Michael And Me.

Anyone who goes to a Michael Moore movie expecting a logical argument will walk away disappointed. Moore is a populist, not an intellectual. He goes for the gut.

And in his latest movie, Capitalism: A Love Story, it works. Sometimes.

Capitalism has everything you'd expect from a Moore film. There's the ironic, '50s-era stock footage (more so than usual), Moore-on-a-mission stunts, honest Americans facing economic ruin, and a lesson about the evils of -- what else? -- capitalism.

To make the case that capitalism is the root of all evil, Moore presents a loosely connected set of emotional vignettes:

Families being forced out of their homes.

Airline pilots who have to work a second job to survive.

Companies taking secret life insurance policies out on their employees.

And so on.

Some of the things Moore shows us are troubling. But ultimately, Moore is kind of like a man who sees a house on fire and launches into a tirade on the evils of oxygen. It's sad that some people are losing so much. But everything they had in the first place was the result of -- *gasp!* -- capitalism.

And many of the things Moore complains about don't seem to have much to do with capitalism at all.

In the final portion of Capitalism, Moore lambasts the $700 billion bailout of financial institutions as corporate robbery, and marches to Wall St. demanding the American people's money back. Fair enough. But government handouts to failing businesses are hardly a product of pure capitalism.

Similarly, when Moore tells the story of a for-profit juvenile prison that rakes in the dough thanks to a couple of corrupt judges, the problem seems to lie with the dangerous collusion of business and government -- not laissez faire economic policies.

Michael Moore claims to be non-partisan, but conservatives hoping to see Obama get some comeuppance for his continued support of corporate welfare are left empty-handed.

Moore does go after some prominent Democrats, most notably Chris Dodd. But Obama largely gets a pass. Even when Moore rips apart Tim Geithner, he never mentions the man who appointed him.

And while Michael Moore shows footage of house Democrats -- including Dennis Kucinich -- boldly standing up to the first bailout bill, he ignores the fact that a wide majority of Republicans voted against the bailout.

And as always, Moore plays it loose with the facts. When Moore reveals that wages have remained steady since the '80s while productivity has shot upward, he concludes that Americans are being forced to work harder for the same amount of pay. While this may be true in some cases, it's pretty lazy to ignore a little something called the digital revolution that's been going on for the last few decades.

Interestingly enough, Capitalism has a strong religious message, unusual for a Moore film. Moore, a liberal Catholic, interviews several priests who have some harsh words for America's economic system, and mocks the idea that Jesus would support capitalism. To drive home the point, the movie's takeaway message is worded in distinctly moral terms: "capitalism is an evil, and you can't regulate evil."

Like all of Moore's films, Capitalism is cleverly crafted and entertaining. But your enjoyment of the film may hinge on your ability to temporarily shut down large portions of your brain.

Near the end of Capitalism, Moore shows footage of Katrina survivors stranded on the roofs of their houses, and tells the audience that this is what capitalism bring them.

Actually, that's what large hurricanes combined with bad engineering bring us. Common mistake.

Everything In Its Place.

Nancy Pelosi is ticked off at Republicans again. This time, it's because they're so very sexist.

After Pelosi suggested Monday that the public was wary of sending more troops to Afghanistan -- and that McChrystal's recommendation to President Obama for more troops "should go up the line of command" rather than be aired in "press conferences" -- the National Republican Congressional Committee issued a mocking press release titled "General Pelosi Knows Better, Slams McChrystal."

"If Nancy Pelosi's failed economic policies are any indicator of the effect she may have on Afghanistan, taxpayers can only hope McChrystal is able to put her in her place," concluded the release, setting off a barrage of criticism from Democrats and liberal blogs that the GOP was employing sexist rhetoric.

Pelosi herself weighed in Thursday at her weekly press briefing.

"It's really sad they really don't understand how inappropriate that is," Pelosi said. "I'm in my place -- I'm the Speaker of the House, the first woman Speaker of the House, and I'm in my place because the House of Representatives voted me there. But that language is something I haven't heard in decades."

Nancy Pelosi took the NRCC's statement to mean she needed to be put in her place as a woman. But that's obviously not what the NRCC meant.

Stanley McChrystal is a general in the U.S. Army. He thinks we should put more troops in Afghanistan.

Nancy Pelosi is a politician. She thinks he's wrong.

