Instead of education, there are multiple other plans for dealing with the issues that we face as a nation, as a society, as human beings living on this planet. In our country, ignoring the issues seems to be the accepted course of action. Divert attention away from the important issues. Substitute unimportant and inconsequential issues for real and genuine concerns.
Strategy games that allow the player to make decisions regarding the building of a civilization and the conduct of a war are a very popular segment of 'computer games'. There are several common themes that are incorporated into these games. One such theme is learning what to do when your programs of advancement meet resistance and appear to be moving backward. The answer is entertainment. In many of these games, as in real life, the decision maker decides to build a theatre which will keep the population occupied and will divert attention from real problems. The Romans knew this and built centers of entertainment all over the Roman empire.
We are tremendously focused on sports as a diversion. People who know nothing of our foreign policy can spout an endless line of meaningless statistics about players and teams. The media fans the flames of the fans.
Keep 'em entertained. Hollywood is one of the 'coliseums' of our empire. The oscar presentations are the awarding of 'championships'. As with sports, people's conversations at the water cooler encompass the analysis of the movies and the actors. People who know nothing of the causes and consequences of our financial manipulations can spout an endless line of meaningless facts about actors and films.
In truth, there are actually a few good films that the American public should see... films that will educate as well as entertain.
Noam Chomsky Wants You to Wake Up From the American Dream
Let's Try Democracy... If you've just seen Michael Moore's movie and are wondering how in the world the United States got diverted into the slow lane to hell, go watch Noam Chomsky's movie. If you've just seen Noam Chomsky's movie and are wondering whether the human species is really worth saving, go see Michael Moore's movie. If you haven't seen either of these movies, please tell me that you haven't been watching presidential debates. As either of these movies would be glad to point out to you, that's not how you change anything.
"Filmed over four years, these are his last long-form documentary interviews," Chomsky's film, Requiem for the American Dream, says of him at the start, rather offensively. Why? He seems perfectly able to give interviews and apparently gave those in this film for four years. And of course he acquired the insights he conveys over many more years than that. They are not new insights to activists, but they would be like revelations from another world to a typical U.S. resident.
Chomsky explains how concentrated wealth creates concentrated power, which legislates further concentration of wealth, which then concentrates more power in a vicious cycle. He lists and elaborates on 10 principles of the concentration of wealth and power -- principles that the wealthy of the United States have acted intensely on for 40 years or more.
1. Reduce Democracy. Chomsky finds this acted on by the very "founding fathers" of the United States, in the creation of the U.S. Senate, and in James Madison's statement during debate over the U.S. Constitution that the new government would need to protect the wealthy from too much democracy. Chomsky finds the same theme in Aristotle but with Aristotle proposing to reduce inequality, while Madison proposed to reduce democracy. The burst of activism and democracy in the United States in the 1960s scared the protectors of wealth and privilege, and Chomsky admits that he did not anticipate the strength of the backlash through which we have been suffering since.
2. Shape Ideology. The Powell Memo from the corporate right, and the Trilateral Commission's first ever report, called "The Crisis of Democracy," are cited by Chomsky as roadmaps for the backlash. That report referred to an "excess of democracy," the over engagement of young people with civic life, and the view that young people were just not receiving proper "indoctrination." Well, there's a problem that's been fixed, huh?
3. Redesign the Economy. Since the 1970s the United States has been moved toward an ever larger role for financial institutions. By 2007 they "earned" 40% of corporate profits. Deregulation has produced wealth concentration and economic crashes, followed by anti-capitalist bailouts making for more wealth concentration. Offshore production has reduced workers' pay. Alan Greenspan testified to Congress about the benefits of promoting "job insecurity" -- something those Europeans in Michael Moore's film don't know about and might find it hard to appreciate.
4. Shift the Burden. The American Dream in the 1950s and 60s was partly real. Both the rich and the poor got richer. Since then, we've seen the steady advance of what Chomsky calls the plutonomy and the precariat, that is the wealthy few who run the show and get all the new wealth, and the precarious proletariat. Back then, taxes were quite high on corporations, dividends, and wealth. Not anymore.
5. Attack Solidarity. To go after Social Security and public education, Chomsky says, you have to drive the normal emotion of caring about others out of people's heads. The U.S. of the 1950s was able to make college essentially free with the G.I. Bill and other public funding. Now a much wealthier United States is full of "serious" experts who claim that such a thing is impossible (and who must strictly avoid watching Michael Moore).
6. Run the Regulators. The 1970s saw enormous growth in lobbying. It is now routine for the interests being regulated to control the regulators, which makes things much easier on the regulated.
7. Engineer Elections. Thus we've seen the creation of corporate personhood, the equation of money with speech, and the lifting of all limits under Citizens United.
8. Keep the Rabble in Line. Here Chomsky focuses on attacks on organized labor, including the Taft Hartley Act, but one could imagine further expansions on the theme.
9. Manufacture Consent. Obsessive consumers are not born, they're molded by advertising. The goal of directing people to superficial consumption as a means of keeping people in their place was explicit and has been reached. In a market economy, Chomsky says, informative advertisements would result in rational decisions. But actual advertisements provide no information and promote irrational choices. Here Chomsky is talking about, not just ads for automobiles and soap, but also election campaigns for candidates.
10. Marginalize the Population. This seems as much a result as a tactic, but it certainly has been achieved. What the public wants does not typically impact what the U.S. government does.
Unless the trends described above are reversed, Chomsky says, things are going to get very ugly.
Then the film shows us a clip of Chomsky saying the same thing decades earlier when he was still shown on U.S. television. He's been marginalized along with the rest of us.
