I just switched on the television to find out that Julian Assange was to make a speech from recently granted asylum in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London. His speech is highlighted below this introduction and musings.  After his speech I turned the television station over and there was Michael Moore’s movie Capitalism:  A Love Story.  I knew this was no coincidence. In this story Moore highlights a range of cases where profit is the focus over the rights of people. He outlined corporate crimes driven by greed and single sighted profit motives. He makes a case contrasting capitalism and democracy.  Surruptious corruption versus visibility and accountability in the public interest was the case being clearly made. The problem appears when control or power is exercised through specific corporate interests rendering accountability as trespassing or breaching corporate privacy. This works on the theory that a business enterprise is a corporate citizen with the same rights to privacy as distinct from an accountable government entity. Michael Moore tested the boundaries to find it was not possible for ordinary citizens (asking in the name of the public interest) to find out why decisions are made and indeed what is going on behind closed doors. It is important that this line of communication is open and visible so that people feel heard and concerns addressed and policies and practices debated as would be a normal democratic discourse. When people refuse to answer questions or block public interest or conceal truths it will inevitably raise critiques about the legitimacy of democracy.

The Assange case brings up the international dealings and communiqués that are not revealed to the public. Why is the public relevant? It is their money that is being spent to fund activities of which people would not have voted on or been informed about. Democracy is supposed to be about representation of the people by the people. This is why accountability and visibility are central. I recognise in some cases national interest is relevant and protecting sources is relevant but the issue appears to be the public’s right to know what is done in their name.

The pivotal question that emerged for me in the Assange case and Michael Moore’s film was the predominant choice or priority if you will, between free enterprise or freedom of speech.  Which is truly free?  By extension freedom of speech is not only the right to protest and voice ones concerns, it is the right to accurate information that enables the public to understand decisions that affect their lives. The Bill of Rights (I’ve heard on the tv in this moment) as mentioned by Franklin D. Roosevelt, an earlier US President, states that if rights are not ensured at home there will not be peace in the world. This feels to me as the line drawn in the sand.  Thus the justice or indeed injustice of the United States in pursuing its interests (corporate) is played out on the world stage. It is no mistake that Julian Assange chose the Ecuadorian Embassy given the history of Central and South American shared history with the United States.  The word ‘oppression’ was used by Julian.  What is oppression?  According to Wikipedia:

 “Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.^[1] It can also be defined as an act or instance of oppressing, the state of being oppressed, and the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, and anxiety.”

Oppression therefore stymies freedom of speech as people become fearful of speaking up, that is why the protection of whistleblowers is important, so that if matters of conscience arise or uncovering of illegality, people will speak up. 

The central issue is who has the rights? Those who espouse to capitalist free market power (ends justify the means) versus the will of the people as espoused through a democracy or a process representing a cross section or majority of people? Thus the means justifies the ends. Not all capitalists are immoral or without conscience but if profit is the marker of success in life rather than a moral just character, then the ends are the temptation that justify the means. The idea of competition creeps in as winners and losers, success and status and money talks. If in a democracy values are upheld as ‘who we are’ as true success then the means becomes important to the ends.  We are not going to take certain actions if they violate codes of conduct, exploit others in the name of profit or influence. I sense this is important and the notion of rights must be balanced in fairness. The Statue of Liberty is a wonderful symbol of justice. I feel the two stories linked. Thus domestic and international justice is the levy from which ideally we should apply universal values (universal citizenship) and weigh it up with what is reasonable and just. All laws must be in the public interest and all lawyers funded by the public so that people are not excluded from justice if they do not have the money for it. I feel this is what Roosevelt meant by rights not ensured at home there will not be peace in the world. Inner peace leads to outer peace. So it is not about them and us, it is about all of us. Which world do we choose collectively? 

I feel we are moving into a defining moment around the world coinciding with so many movements arising to break free of control and indeed shining a light into the darkness of what has been hidden a long time and taken for granted. In truth I feel it is a good shake up and reassessment of who we are and what governments are doing. It feels as if secrets are being flushed up for the public to see and make choices around.

So here is an overview of Julian Assange’s balcony speech as reported by the Brisbane Times followed by an overview of Michael Moore’s film ‘Capitalism: A Love Story’. You make up your own mind what is true for you. That is democracy and I respect everyone’s right to take a view. That is what I love about true democracy. The truth sets us all free.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/assange-condemns-wikileaks-witch-hunt-20120819-24gys.html

Assange condemns WikiLeaks witch hunt

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange makes a statement from the balcony of the Ecuador embassy in London. Photo: Reuters

WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange last night appeared on the balcony of the Ecuadorean Embassy in London and demanded that US president Barack Obama “do the right thing”.

