably dependent on fossil fuel production and large-scale hardrock mining”.

Both Heartland and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has similarly received funding from Exxon and the Koch family, owners of the largest privately owned oil company in the US, have sought to pressure Donald Trump into removing the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change action.

Environmental commentator and nuclear enthusiast Michael Shellenberger also reacted positively to Moore’s film, tweeting that it proves “renewables are worse for environment than fossil fuels”.

... no lnx pix twt

Environmental commentator and nuclear enthusiast Michael Shellenberger also reacted positively to Moore’s film, tweeting that it proves “renewables are worse for environment than fossil fuels”.

In a column for Forbes, he argued that nuclear was the only answer to our energy needs, claiming solar panels require more materials to build and create more waste than nuclear plants. While solar panels can create a certain amount of potentially hazardous waste, around 80% of a panel is recyclable and solutions are being developed for the remaining materials.

Later interviewed by Sky News Australia’s Andrew Bolt, who has been criticised for repeatedly dismissing mainstream climate science, Shellenberger claimed most countries would need to use roughly 50% of their land to produce 100% renewable energy. Many studies have found the figure to be considerably lower.

The far-right news website Breitbart similarly claimed the documentary reveals that the solar and wind industries “pretend to be saving the planet from climate change while consuming more fossil fuels than they save”, despite research showing their carbon footprint to be many times lower.

In the UK, pro-Trump commentator James Delingpolewrote on the same website that Moore’s documentary was the “most powerful, brutally honest and important documentary of his career”.

He said it “clearly shows that renewable energy is damaging to the landscape and to wildlife and does NOT reduce the use of fossil fuels”. He suggested it could help Trump win the upcoming US election because it “undermines the entire basis of the Green New Deal” advocated by some Democrats. Elsewhere, Delingpole has called Moore his “new hero” and praised the film for “causing greenie heads to explode”.

Breitbart News, whose UK branch Delingpole edits, was co-founded by Steve Bannon, former White House Chief Strategist for Donald Trump, and board member of scandal-hit political consultancy Cambridge Analytica. Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica were both financially backed by long-standing funders of climate science denial, the Mercer Family.

Matt Ridley, an author and former chairman of the Northern Rock bank, whose collapse precipitated the 2008 financial crash in the UK, has also applauded Planet of the Humans for being “extremely critical of the green renewable energy industry, saying it’s just as industrial as the fossil fuel industry, in fact it’s dependent on it”.

Speaking in a webinar organised by the British Conservation Alliance, a student network that describes itself as the “home of conservative climate solutions”, Ridley, who has a coal mine on his family estate, said you “simply cannot run a modern economy on wind or solar because there just isn’t enough space for putting up the panels or the windmills. And there isn’t enough resources.”

‘Renewable energy is a profit-driven scam and the environmental movement is corrupt’

These groups and individuals have also used the film to promote the narrative that renewable energy is a scam, backed by crony capitalists colluding with environmentalists.

In his blog about the film, theCompetitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebellcalled it a “stunning evisceration of so-called green energy and the people profiting from it”.

Moore’s documentary was also the subject of an interview by the Canadian far-right news site Rebel News with Marc Morano, Communications Director of CFACT, a Washington-based free-market think tank that has claimed carbon dioxide is a “harmless trace essential gas in the atmosphere”.

Morano called Planet of the Humans an “amazing film” during the interview with host Ezra Levant, with the only downside being that Moore “believes in climate alarmism severely”.

Asked by Rebel News host Ezra Levant whether Moore produced the documentary because “he hated the fact these billionaires were tricking everyone”, Morano said the filmmaker “sees all the con that they’re doing and who’s profiting and who’s making money”. CFACT has taken funding from ExxonMobil and billionaire industrialists the Koch brothers.

A similar narrative was used by Robert Bradley Jr, founder of the Koch-fundedInstitute for Energy Research, when pre-release screenings of the documentary took place last summer.