When the NRCC says that McChrystal should put Pelosi "in her place," they're saying they want McChrystal to remind Pelosi that, as a military official, he knows a thing or two about military policy. And to make that point crystal clear, the NRCC encapsulated it in the press release's title: "General Pelosi knows better, slams McChrystal."

The issue isn't whether a woman can be speaker of the house. It's whether the speaker of the house should pretend to be a general.

Pelosi is smart enough to know this. But phony outrage over non-existent sexism is much more fun than real debate.

Olympics Part Deux.

The International Olympic Committee gave Chicago a stunning slap in the face last Friday. If Chicago had gone toe-to-toe with Rio in the final round of voting and lost, no one would have been shocked.

But the combined power of Oprah and Obama couldn't even carry the second city past the first round.

Ouch.

Make no mistake -- this wasn't about Obama. There was never a compelling reason to bring the Olympics to Chicago. Rio De Janeirro deserved to win. Chicago didn't.

But at the same time, Obama's Olympic disappointment is a microcosm of his flawed understanding of foreign policy.

Critics enjoyed roasting Bush over his "arrogant" approach to world affairs. He was a gunslinging Texan with a messiah complex -- embarrassing at best, dangerous at worst.

And more often than not, Bush was guilty as charged. He thought we could swoop into the Middle East and transform it into a democratic paradise. Bush envisioned America as the savior of the world -- a nice thought, but an unrealistic one. Now, Obama is left to pick up the pieces of Bush's failures.

But arrogance comes in different guises.

Obama's employs a kinder, gentler arrogance. It's an arrogance that says that the world will bend to our wishes if we butter it up with smiles and heartfelt mea culpas. On a more personal level, it's an arrogance that says the magnetism of one man can reverse decades of anti-Americanism around the world.

There's nothing wrong with being nice to other countries. It's certainly better than being an international jerk. But it's not going to win any major concessions from the international community.

And the fact that Obama is an international celebrity doesn't mean the world will hand him what he wants on a silver platter.

Obama showed up in Copenhagen assuming that the IOC delegates loved him. They probably did. But it wasn't enough to change their minds.

People in Europe may swoon over Obama, but we're not seeing our NATO allies rush to reinforce U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Why? Because nations are selfish, and they don't want to make that kind of sacrifice. Their personal affinity for Obama isn't worth a dime when it's time to make policy.

The utility of warm-fuzziness is limited.

In the end, an American president needs to have the courage to do the right thing, regardless of what other countries say. Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a bad one -- but it would have been just as bad if every member of the UN had backed it.

"Going it alone" isn't an ideal strategy when it comes to dealing with the world's problems. But sometimes, if you want something done right, you've got to do it yourself.

A Thought.

If Roman Polanski were a plumber from Hoboken, who would be petitioning for his release?

Justice is supposed to be blind. Being a creative genius isn't grounds for clemency. Neither is being a holocaust survivor.

Some situations are complicated; this one isn't. Polanski committed a terrible crime, and admitted his guilt. He should be punished. Justice delayed is better than no justice at all.

An Olympic Blunder?

President Obama is dealing with a sophmore slump in his freshmen year.

Iran is testing missiles and developing nukes. Afghanistan is a quagmire. Solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress are incapable of passing healthcare legislation. Nobody knows what to do with all the scary people in Gitmo.

And in the midst of it all, Obama's once-soaring poll numbers are starting to fall to the earth. If Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail, it looks like he's getting his wish.

Obama needs to score a feel-good win to prevent his presidency from looking like an epic fail.

This Friday, he plans on doing just that. In a historically unprecedented move, Obama will personally lobby the Internatioal Olympic Comittee to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago.

If Obama succeeds, his position as the darling of the world will be solidified, and Americans will have a little piece of positive news to cling to.

But what if he fails?

Fair or not, there's no doubt that Obama will be skewered if Chicago fails to bring home the athletic bacon. Obama sold himself as a guy who could magically make the world give America a big hug. If the Olympic committee gives Chi-town the cold shoulder, his international star power will look a bit faded.

And Chicago definitely has problems. Its famous public transit system is falling apart, high profile acts of violence are rocking its troubled neighborhoods, and The Honorable Rod Blagojevich is now a national symbol of Chicago corruption.

To top it all off, Rio De Janeiro has long been the assumed frontrunner in the Olympic race. Will the Olympic overlords really refuse to give up-and-coming Brazil its first shot at hosting the games?

