> Here's a mainstream critique of what's missing in MM's film:
>
http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2002/11/franke-ruta-g-11-22.html
Interesting. I had similar observations after watching BfC. I also noted that both Michael Moore, and Garance Franke-Ruta missed one factor that criminologists since 1930s (cf. Shaw & McKay) associated with high crime and violence rates - destablization of the community. The US has probaly the most destabilized / loosely knit communities (both urban and suburban) outside war zones. It would be fair to say that the US is the nation of lonely nomads wandering from one location to another in search of economic opportunity. This is a historical abnormality, since most nomadic societies travel in tightly knit groups. Since people are social animals and community is the main resource when responding to uncertaintly, danger, or threat - the disappearance of stable communities at high rates may explain why US-ers are more likely to succemb to fear (as Glassner and Moore argue) and more likely to engage in delinquent or violent behavior (Shaw & Mckay). But that puts the blame squarely on government, big corporations and developers who are the key culprits in post WWII re-enginering of the US society.
Having said that, however, I loved BfC precisely for not being another "documentary" where academics and concerned journalists present their facts. For every fact preseneted by social scientists, corporate hacks and AM talk show hosts can invent a hundred of their own. This is not a very effective way of swaying public opinion. A much better way is to ridicule the stuffed corporate shirts, deflate their egos, and show that the emperor has no clothes - which Michael Moore does very well.
Wojtek