I imagine every friendly critic of this film has a #11 to add, and that they are all different. In fact, I can think of lots of things to add, but I insist on mentioning one of them. It's the same one missing from Bernie Sanders' home movie starring Iowa and New Hampshire. Its the thing missing from all U.S. discourse but showing up in Michael Moore's movie as a great difference between the United States and Europe.
11. Dump Massive Funding into Militarism. Why should this be included? Well, militarism is the biggest public program in the United States. It's over half of federal discretionary spending. If you're going to claim that lobbyists are concentrating wealth through their influence on the government, why not notice the single budget item that eats up over half the budget? It does indeed concentrate wealth and also power. It's a vast pot of unaccountable funding for cronies. And it generates public interest in fighting foreign enemies rather than enemies hanging out on Wall Street. It does militarize the police for free, however, just in case Wall Street generates any disgruntled customers.
Chomsky does, of course, oppose militarism. As far as I know he's consistently opposed it for many years. We see B-roll of him in the movie with anti-war books in his office. And discussion of point #1 above mentions the peace movement of the 1960s. How the single biggest thing that the wealthy and powerful do in their effort to expand their power over the whole globe didn't make the top-10 list I don't know.
The film concludes with a call to build mass movements for change. The United States still has a very free society, Chomsky advises. A lot can be done, he tells us, if people will only choose to do it.
Michael Moore wittily tears into American exceptionalism
Watching Michael Moore’s timely new film, “Where to Invade Next,” you wouldn’t guess that the Oscar-winning filmmaker was angrier than ever. That’s what he told comedian Marc Maron in a recent podcast, but in this film, he presents an uncharacteristically optimistic vision of America’s future — without ever stepping foot in the country.
The title refers to Moore’s mission (fictitiously assigned to him by the Joint Chiefs of Staff) of “invading” various countries in an effort to steal their great ideas — including tuition-free college, nutritious school lunches and paid maternity leave — and bring them back to America. In pursuit of this goal, he gleefully romps through Europe, with stops in Italy, Slovenia, France, Germany, Finland, Iceland, Portugal and Norway, but also through Tunisia for a look at protest and religious tolerance. That’s a lot to handle, and without much of a plot outside of Moore’s stated intention, the film does drag a little. But that’s ultimately excused by Moore’s acerbic humor, which effectively makes the two hours of this film an absolute pleasure.
In an age when film has been criticized for adopting a TV aesthetic, “Where to Invade Next” stands out. Like most documentaries, it’s absent of heavily composed camera work, but that doesn’t mean you should watch it at home. The film deserves to be seen in theatres, where you’re liable to hear, as I did, a “those motherf***ers” from a total stranger sitting next to you. My neighbor was responding to a display of American police brutality, but he could just as well have been reacting to the perpetrators of the financial crisis walking scot-free or the thermal imaging feed of a drone about to strike its target. This film takes contention with American exceptionalism, making our nation seem like a sick patient compared to say, the Italians, whom Moore says always look “happily post-coital.”
As a whole, “Where to Invade Next” is the less curmudgeonly visual adaptation of a Bernie Sanders stump speech, complete with bracing statistics on our poor world standing and an uncompromising populist tone. It’s astonishing, when you consider that Moore has spent six years making this film, to see how well he anticipated and reacted to the country’s current political mood. It’s odd then, and refreshing, to see how optimistically he views America’s future.
So why does this film not suggest Moore’s outrage?
The central question that underpins “Where to Invade Next”— the one that probably fuels Moore’s anger — asks us why America can’t guarantee to its citizens the kind of social welfare enjoyed by other countries. The film doesn’t fully address this question. To do so would require an analysis of Washington politics and the erosion of our democratic institutions. But that’s not Moore’s aim. Early on, he makes it a point to say that he won’t be focusing on the problems of each country he visits. It’s a smart move that prevents the film from ballooning out, but it’s also a constant source of frustration to viewers accustomed to Moore tearing into hypocrisies and inequities.
Moore likes to claim that, if given the chance, his films would convince skeptical conservatives, but there’s little evidence for this in his latest effort. Humor is most effective when it’s rooted in truth and, according to current Republican orthodoxy, very little of what Moore puts forth is actually true. Even on prison reform, lately a bipartisan concern, Moore touts one Norwegian model of literally letting convicted murderers bicycle freely around a well-landscaped greenery (which also sidelines as a prison yard). Unless you’re already sympathetic to Moore’s worldview, it’s going to be hard to reconcile this model with America’s prison-industrial complex.
Moore’s sarcasm doesn’t always have its intended effect. He supercuts a montage of Slovenian students successfully protesting a proposed tuition-hike for their free universities. How do American students react to our tuition-hikes? Moore gives us a nice still of students studying quietly on the quad. As with any joke, generalizations must be made, and Moore surely doesn’t think that American students are completely apathetic. But UC Davis students will remember the 2011 pepper-spray incident that resulted from an Occupy movement responding, in part, to an increase in tuition.
Ultimately, Moore’s criticisms amount to an act of love. And it’s hard not to want to hug the shlump for what he’s done with “Where to Invade Next.” The incredulity on his face when listening to how many work weeks Italians get for paid vacation (it’s six) proves that he’s determined as ever to make an America that works for everyone. A true call to action, this film will undoubtedly move people to demand the same from themselves and their leaders.
Invasion seems to be the American way. Where next seems to be unimportant... just anywhere we wish. Which world leaders are not following the path we have dictated? We seem to believe that "Regime Change" is our password to world domination but in truth, we lead ourselves into a quagmire of chaos... over and over again! Our 'dream' has become our nightmare.