Where to Invade Next

[WestCoastRunner]

Michael Moore has debuted his new film entitled 'Where to Invade Next' at the TIFF. Don't let the title fool you. Moore has plans to invade other countries to steal their good ideas. I'm looking forward to seeing it. It's been described as Moore's soft sell of socialism.

Here is a trailer: http://www.alternet.org/video/watch-first-teaser-michael-moores-new-documentary

[Freddy]

Michael Moore has debuted his new film entitled 'Where to Invade Next' at the TIFF. Don't let the title fool you. Moore has plans to invade other countries to steal their good ideas. I'm looking forward to seeing it. It's been described as Moore's soft sell of socialism.

Here is a trailer: http://www.alternet.org/video/watch-first-teaser-michael-moores-new-documentary

It dose make him look a lot like if he rather be living elsewhere. A bit of a, grass is greener everywhere else but here kind of documentary.

[WestCoastRunner]

It dose make him look a lot like if he rather be living elsewhere. A bit of a, grass is greener everywhere else but here kind of documentary.

Always room for improvement.

[Freddy]

Always room for improvement.

Agreed,

My opinion is, when looking to improve yourself even collectively you need to look within yourself, Not at what others are doing. It's not a competition on who has the greenest lawn.

[WestCoastRunner]

Agreed,

My opinion is, when looking to improve yourself even collectively you need to look within yourself, Not at what others are doing. It's not a competition on who has the greenest lawn.

Who said it was a competition. It's about keeping opened minded for new ideas. And you haven't even seen it yet.

Edited September 15, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

[Canada_First]

Who said it was a competition. It's about keeping opened minded for new ideas. And you haven't even seen it yet.

it doesn't bother you that the creator is a massive hypocrite?

[Smallc]

Who said it was a competition. It's about keeping opened minded for new ideas.

Do you or he keep an open mind to conservative ideas? I didn't think so.

[Peter F]

I new a guy who smoked. He advised me to not take up smoking. What a hypocrite! What good advice!

[Freddy]

Who said it was a competition. It's about keeping opened minded for new ideas. And you haven't even seen it yet.

After looking at the trailer, The opinion of it I had was , that Mr. Moore feels that the grass is greener elsewhere. I get the impression he is ungrateful for the things America has given him, and takes them for granted.

That's what I see.

Do other countries have different better ideas? All the time. What I understand more and more as I grow older, is these differences are more directly tied to physiological, weather, and the realities of each individual countries. We all have a limited amount of resources. And our reality may make it that we must prioritize one thing over a other.

We could all do much better with unlimited resources.

[overthere]

It has been quite a while since Moore made a movie worth watching.

I know he won't be invading My Wallet unless this is a dramatic(or comedic) turnaround for him.

[Moonlight Graham]

Agreed,

My opinion is, when looking to improve yourself even collectively you need to look within yourself, Not at what others are doing. It's not a competition on who has the greenest lawn.

Wha? But you can compare yourself to other OECD countries because obviously some countries do certain things better than others, some worse. But you do need to "look within yourself" in terms of asking if something deemed better from somewhere else will fit into the differing context of your own country. Like transportation systems, for instance.

[Moonlight Graham]

It has been quite a while since Moore made a movie worth watching.

I know he won't be invading My Wallet unless this is a dramatic(or comedic) turnaround for him.

The thing with documentaries is that you need to be very, very wary of the legitimacy of the documentary makers and of the sources of information in the docs. Not everything portrayed as fact in a documentary is in fact accurate/true. Documentary makers take things out of context, spin half-truths, exaggerate, take info from unreliable sources, or even outright lie in order to further the point they're trying to make. Documentaries are not scholarly sources, they aren't peer-reviewed, they are often editorial pieces on film dressed up as factual objective information pieces, and more so nowadays.

Michael Moore's films are obviously towards the editorial side of docs, and I've noticed a number of "facts" in them that just aren't accurate. He's so driven to prove his point that he tends to sometimes use "evidence" that exaggerates things or are simply not true at all or is an unbalanced view of something. For instance, he might state something like "In Canada, the average person with type 1 diabetes only spends $100 a year on drugs compared to $800 on average for Americans" when the real fact might be that Quebecers may only spend $100/year but every other province is much higher and the actual average for ALL Canadians is $500 a year. (this is just a hypothetical, I don't actually know anything about health costs.

He just frames a lot of arguments really disingenuously. He starts off with an argument, then will use just about anything to support that argument even though it may be exaggerated or half-true. Another example would be like him saying "200,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the Iraq War", when that's just the highest estimate he can find from a legit source, when in fact most legit sources say on average that somewhere between 100,000 - 120,000 civilians were killed.