Something tells me that Obama wouldn't be jetting out to Copenhagen unless he had assurance of success. Then again, he may just be audaciously hoping to melt the hearts of the IOC members.

For America's sake, here's hoping the president doesn't fall flat on his face. In these times of general woe, our country could use a few scraps of superficial prestige.

Racists With Racist Charges Of Racism.

Is it racist to call Obama a racist? According to lots of liberal commentators, the answer is yes. Ever since Glen Beck proclaimed that Obama harbors a "deep-seated hatred for white people," the statement has been used as exhibit A in the ongoing effort to portray conservatives as racists.

But this raises a few questions. Is it ever appropriate for a white guy to accuse a non-white guy of racism? What if the non-white guy is actually racist? And is there really anything inherently racist in a charge of racism?

Obama was raised by white folks. Most of his closest advisors are white. The idea that Obama hates white people is laughable. But lots of people are stupidly accused of racism. When Bob Herbert, a black columnist, accuses white conservatives of being driven by racism, I think he's wrong. But I don't think he's racist.

Isn't it possible that Glen Beck's stupid and incoherent statement was just a stupid and incoherent statement?

Suspicious Minds.

Barack Obama is black. Barack Obama is also a liberal Democrat.

If you ask conservatives why they don't like Obama, they'll probably point to characteristic no. 2. But liberal commentators can see through this charade.

Those conservative hicks don't care about "the constitution," "limited government," or some stuff that Thomas Jefferson wrote. When they say "socialist," they really mean "scary black person."

The proof? Why, it's all around us --
The nutty conspiracy theories.
The heated rhetoric.
The sheer disrespect they show for The Office of The President. (*gasp!*)

Political differences could never stir up this kind of deep-seated hatred. It's a bonafide Presidential lynching -- angry whites rising up to destroy an uppity colored man.

After all, remember how nice conservatives were to Bill Clinton -- a white, moderate Democrat from Arkansas?

I sure don't.

You want conspiracy theories? Forget that whole birther deal -- fringe conservatives accused Clinton of being personally responsible for several murders. And when Clinton proposed his health care plan, it was opposed (and eventually defeated) with just as much fervor by conservatives in Congress. Talk-radio, the fount from which so much of this racial animosity is supposedly flowing, rose to prominence as the center of opposition to the Clinton administration.

Maybe some of Obama's critics are racists. And maybe some of Obama's supporters are racists. To be quite honest, I'm not sure what goes on deep inside the minds of everyone in America. But the fact that a group of people loudly -- even rudely -- opposes someone with different political views can be understood without pathetically playing the race card.

Sadly, even when it comes to something as universally tragic as the 9/11 attacks, some liberals just can't resist making everything about race. Kate Clinton (of no relation to Bill), a writer for the Huffington Post, had this to say about the Republican reaction Barack Obama:

"Republicans treat President Obama as if he were a substitute and they are just waiting for the real deal to come back in the room. That would be a white Republican male. Their desperate efforts to delegitimize an elected president (not to be confused with their efforts to legitimate a selected president) remind me of their panicked response to the terror attacks on September eleventh, eight years ago. For many of them, it was their first experience being attacked. Unlike women, poor people, and people of color who know being attacked as a pre-existing condition, the white guys freaked. Their world order was rocked. They panicked, put the country in lockdown and retaliated against the wrong country."

Yes, you read that correctly: September 11th was only frightening for white males. And those dumb ol' white men only attacked Iraq 'cause they were so scared. Seriously.

But moving on from that breath-taking piece of ignorant nonsense, Clinton's first point was partially valid. Republicans probably do consider Obama as a place-holder until they can get someone from their own party in office. Just as Democrats thought of Bush as some idiot they had to put up with until the coming of their messiah. In the political system, you're always looking towards the next election cycle -- and hoping to win. That's life.

It has nothing to do with race. Sure, Republicans would love to replace Obama with a white male Republican. They'd also love to replace him with a white female Republican. Or a black male Republican. Or an black female Republican.

Throughout his political career, Obama has called on conservatives and liberals to stop questioning each other's motives. And while Obama hasn't always lived up to this standard, it's a good bit of advice.

It's easy to believe that someone who disagrees with you is motivated by some dark force in the recesses of their soul. But in the end, all you get is a debate poisoned by imaginary issues.