In a blog post for a pro-fracking website Natural Gas Now, Bradley Jr described renewables as “mostly a hedge-fund scam”. The Pennsylvania-based Natural Gas Now is run by Tom Shepstone, a former employee ofEnergy in Depth, a PR campaign launched by the Independent Petroleum Association of America to promote fracking, with funding from oil majors including Shell, BP and Chevron.

In Australia, Sky News’ Andrew Bolthighlighted a scene from the documentary showing corporate executives awkwardly trying to explain where the energy for the electric vehicles they were promoting was coming from.

Bolt assured viewers he didn’t agree with many of the points the film makes, but nonetheless claimed “all this effort of green power, all this expense, is for next to nothing”, despite studies repeatedly finding that electric vehicles reduce emissions even in heavily coal-dependent power grids.

Another presenter on the same channel, Rowan Dean, similarly described renewables as a “hoax”.

In Canada, Terence Corcoran, comment editor for the Financial Post section of the Toronto-based National Post, said Moore’s film showed green energy was a “giant capitalist fraud” and should be the “hottest doc of the year”.

Corcoran has previously dismissed warnings about climate change from the UN and downplayed threats the Arctic, criticising the “sensational language in the media and elsewhere that implies the Arctic is heading into some kind of oblivion. A changing Canadian Arctic might even be good.”

In the UK, James Delingpole wrote on Breitbart that renewables were “a monstrous, dirty, ugly scam, orchestrated by a cynical few at the expense of the many”, while Andrew Montford, Deputy Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, tweeted that the documentary showed “the green movement is just a way to make a few dishonest capitalists very rich. Greens have been lying to everyone for 25 years”. The GWPF refuses to disclose its sources of funding, but has been revealed to be bankrolled by a number of wealthy donors, many of which financially supported the UK’s pro-Brexit campaign, including billionaire hedge fund manager Michael Hintze and currency trader Neil Record.

‘Environmentalists are now trying to cover up the truth’

Following the call from some environmentalists to have the film removed, opponents of climate action have since accused them of censorship.

The GWPF’s Montford tweeted in response: “You know the Michael Moore film is right about renewables because the greens are trying to have it taken down rather than arguing their case. Just as they always do”.

Another GWPF employee, Harry Wilkinson, Head of Policy at the organisation’s campaign wing, tweeted: “This is a classic. The Guardian endorse censoring a film exposing the environmental consequences of renewables, labelling it 'full of misinformation'. But fail to identify a single inaccurate fact in the documentary.”

The letter, organised by the director of the anti-fracking documentary Gasland, Josh Fox, and co-signed by climate scientist Michael Mann among others, said Moore’s film “trades in debunked fossil fuel industry talking points” and “ignores the last ten years of peer-reviewed renewable energy planning and policy”.

In the US, an article on the film in the Daily Caller, founded by Fox News host Tucker Carlson and majority funded by the Charles Koch Foundation, reported that climate activists had failed to “browbeat” the Films for Action website, which is hosting the documentary in addition to YouTube, into taking down the film. The article was reposted by the popular climate science denial blog, Watts Up With That?

Sky News Austrlia’s Chris Kenny also hinted that Australia’s public broadcaster ABC was deliberately burying the film, stating: “it seems the ABC has forgotten about Mike Moore and this film. Last I checked they hadn't reported on it at all. It seems to present too many inconvenient truths.”

The ABC was widely praised for its coverage of the Australian wildfires at the beginning of the 2020, while Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, which owns Sky News Australia, was criticised for its “irresponsible” coverage of the fires. Murdoch’s son James said he was “disappointed” with the media company’s climate science denial and a News Corp employee resigned saying she could no longer work for an organisation that she claimed was running a “misinformation campaign” around the wildfires.