In short, I don't take his word on anything, nor do I take any docs' word as accurate unless it's from a legit source I trust, like a PBS Frontline doc.

[overthere]

The thing with documentaries is that

---SNIP---

unless it's from a legit source I trust, like a PBS Frontline doc.

I believe I said much the same , but with 300 less words.

I'd settle for something that was modertaely entertaining or funny. Moore has never been a source for truthifying.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Charles Anthony
---SNIP---

[Moonlight Graham]

I believe I said much the same , but with 300 less words.

I'd settle for something that was modertaely entertaining or funny. Moore has never been a source for truthifying.

His docs are definitely funny and entertaining, IMO. But then if the actual content isn't very good beyond entertainment, is it worth filling your head with BS? Rather just watch a comedy.

I admire him for being able to make the medium entertaining though, i mean I root for the guy to step his game up on the facts. Infotainment can be great if it's quality and it's not your primary source of news.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[Freddy]

Wha? But you can compare yourself to other OECD countries because obviously some countries do certain things better than others, some worse. But you do need to "look within yourself" in terms of asking if something deemed better from somewhere else will fit into the differing context of your own country. Like transportation systems, for instance.

Yes, I agree.

But like the point I'm trying to make that we are more closely related to how we behave due to our evolution. I also think that our societies are a perfect reflection of what we are as individual people.

In other word, The change won't happen by simply looking at what others have done. I see what they have done as a reflection of who they are collectively and individually in a subcontious way, even tied to their basic instinctive evolution.

There is a reason why we are the way we are and that our society is the way it is. If we want something to change, we, individually have to be the change. I believe that change has to happen within.

[Moonlight Graham]

Yes, I agree.

But like the point I'm trying to make that we are more closely related to how we behave due to our evolution. I also think that our societies are a perfect reflection of what we are as individual people.

In other word, The change won't happen by simply looking at what others have done. I see what they have done as a reflection of who they are collectively and individually in a subcontious way, even tied to their basic instinctive evolution.

There is a reason why we are the way we are and that our society is the way it is. If we want something to change, we, individually have to be the change. I believe that change has to happen within.

Hmm, very interesting. I really like the topics you bring up in how you look at human behaviour.

It depends on the thing to be changed. If you want a more efficient highway system, it's easy and pretty effective to compare your own country to others in order to improve. Other issues can also have an ideological or moral implication attached, like private vs public health care systems, or the general taxation system. In those cases, you have to change your outlook, which is "inside" you. It all depends on the outcomes you're trying to achieve. Some people think your quality of living should be determined mainly by merit, whereas other people have a more egalitarian outlook based on human rights. Differences in outlook between humans comes from within, inside the mind, almost solely as a result of nurture/environment and conscious thought than genetic differences. ie: Different races don't have a pre-disposiion to be believe in Islam over Christianity.

[Freddy]

Hmm, very interesting. I really like the topics you bring up in how you look at human behaviour.

It depends on the thing to be changed. If you want a more efficient highway system, it's easy and pretty effective to compare your own country to others in order to improve. Other issues can also have an ideological or moral implication attached, like private vs public health care systems, or the general taxation system. In those cases, you have to change your outlook, which is "inside" you. It all depends on the outcomes you're trying to achieve. Some people think your quality of living should be determined mainly by merit, whereas other people have a more egalitarian outlook based on human rights. Differences in outlook between humans comes from within, inside the mind, almost solely as a result of nurture/environment and conscious thought than genetic differences. ie: Different races don't have a pre-disposiion to be believe in Islam over Christianity.

I agree with you.

The truth, is somewhere caught in between the two ideas. With both happening at the same time. I think that's why it's such a complex dynamic. And that's why, We have such absurd behaviour at times from so many individual humans.

Drive in Ontario, and then drive in Quebec. Right away you see there is a difference. Or even New Brunswick.

Look at construction from one side of the country to the next.

In the west if one structural column is off from the plan. The common practice is to chip the whole thing out and re-pour it. This can cost a lot of money to do. For something that's only off by a few inches.

When I look at the east of the country. Common practice is to modify and accommodate for the mistake. These are powerful insights into the subconscious minds of the people of different regions, as a collective.

I also believe that it is possible to look at other humans and change these things. But I don't think it's as easy as it first sounds or appears.

And the reason change is so difficult to achieve I believe, is because of this subconscious evolutionary instinct, level we have a hard time even acknowledging exists.

Present active behaviours and situations are like a addiction.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Freddy