The Corporation

[Ox]

So, Ancalagon challenged me to see the 2003 Canadian documentary, The Corporation. I thought I'd take some notes and share my thoughts. However, this plan was flawed in two respects. First, this movie is two hours and fifteen minutes long. Which was bad enough, except the sheer quantity of dishonesty, illogical thought, and outright lies in the production was so dense that I only noted a few of the most egregious examples, and my notes would take at least a dozen pages to explicate. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through all that (and you don't want to read it), so suffice it to say that you should only watch this film if you have a peculiar desire to see what classic Communist propaganda looks like if it has access to a 21st-century film studio.

Note that I do not exaggerate when describing this film as Communist: Michael Moore quotes Lenin approvingly in the final scene, and the picture explicitly endorses the common ownership by "the people" of the means of production and resources. Indeed, the title is a terrible misnomer: only a short fraction at the beginning of the film deals with the corporation as a legal and economic entity itself, while the vast majority of it is simply an indictment of capitalism, commerce, and economic behavior in general. That wouldn't be so bad, but the indictment is virtually identical to the one made by Karl Marx 150 years ago, and so you'd be a lot better off getting the straight dope from a guy who was a heck of a lot more clever than any of these chuckleheads.

Indeed, this might be my biggest problem with the film: it treats the issue of human greed, malevolence, and indifference to the suffering of others as somehow a peculiarly corporate phenomenon. At one point, the voiceover wonders why corporations sometimes cooperate with tyrannical governments, asking, "Is it narcissism that compels [corporations] to seek their reflection in fascist regimes?" Leaving aside the somewhat questionable premise that corporations resemble fascist regimes in any way or that they are capable of an emotion like narcissism, I never did hear why a sole proprietorship or partnership would be less likely to be narcissistic in this manner.

Indeed, I was startled to see how much excuse-making the film indulges in. It shows the rather charming head of Shell Royal Dutch explaining that he, too, cares about the environment, only to be followed by Noam Chomsky (who is a red flag in more than one way) explaining that it's "the system" that's at fault, not any specific human being: just as slaveowners were wonderful people who were guiltlessly compelled by their social institutions to whip black people until they answered to "Toby," Mr. CEO of Shell is a wonderful man who for some reason loses all moral responsibility the second he puts on his tie. I want to be clear that the comparison to "wonderful" slaveowners is Professor Chomsky's, not mine.

I couldn't possibly go into all of the lies and related dishonesty of the film; I doubt I could even provide a fair sampling. I will say I was pretty amused to see how indignant Michael Moore, the National Lawyers Guild, and assorted Stalin-era remnants were at the prospect that corporations "subvert US foreign policy" by consorting with "dictators." Because you know none of them would ever consider doing something like that.

In sum, even my appetite for picking apart the poorly-reasoned and hackneyed pseudointellectualism that so often passes for "serious thought" on the Left was gorged until emesis. Never before have my prejudices about a film or speaker been so thoroughly confirmed. There is nothing of merit anywhere in this film, and I heartily encourage all to find anything else to do with their time besides watching this tripe.

[BlackPete]

Wow, I gotta see this film.

[Ancalagon]

So.... it was good then?

Well, I hadnt seen it for some years, when I last saw it, I was an impressionable young college student. But yeah, I would guess it had its fair share of faults.

Still... do you think unrestrained greed wrapped up in the protective legal and economic entity of a corporation is a good thing?

[ShivaX]

Wow, I gotta see this film.

I thought that for about 4 minutes and then realized I really didn't want to scream at a screen for 2 hours. Thats the reason I don't watch Fox News or MSNBC.

[Narradisall]

Its bad Ox's review has made me want to see this right?

Michael Moore can be rather wacky.

[Ox]

Still... do you think unrestrained greed wrapped up in the protective legal and economic entity of a corporation is a good thing?
I don't think "unrestrained greed" is a good thing, no. But the corporate structure isn't "protective" when serious wrongdoing is involved. Courts can and do "pierce the corporate veil" when a corporation has been used as a mechanism for covering personal wrongdoing, and then there is stuff like the RICO statute and whatnot.

This is the heart of the greatest lie of the film. It claims that the corporate structure permits people to get away with anything. It's not true. Look at Jeffrey Skilling: he attempted to use a corporation as a criminal conspiracy. Was he able to say, "Nyah, nyah, I'm part of a corporation, so you can't touch me"?

The real question is whether society would be better off without corporations. And I think it's pretty clear that they would not. If I want to invest my money (thus making me a filthy kulak in the eyes of the filmmakers), I will be nervous that any business in which I invest might turn out, now or in the future, to break a contract or make a defective toaster or something. I don't really want to lose my house if that happens. Limited liability allows people to join together without fear that a mistake or malfeasance by one will destroy them all. That can be abused, but it's generally a very good thing.

Oh, one more thing I forgot to mention: I was struck by how religious the film was. The discussion of "reverence for life" was just as sanctimonious and idiotic as the common stereotype of pro-life people. Oh, but their God is in the People, not in the sky. Somehow, that is supposed to be better.