Criticism of the film

Dana Nuccitelli,Yale Climate Connections: “Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial”

Ketan Joshi: “Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths”

Leah C. Stokes, Vox: “Michael Moore produced a film about climate change that’s a gift to Big Oil”

Dan Gearino, Inside Climate News: “Inside Clean Energy: 6 Things Michael Moore’s ‘Planet of the Humans’ Gets Wrong”

Brian Kahn,Gizmodo: “Planet of the Humans Comes This Close to Actually Getting the Real Problem, Then Goes Full Ecofascism”

A Siegel, Get Energy Smart Now: “Planet of The Humans: An Annotated Collection“

===

desmog

May 2020

AEA hosted a watch party for Michael Moore’s documentary Planet of the Humans and, as reported byHeated,spent thousands of dollars to promote it to millions of people. [82]

“It turns out the green energy movement is not so ‘green’ after all,” one of the AEA Facebook advertisements reads. “Join our ‘Planet of the Humans’ Watch Party to learn more.” [82]

According to Heated, after reviewing the Facebook Ad Library, AEA spent somewhere between ten and thirteen thousand dollars over four days to promote six ads about the party. [82]

Planet of the Humanswas eventuallyremoved from YouTube over copyright claims. Climate experts had previously called the film “dangerous, misleading and destructive” and asked it be taken down.[83], [84]

Planet of the Humans has been described as a “gift to Big Oil” that is “riddled with errors about clean energy and climate activism” while numerous sources have described its facts as “misleading” and “way out of date.” [85], [86]

===

https://www.alternet.org/trump-symptom-not-disease-michael-moores-terrifying-fahrenheit-119

Moore’s new film “Fahrenheit 11/9” begins in Philadelphia on November 7, 2016 — election eve. Images flash of euphoric Hillary Clinton supporters, expecting to see their candidate formally declared President. Then we see clips of various politicians and celebrities, who all smugly claim that Donald Trump is never going to win. It’s a brilliant open to a cautionary tale. Rather than start with a focus on Trump, Moore opens by focusing on a deluded public who couldn’t see what was coming.

Moore has always been a master at offering audiences documentaries that are provocative, insightful, revelatory and witty. But that’s never been all there is to it. Moore’s movies are not simply intellectual endeavors. This has been true since hisfirst film “Roger and Me” (1989), which exposed the economic impact of GM’s decision to close plants in Michigan. And it remained true with films like “Bowling for Columbine” (2002), which went after the NRA and won Moore an Academy Award. Then he released “Fahrenheit 9/11” (2004), which broke box office records and offered a sharp, critical view of the George W. Bush administration’s War on Terror in the wake of the attacks of 9/11/2001.

“Fahrenheit 11/9” draws on this rich legacy to offer viewers Moore’s most powerful movie yet. The film uses the story of the rise of Trump to document the failures, weaknesses and flaws in our democracy. For Moore, the story of Trump is not a story about a momentary breakdown in a system that allowed a dangerous, narcissist to come to power; it is a story about a system that has been careening towards this outcome for decades.

In characteristic Moore style, the film offers a lot of juicy Trump insights, including the claim that Trump decided to run because he was jealous of the fact that Gwen Stefani was earning more money than him at NBC. Ultimately, though, Moore refuses to give Trump too much screen time. “Yes, I will show you some stuff about Trump that you haven't seen,” Moore told Hollywood Reporter, “but if you're coming to see the pee tape, you're going to the wrong movie."

If you were looking for an easy out of the Trump era, like impeachment, this isn’t the movie for you either. But, if you are looking for a movie thatreveals the complex web of political manipulation, abuses of power and institutional failures that made Trump possible, then this film is must-see.

From the opening moments of the film Moore makes it clear that Trump is the symptom, not the disease.What makes Trump especially frightening, though, as Moore makes clear, is that he is not like the rest of the ruling class. Rather than hide his abuses of power in the shadows, he takes the limelight. And, rather than try to repress his megalomania, Trump basks in it. Even more, Trump is a master at manipulating the media and controlling the narrative.