He said the US must end its witchhunt against WikiLeaks.

“The US must dissolve its FBI investigation,” Mr Assange told a crowd gathered outside the embassy in Knightsbridge.

He also called on the United States not to prosecute any WikiLeaks staff or supporters.

“The US must pledge before the world it will not pursue journalists for shining a light on the secret crimes of the powerful,” he said.

He said there must be no foolish talk of prosecution of media organisations whether they be WikiLeaks or the New York Times.

“The US war on whistleblowers must end,” he said.

He said governments around the world were becoming repressive and cited the two-year jail term against girl band Pussy Riot in Russia for political demonstrations.

“There is unity in the oppression. There must be absolute unity and determination in the response,” he added.

He also attacked the US for forcing Bradley Manning, who allegedly leaked classified information to WikiLeaks, “to endure months of tortuous detention at Quantico”.

“He must be released,” he said.

He attacked the British Government saying: “If the UK did not throw away the terms of the Vienna Convention it was because the world was watching and the world was watching because you [the people] were watching.”

Before he appeared about 20 minutes after the expected time (11pm Melbourne time) writer Tariq Ali and others read messages of support from film director Ken Loach, fashion designer Vivienne Westwood and Australian journalist John Pilger.

Assange continues to be the subject of Australian intelligence reports more than a year after the WikiLeaks website published thousands of leaked US military and diplomatic documents. In a freedom of information decision, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade confirmed to The Sunday Age the existence of at least two intelligence reports on WikiLeaks and Assange from Australia’s embassy to the US in February and March this year. The Washington embassy cables, one running to 10 pages, have been withheld from release because they are “intelligence agency documents”.

The Saturday Age reported that Australia’s ambassador to the US, former Labor leader Kim Beazley, had made high-level representations seeking advance warning of any US moves to extradite Assange on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining secret US government information.

On Thursday, Ecuador granted Assange political asylum at its London embassy on the grounds that if extradited to Sweden to face sexual assault allegations, he will be at risk of extradition to the US.

Foreign Minister Bob Carr yesterday continued to deny knowledge of any intention by Washington to prosecute Assange.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/assange-condemns-wikileaks-witch-hunt-20120819-24gys.html#ixzz240H8oFv1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism:_A_Love_Story

Here is an overview of Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story by Wikipedia.

Capitalism: A Love Story is a 2009 American documentary film directed, written by and starring Michael Moore. The film centers on the late-2000s financial crisis and the recovery stimulus, while putting forward an indictment of the current economic order in the United States and capitalism in general. Topics covered include Wall Street‘s “casino mentality”, for-profit prisons, Goldman Sachs‘ influence in Washington, D.C., the poverty-level wages of many workers, the large wave of home foreclosures, corporate-owned life insurance, and the consequences of “runaway greed”.^[2] The film also features a religious component where Moore examines whether or not capitalism is a sin and if Jesus would be a capitalist.^[3] This theme is of course not serious but satirical, shining light on possible ideological contradictions among evangelical conservatives who support free market ideals.

The film was widely released to the public in the United States and Canada on October 2, 2009. Reviews were generally positive. It was released on DVD and Blu-ray on March 9, 2010.

Synopsis

The film begins with a series of security footage of armed bank robberies (one of the robbers was even on a crutch) accompanied by the song Louie, Louie. Moore then uses an Encyclopædia Britannica archive video to compare modern-day America with the Roman Empire. The film then depicts home videos of families being evicted from their homes, as well as the “Condo Vultures,” a Florida real estate agency whose business flourished with the increasing number of foreclosures.

The film then cuts back to the past “golden days” of American capitalism following World War II, followed by a “bummer” speech by President Jimmy Carter warning Americans of the dangers of worshiping “self-indulgence and consumption”. In the following Ronald Reagan years where the policies of Don Regan “turned the bull loose” for free enterprises, corporations gained more political power, unions were weakened, and socioeconomic gaps were widened. Moore suggests that Reagan was favored for his charisma and communication skills rather than effective leadership, and highlights one of Reagan’s speeches in which Regan, somewhat indiscreetly, orders Reagan to “speed it up”, and Reagan quickly obeys. The film then cuts to the kids for cash scandal, Captain Chesley Sullenberger‘s congressional testimony regarding airline pilots’ poor treatment, and coverage of “dead peasant insurance” policies, where companies such as Wal-Mart have insurance against losses caused when workers or suppliers die. Moore then interviews several Catholic priests, including Bishop Thomas Gumbleton (Archdiocese of Detroit), all of whom consider capitalism a “radical evil” contrary to the teachings of Christianity. The film then presents a parody of what would happen if Jesus was a capitalist who wanted to “maximize profits,” “deregulate the banking industry,” and wanted the sick to “pay out of pocket” for their “pre-existing condition” (via clips from the 1977 miniseries Jesus of Nazareth), in contrast with several news pundits who proclaim the success of various capitalist enterprises as being a “blessing from God.”

