Filmmaker Michael Moore was on Larry King this week and made a few interesting points.
The first concerned Sarah's wardrobe and he pointed out that have the party pay for it was nothing new. Republicans never pay for anything themselves.
He went on to explain about how Republicans are against welfare, unless they are the recipiants. The whole bank bailout scheme is welfare for the benefit of Republicans. How many Democrats have seats on the stock exhange or own banks.
While I take everything Moore says with a grain of salt, the delivery was excellent and it was funny as hell.
I love how the republicans who got on after Moore were criticizing Michael for being wealthy, and how dare he point out that Sarah and her husband brought home almost 250k last year, how dare he try to insinuate that she is not an average joe.
I also loved the REAL "Plumbers for Obama" he had on the show.
To me, the best part of the interview was Michael expressing his bewilderment at being called a controversial figure. It is the same bewilderment I feel at being called a liberal - I use that label because people seem to understand what it means, but I really don't think of myself as liberal - I think I am very moderate. Doesn't everyone want a government that is the right size, that does enough but not too much, that works efficiently and doesn't waste money? Doesn't everyone want a strong economy based on good American companies that offer well-paying jobs? Doesn't everyone think that people who work 40 hours a week should have a way to go to the doctor when they are sick? Doesn't everyone think that we must provide a good education for the next generation if we expect our country to stay strong? Doesn't everyone want foreign policy that uses the military only as a last resort? Doesn't everyone agree that we must negotiate with other countries instead of stamping our feet in the corner like adolescents? Doesn't everyone think that we ought to actually collect the tax dollars that we have already spent? Doesn't everyone think that policies on the environment, on medical research, etc, should be based on the findings of actual scientific research? Doesn't everyone think it is dangerous to intertwine any sort of religous reasoning or justification in the workings of the government? I feel like my positions on all these issues are completely middle of the road, and I don't understand why these things are seen as radical or liberal or leftist, when to me they are just common sense.
Just as I don't see why Michael's films are seen as controversial. It's not like he is documenting things we don't already know. Sicko is a good example. Why do people get all excited about that movie? The whole movie is just interviews with people from different countries talking about their experiences with health care, trying to get health care, and not being able to get health care. Why is that radical? I have actually met one of the women in that film - the one who went broke and then had to move into her daughter's basement. She isn't a radical, and neither am I, but we both think it is wrong that responsible people like her that HAD health insurance end up in a position like that through no fault of their own.
ok, that is enough ranting for a Saturday morning.