But most importantly Trump doesn’t believe that any rules apply to him and he is obsessed with holding absolute power. This is why the title of the film references Moore’s earlier work in “Fahrenheit 9/11” — the message is that if the Bush administration’s response to 9/11 distressed you, then you should be truly terrified by what a Trump administration might make of a similar event.

To make the point clear, Moore goes back to the time that he appeared alongside Trump on Roseanne Barr's "The Roseanne Show" in 1998. Moore’s “Roger and Me” came out in 1989 not long after Trump’s “Art of the Deal” (1987). They both clearly represented radically different views about capitalism. So when Trump saw Moore, he had good reason to think Moore might go after him and he threatened to cancel the interview. In damage control, Barr’s team asked Moore to play nice with Trump and he conceded. Looking back on that moment, Moore reflects on the fact that Trump played him that day, that he got what he wanted from him. At the time, Moore had a reputation as someone who would bravely go after corporate corruption and abuses of power. Yet, as they prepped Moore for the Barr show, he was convinced to roll over for Trump. It was through that experience that Moore learned not to underestimate Trump—a lesson he repeated all through the election cycle as one of the lone voices who predicted Trump’s win.

As Moore looks back on Trump’s rise to power he offers his audience lots of sharp, witty, satirical irony, but ultimately Moore’s point is that Trump may be a joke, but there’s nothing funny about him. As if to drive home the point, this is Moore’s most chilling, least-lighthearted film yet. Sure, he breaks up the tension with scenes like the one where he posits that Stefani is the reason Trump decided to run, but these moments are flashes in a film that draws serious and detailed comparisons between the Trump administration and Nazi Germany.

At the heart of the film is the message that abusive systems of power depend on a public that is complacent, compromising, passive and distracted. In order to draw out how we came to be a nation where so few people vote and even fewer feel like their voices matter, Moore takes aim across the political spectrum. One of the most powerful aspects of the film is the way that Moore pulls no punches as he outs the establishment left and faults them for their complicity with corporate capital. Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama all come under fire as Moore reveals how they sold out the ideals of the Democratic Party to corporate backers.

He even implicates himself, not only for his soft peddling of Trump during the Barr interview, but also for the various times that his own career has brushed up against the corrupt power elite in ways that feel altogether too chummy to him in hindsight. He even reveals that Jared Kushner hosted the after-party for the premiere of “Sicko” (2007), his documentary about the failures in our healthcare system.

One of the most moving elements of the film is the way that Moore tells the story of the water crisis in his hometown of Flint, Michigan and turns this personal and local tragedy into a warning for the nation as a whole. Moore documents how Michigan’s Governor Rick Snyder put profit over the people of Flint when he replaced their clean water source with one that was contaminated with lead. The film offers chilling details of how the Snyder administration knowingly poisoned an entire city.

Moore makes the case that the story of Flint is not one of isolated corruption and greed; it is a story of a nation that has allowed this sort of criminal behavior to be more than acceptable, but routine. With scenes that connect Snyder and Trump, Moore shows how a willful disregard for human life and total abandonment of any moral code are now common political practice. Moore works hard to drive home the point that the story of Flint is not an isolated incident or a tragic accident, but proof of the triumph of corporate capitalism over democratic ideals.

As Moore moves across the country covering stories of families that have been left behind by a system designed to benefit the oligarchy, Moore also documents a rising resistance. From the teachers’ strike in West Virginia to the teenage students of Parkland, Florida, who organized the “March for Our Lives,” to various young, progressive politicians, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Michael Hepburn, Moore reminds us that what we need isn’t hope; it’s action. Never one to leave his audience in despair, Moore offers his viewers a path to resistance. He makes it clear, though, that the only way that resistance will make a difference is if everyone who is frustrated with the system gets involved.

It’s not unusual to describe a creative triumph as a “tour de force.” But in this case the phrase, which stems from the French for “feat of strength”, is especially apt. This film really is Moore’s tour de force — a forceful, moving, and compelling call to action. A number of Michael Moore’s films have made history. This time he’s asking his audience to be the ones to do it.