After referring to Dr. Jonas Salk, who for the public good, selflessly refused to patent the polio vaccine (asking, “Could you patent the sun?”), Moore wonders about how the brightest of America’s young generation are attracted into finance instead of science. Moore then goes to Wall Street seeking technical explanation about derivatives and credit default swaps, only to be advised “don’t make any more movies”. Eventually Marcus Haupt, a former VP of Lehman Brothers, agrees to help but fails at clearly explaining these terms. Harvard professor Kenneth Rogoff similarly fails. Moore eventually concludes that the complex system and terminology are merely there to confuse and “get away with murder”, and Wall Street is just “an insane casino.”

Moore then explores the role of Alan Greenspan and the U.S. Treasury in leading up to the United States housing bubble that devastated the American middle class. Moore also interviews a former employee at Countrywide Financial responsible for their VIP program for “FOAs” and details how many members of Congress and political figures received favorable mortgage rates under the program. Moore then discusses with William Black, who analogizes the situation to the build-up of the collapse of a dam. The film then shows the series of events leading up to the passing of the 2008 bailout proposed by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson (also the former CEO of Goldman Sachs). Moore then speaks with several Members of Congress, including Ohio congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, who agrees with Moore’s comment that the passing of the bailout was a “financial coup d’état“.

Moore interviews Elizabeth Warren, the head of the US Congressional Oversight Committee, the government agency serving as a watchdog for Congress’ wrongdoing. He asks her, “Where’s our money?”, referring to the $700 billion bailout money which Congress gave to the big banks and Wall Street investment companies. Warren replies, “I don’t know.” Advised by Warren to contact Paulson’s office for answers, Moore’s call is promptly disconnected upon recognition of his identity. He then goes to Wall Street demanding to “get the money back for the American people”, but is denied entry into every office building of the major banks.

The documentary features a number of positive portrayals, which include bailout watchdog Elizabeth Warren, Wayne County Sheriff Warren Evans, who put forth a moratorium on home evictions, and Ohio Representative Marcy Kaptur, who on the floor of the US Congress encouraged Americans to be “squatters” in their own homes, and refuse to vacate.^[2] The film also states that President Barack Obama‘s campaign caused only 37 percent of young adults to favor capitalism over socialism (although this was later proven to be inaccurate).^[4]

The film then shows that in the year following Franklin D. Roosevelt‘s death (including TV footage of his proposed Second Bill of Rights) and the Allied victory in World War II, many of the defeated nations were given the rights proposed by FDR, but Americans were not. The film then jumps ahead 60 years to show the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, which Moore suggests would have been less severe were it not for the economic system which made Wall Street rich while forcing residents of New Orleans to live in a poorly-maintained neighborhood.

The film closes with Moore placing police lines around numerous banks, and lastly, Wall Street itself. In his closing speech, Moore declares that capitalism is an evil which can only be eliminated and replaced with the goodness of democracy – rule by the people, not by money. He asks all those who agree to “speed it up,” referencing the aforementioned phrase by Don Regan to President Ronald Reagan during one of the latter’s speeches.

A swing rendition of the Socialist anthem “The Internationale,” sung by Tony Babino, a New York big band artist, plays over the closing credits.^[5]

Production

During the Cannes Film Festival in 2008, Overture Films and Paramount Vantage announced an upcoming project by director Michael Moore, though at the time they were vague about the project’s theme. Originally thought to be a follow-up to the 2004 film Fahrenheit 9/11, it was revealed that Moore’s film was to be a documentary about the financial crisis of 2007–2010. In February 2009, he issued an appeal to people who worked for Wall Street or in the financial industry to share firsthand information, requesting, “Be a hero and help me expose the biggest swindle in American history.”^[6]

Release

Theatrical run

Capitalism: A Love Story premiered at the 66th Venice International Film Festival on September 6, 2009.^[7] The film also screened at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 13 and at the New York Film Festival on September 21. On September 23, the film had a limited release at two theaters in New York City and two theaters in Los Angeles,^[8] grossing $37,832 in its first day for a $9,458 per theater average.^[9] The theater average was considered strong, though it did not beat the record opening of Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which grossed $83,922 at two theaters in one day.^[8] Over the weekend of September 25, Capitalism grossed $231,964 in the four theaters.^[10] The film had a wide release in 995 theaters in the United States and Canada on October 2, 2009,^[1] about a year after the enacting of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which approved a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street.^[6] The film opened in eighth place at the box office on the first weekend of its wide release, grossing $4,447,378.^[11] The final domestic total was $14,363,397,^[1] making it the 12th highest grossing documentary in history (2012).^[12]

Critical reception

The review aggregate website Rotten Tomatoes reported that 75% out of 141 critics gave the film a positive review, with an average score of 6.7 out of 10.^[13] Similar website Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to mainstream critics’ reviews, reported that the film has received an average score of 61 based on 35 reviews.^[14]

Deborah Young, writing for the trade paper The Hollywood Reporter, wrote of Capitalism: A Love Story, “Although it’s less focused than Sicko or Fahrenheit 9/11… because its subject is more abstract, this is a typical Moore oeuvre: funny, often over the top and of dubious documentation, but with strongly made points that leave viewers much to ponder and debate after they walk out of the theater.” Young acknowledged Moore’s simplification of the topic and added, “But here his talent is evident in creating two hours of engrossing cinema by contrasting a fast-moving montage of ’50s archive images extolling free enterprise with the economic disaster of the present.” The critic noted whom the documentary targeted: “Though it blames all political parties, including the Democrats, for caving in with the bailout, the film is careful to spare President Barack Obama, who remains a symbol of hope for justice.”^[15]

Leslie Felperin of the trade paper Variety wrote, “Pic’s target is less capitalism qua capitalism than the banking industry, which Moore skewers ruthlessly, explaining last year’s economic meltdown in terms a sixth-grader could understand. That said, there’s still plenty here to annoy right-wingers, as well as those who, however much they agree with Moore’s politics, just can’t stomach his oversimplification, on-the-nose sentimentality and goofball japery.” Felperin said that the documentary was similarly structured to Moore’s previous documentaries, “Capitalism skips around considerably, laying down a mix of reportage, interviews and polemic.” Felperin observed Moore’s prominent role in his own documentary, believing it to be justified with relevance to crises in the automobile industry that Moore’s family personally encountered. The critic complained that Moore strove “to manipulate viewers’ emotions with shots of crying children and tearjerking musical choices”, believing that the documentary worked better when the director let the topic unfold through various accounts.^[16]

Upon the film’s February 2010 UK release, The Times said the film “showcases Moore at his undeniably powerful best and his exploitative, manipulative worst”:^[17]

The film is brilliantly researched, both with regard to the labyrinthine web of connections between the world of finance and the corridors of power and the wittily used archive footage. Interviews with Senate insiders and financial experts are informative, and there’s an amusing sequence in which he quizzes a selection of priests and bishops who opine that capitalism is “evil” and was not, in fact, the preferred economic model of Our Lord. Then Moore goes and spoils it all by hauling out his trusty bullhorn for a series of lame stunts. Like the complacent clown prince of agitprop, Moore hectors Wall Street doormen and security guards, while the company bosses remain in their fortress made of money, blissfully unaware of the fat man making a scene on the street far below….But for all his cheap tactics, Moore mounts a persuasive case that something is rotten in the current economic system.

Topical accuracy

The Associated Press‘s national business columnist Rachel Beck reviewed the accuracy of three points made in Capitalism:

1. Three months after a scene in which Moore approaches Goldman Sachs headquarters to reclaim taxpayers’ funds, the bank was one of the ten that repaid part of the $68 billion received from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Moore responded to the action: “We’re not talking about the majority of people who took the money … not even 10 percent of the $700 billion has been returned.”^[18]
2. Moore criticizes Wal-Mart for “dead peasant” policies, all 350,000 of which were cancelled in 2000. However, Moore notes that the termination of the policies was covered in the presentation of facts and quotes in the closing credits.^[18]
3. The documentary criticizes Senator Christopher Dodd and other government officials for benefiting from exclusive financial programs; Moore lambasts Dodd in particular for predatory lending as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. The AP reported that the interest rates and fees involved were norms for the industry, and that the Senate’s Select Committee on Ethics cleared Dodd and Kent Conrad of getting special treatments, though it cautioned the senators to exercise “more vigilance” with such deals.^[18]

The Association of Advanced Life Underwriting issued a statement that Moore “mischaracterized” corporate owned life insurance, stating that the issues were addressed by Congress in the 1990s and again in 2006. The AALU further states that corporate-owned life insurance (COLI) is only taken out on highly compensated employees, and only with their knowledge and consent, that COLI finances employee benefits and protects jobs and that employees pay nothing for COLI, but receive substantial benefits.^[19]