“Fahrenheit 11/9” premiered on September 6 at the Toronto Film Festival. It opens nationwide on September 21.

the first trailer of Michael Moore's upcoming film "Fahrenheit 11/9" reveals the filmmaker's attempt at making sense of the rise and reign of President Donald Trump.

The ultimate message of film—which Moore describes as a "comedy/horror documentary"—appears to be a bridge between the argument that Trump presents an existential and unique threat and this message to those who oppose him:Stop despairing. Stop hoping for a magic solution that will thwart him. Start organizing. Start acting.

According to HuffPost, the film "juxtaposes footage of Trump rallies and neo-Nazi protests with images of Moore using Flint water to hose down the Michigan governor's gated driveway. Roger Stone, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Parkland massacre survivor Emma González and a host of others from both sides of the so-called aisle appear in the film."

.[trailer]

In a Q&A with the HuffPost, Moore described Trump as an "evil genius" who has "no intention of leaving the White House" without a fight.

"American journalism schools have not trained students how to cover an authoritarian leader," Moore warned. "Our media has no idea what it is up against. They’re getting steamrolled by a tyrant because Trump understands media and understands the country he lives in more than those that cover him do. This puts us all in grave danger. If nothing else, I hope this film exposes that grave danger and shows people the way out."

In his conclusion, Trump indicated to the news outlet that another of the film's underlying messages will be that it will organized action, not hope, that will be crucial in defeating Trump.

"Fuck hope. Seriously, fuck hope," Moore declared. "Fuck despair, too. But fuck hope."

"Hope is passive," he explained. "Hope gives you permission to let someone else do the work. Hope leads people to believe that tax returns, or a pee tape, or the FBI or an adult film star will save the country. Hope, and the passivity that comes with it, is what helped get us here to begin with."

"It's the lazy way out," he concluded. "We don't need hope. We need action."

They are relentless, they are motherf*ckers to the core," he said. "This is the beauty and the genius of Trump and why you have to step back for a second and admire him the way Patton admired Rommel. When Trump says he's going to do something he's going to do it. He is relentless... and we never act like that on any of the things we say we believe in."

Moore said that he thinks Americans can stop Trump, but only if they're all-in.

"Fascism is at the door step," he said. "People are afraid to use the word, but I think we have got to be very serious about this. FDR and Churchill defeated fascism. And one of those people was in a wheelchair and the other was a drunkard, to be kind... if they defeated fascism, look at what we've got."

Moore compared the fight to what Martin Luther King faced, and said we have much better odds now. King started getting serious death threats at age 26 and lived with them for the rest of his life while raising four young children. Is the resistance willing to do the same?

"What are people willing to commit to? What would you give your life for?" he asked. "What would you be willing to actually put yourself on the line for? That moment is now. We are going to lose our democracy if we haven't already. We have no choice, my friends. We have to rise up."

http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/12/michael-moore-where-to-invade/

citizen's united began as mirror of MM ad:

CITIZENS UNITED

Now that brings us to the backstory: once upon a time Michael Moore ran a gritty little newspaper in the once great and proud Motor City of Detroit, where he grew up in a prosperous post-war America when you could make a good living making things because you were in a union. One day some filmmakers from far away CA? showed up and wanted to look at old copies of his paper because they wanted to do a remake of John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, telling the stories of people like unemployed factory workers who were now forced to move to find work; the project fell apart, and Mr. Moore decided it should be Detroit people telling their own story anyway, so he called in a favor from a filmmaker he'd helped out who brought him a camera and showed him how to point it at things.