Upon the film’s February 2010 theatrical release in the United Kingdom, film critic Mark Kermode, appearing on The Culture Show, asked the BBC‘s business editor Robert Peston whether Moore’s “crusading” had been based on a misrepresentation of American capitalism. Canada’s Centre for Research on Globalisation characterized the response: “Peston cannot fault the facts of the movie, though he appears a little uncomfortable having to say so.”^[20]

Religious subject matter

Religion expert Anthony Stevens-Arroyo stated that the film should be considered “a special kind of Catholic achievement” and asked whether Michael Moore should be named “Catholic of the Year” for raising the serious issues in the context of Catholic teachings, and for presenting “Catholic currents of social justice” in the film.^[21]

Awards and honors

At the Venice Film Festival, Moore won the “Leoncino d’Oro” (“Little Golden Lion”) award for his documentary, and he also received the festival’s Open Prize.^[22] The documentary was also nominated for the festival’s Golden Lion award,^[23] but lost to Lebanon.^[24]

See also

• Late-2000s financial crisis
• Bailout of the U.S. financial system
• Bailout of Wall Street
• DISCLOSE Act
• Wall Street reform
• Debtocracy
• Generation Zero
• Inside Job (film)
• Let’s Make Money
• I.O.U.S.A
• Too Big to Fail (film)

References

1. ^ ^{a b c} “Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)”. Box Office Mojo. Retrieved December 29, 2010.
2. ^ ^{a b} Huffington, Arianna (September 21, 2009). “Barack Obama Must See Michael Moore’s New Movie (and So Must You)!”. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2010-03-05.
3. ^ Moore, Michael (October 4, 2009). “For Those of You on Your Way to Church This Morning …”. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2010-03-05.
4. ^ Jacobson, Louis (October 2, 2009). “Michael Moore says young people are increasingly warm to socialism”. PolitiFact.com.
5. ^ Young, Deborah (September 21, 2009). “Film Review: Capitalism: A Love Story”. Film Journal International. New York, New York: Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved 2 October 2011.
6. ^ ^{a b} Dave McNary (July 8, 2009). “Michael Moore unveils title of new doc”. Variety. Retrieved September 22, 2009.
7. ^ Vivarelli, Nick (September 1, 2009). “Stars to shine on Lido”. Variety. Retrieved September 22, 2009.
8. ^ ^{a b} Fritz, Ben (September 24, 2009). “Moore’s ‘Capitalism’ off to profitable start”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved September 24, 2009.
9. ^ “Capitalism: A Love Story (2009) – Daily Box Office Results”. Box Office Mojo. Retrieved October 2, 2009.
10. ^ “Capitalism: A Love Story (2009) – Weekend Box Office Results”. Box Office Mojo. Retrieved October 2, 2009.
11. ^ “Weekend Box Office Results for October 2–4, 2009”. Box Office Mojo. Retrieved October 7, 2009.
12. ^ http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm
13. ^ “Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)”. Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 2009-11-14.
14. ^ “Capitalism: A Love Story”. Metacritic. Retrieved 2009-11-14.
15. ^ Young, Deborah (September 6, 2009). “Capitalism: A Love Story — Film Review”. The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved September 22, 2009.
16. ^ Felperin, Leslie (September 5, 2009). “Capitalism: A Love Story”. Variety. Retrieved September 22, 2009.
17. ^ Ide, Wendy (February 26, 2010). “Capitalism: A Love Story”. London: The Times. Retrieved 2010-02-27.
18. ^ ^{a b c} Beck, Rachel (September 24, 2009). “Fact-checking Moore’s ‘Capitalism'”. CBS News. Associated Press. Retrieved September 24, 2009.
19. ^ http://www.aalu.org/custom/headlines/headlinedetails.cfm?id=426
20. ^ “Capitalism Cut Adrift”. Centre for Research on Globalisation. February 17, 2010. Retrieved 2010-02-27.
21. ^ Washington Post, October 28, 2009, “Catholic America: Michael Moore: Catholic of the year?” http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/catholicamerica/2009/10/michael_moore_as_catholic_of_the_year.html?hpid=talkbox1
22. ^ “La Biennale di Venezia – The 66th Festival Collateral Awards”. labiennale.org. September 12, 2009. Retrieved September 23, 2009.
23. ^ O’Neil, Tom (July 30, 2009). “Venice Film Festival unveils Golden Lion lineup led by Michael Moore”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved September 23, 2009.
24. ^ “Top Venice award for Israeli film”. news.bbc.co.uk (BBC). September 12, 2009. Retrieved September 24, 2009.