He went on to make a number of highly regarded documentaries, and in 2004 a Republican political operative noticed that the TV ads for his Fahrenheit 9/11 were the most effective political ads that year, so the operative Floyd Brown (who helped daddy Bush get elected with the racist Willie Horton ad), said gee we need some ads like that, so I guess we need to make a movie as a kind of afterthought/byproduct. The resulting Hillary the Movie was such a blatant hit job (not sure if it claimed as others did that the Clintons murdered their close friend Vince Foster, or that they were smuggling guns and cocaine through a small airport in Arkansas [that was the Scaife team?]). In any case, the FEC rightly said you can't show this movie, even pay per view, 30? 60 days before the election, as per the laws (created after Watergate, but strengthened in the bi-partisan [hence the name] McCain-Feingold law.

TIA LESSIN UCSC

That’s the warning from a Wisconsin state employee after her union rights were destroyed by a Republican governor funded by corporate and billionaire donors whose ultimate goal is to break the unions nationwide -- and cripple the labor-backed Democratic party.

In this searing exposé on the state of democracy in America and the fracturing of the Republican Party, Academy Award®-nominated directors Carl Deal and Tia Lessin (Trouble the Water; co-producers ofFahrenheit 9/11& Bowling for Columbine) follow the money behind the rise of the Tea Party. CITIZEN KOCH investigates the impact of unlimited, anonymous spending by corporations and billionaires on the electoral process, featuring stories of life-long Republicans whose loyalty is tested when their families become collateral damage in the GOP fight to take organized labor out at the knees. Alternately terrifying and funny, CITIZEN KOCH is an essential and powerful portrait of our political times.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Moore

Michael Moore is a writer and filmmaker. His works are controversial, but his movies have broken all previous records for commercial success by adocumentary film.

[hide]

Official Website

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

Projects

Films:

Capitalism: A Love Story (about the financial crisis and bailouts)
Roger and Me (criticizes closing the Ford plant in Flint, Michigan)
Canadian Bacon (fictional comedy)
The Big One (criticizes layoffs, Nike outsourcing)
Bowling for Columbine (investigates fear and gun violence)
Fahrenheit 9/11 (criticizes Bush, war in Iraq)
Sicko (about the state of the health care industry)

Television:

The Awful Truth
TV Nation

Books:

Downsize This!
Adventures in a TV Nation
Stupid White Men
Dude, Where's My Country?
Will They Ever Trust Us Again? (collection of letters from soldiers)

Sicko

Sicko, a film about the problems of the U.S. health care system.

July 9, 2004: "I go after these HMOs and these pharmaceutical companies. The style of the film is like 'Run Lola Run'. I don't know if I can run that fast for hours, but I just thought, What if we were just relentless motherf---ers, because I can't think of anything more evil than these HMOs. We try to see how many lives we can save in 90 minutes."[1]

July 27, 2004: "his critique of health-maintenance organizations. ... The idea stems from a segment Moore did on his "The Awful Truth" TV show, in which he staged a mock funeral at an HMO for a patient denied an organ transplant he needed to survive. The HMO relented and paid for the transplant. ... "Even if this movie hadn't done as well, that movie was going to get made, because I think the American people are clamoring to see the HMOs punished." [Moore said]."[[2]](http://film.guardian.co.uk/apnews/story/0,1276,-4356169,00.html)

http://www.prweek.com/news/news_story_free.cfm?ID=224394&site=3

Criticism

Books:

David T. Hardy, Jason Clarke, "Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man", Regan Books, June 29, 2004, ISBN 0060763957
Jesse Larner, "Moore and Us: One Man's Quest for a New World Order", Sanctuary Publishing, May 2, 2005, ISBN 1860745954

Films:

Politicians:

Democratic Leadership Council [3]

External links

"Michael Moore," Wikipedia
Bill Berkowitz, "Michael Moore: Made over and moving on", WorkingForChange, December 6, 2004.
Compare where Michael Moore stands on the issues - whereIstand.com
Richard Seymour, "Moore's Kapita", Lenin's Tomb, March 01, 2010.

Moore, Michael

‘Renewables are ineffective and more damaging than fossil fuels and nuclear’

Contents

Official Website

Projects

Sicko

Criticism

External links

Resources and articles

Related Sourcewatch articles

Attachments