[Johan]

Oh, but their God is in the People, not in the sky. Somehow, that is supposed to be better.

Everyone has faith. The differences lie in the object of that faith, and how crassly one criticizes those whose faith disagrees with what one essentially excuses within oneself...which is faith. :D

/thread derail.

[Bingley Joe]

suffice it to say that you should only watch this film if you have a peculiar desire to see what classic Communist propaganda looks like if it has access to a 21st-century film studio.

Note that I do not exaggerate when describing this film as Communist: Michael Moore quotes Lenin approvingly in the final scene, and the picture explicitly endorses the common ownership by "the people" of the means of production and resources. Indeed, the title is a terrible misnomer: only a short fraction at the beginning of the film deals with the corporation as a legal and economic entity itself, while the vast majority of it is simply an indictment of capitalism, commerce, and economic behavior in general. That wouldn't be so bad, but the indictment is virtually identical to the one made by Karl Marx 150 years ago, and so you'd be a lot better off getting the straight dope from a guy who was a heck of a lot more clever than any of these chuckleheads.

What's interesting about that analysis is that the Marxist-Leninist-Maoists didn't really like it much either :p



"The Corporation" offers no real world solutions or choices

...

Achbar continues to equate socialist and imperialist power without regard for their contents. One of the introductory narrative sentences in the film makes this mistake: "Like the Church, the Monarchy and the Communist Party in other times and places, the corporation is today's dominant institution." And this error leads to our other major criticism of the film: it offers no realistic alternative to imperialism.
Source (http://web.archive.org/web/20041103063605/http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/movies/long/corporation.html)



Its bad Ox's review has made me want to see this right?

Michael Moore can be rather wacky.

Agreed, but Michael Moore had absolutely nothing to do with the production of this film. He's just one of many people interviewed.


The film certainly has it's share of flaws, but it's still worth watching no matter what anyone says about it (and clearly, opinions are going to range VERY widely with a topic like this one).. draw your own conclusions once you have.

[Ox]

What did you like about the film, Bingley Joe? What did I miss?

[Johan]

but it's still worth watching no matter what anyone says about it

But I already used up my "wasted time on this film" quota for the year by watching Hercules (1970 film, with Arnold Schwarzenegger)! :)

[Narradisall]

But I already used up my "wasted time on this film" quota for the year by watching Hercules (1970 film, with Arnold Schwarzenegger)! :)

God I hope he's in Terminator 4

[Bingley Joe]

What did you like about the film, Bingley Joe? What did I miss?

I saw it when it first came out, and haven't watched it since, so it's been far too long for me to get into any detail.


But I will say that offhand, I can't think of any documentary I've seen that's come even remotely close to giving a complete accounting of its topic, let alone one that's not biased in some way (more often than not, it's bias that drives the film makers to produce them), so I tend not to get too bent out of shape when that's what I encounter. I think the value in them tends to be in getting people to consider their positions on subjects that aren't otherwise being discussed.

I think The Corporation is particularly effective in reaching an audience that wouldn't otherwise sit still to digest some of these ideas for more than about 15 seconds -- it was aimed at a 'young' audience in general, and (at least in this province) it's been hugely successful in getting students in grade 8 and early high-school interested in thinking critically about something they otherwise might never be interested in, which is great.

If all that ever results from the film's production is that a bunch of eighth-graders research how corporations and capitalism shape our lives, debate that topic in class, talk to their families and friends about it, and write the odd independent study paper on it - even if they ultimately come to all the same conclusions about it as Ox - then they've done a fine job, IMO.

[pomeroy]

God I hope he's in Terminator 4

The new one, with C. Bale?

He is. Digitally. For like 30 seconds. Get ready.

[Ox]

But I will say that offhand, I can't think of any documentary I've seen that's come even remotely close to giving a complete accounting of its topic, let alone one that's not biased in some way (more often than not, it's bias that drives the film makers to produce them), so I tend not to get too bent out of shape when that's what I encounter.
Hey, let me be clear: I expect a point of view. I even expect them to shade the truth a little. I don't necessarily expect them to utter completely false statements of fact.

I think The Corporation is particularly effective in reaching an audience that wouldn't otherwise sit still to digest some of these ideas for more than about 15 seconds -- it was aimed at a 'young' audience in general, and (at least in this province) it's been hugely successful in getting students in grade 8 and early high-school interested in thinking critically about something they otherwise might never be interested in, which is great.
Are they thinking critically, or are they uncritically regurgitating The Corporation's party line? I'm asking honestly, since I don't interact with those kids and you do.

I mean, this is my problem: if I thought the film would stimulate critical thought, I'd agree with you entirely. But at least back when I was in school, there was never any critical thought. Even I didn't really learn not to agree with the last argument I heard until 15 or 16. If you're targeting 13-year-olds, that's probably not stimulating debate so much as indoctrination.

[Bingley Joe]

Hey, let me be clear: I expect a point of view. I even expect them to shade the truth a little. I don't necessarily expect them to utter completely false statements of fact.

Again, it's been way too long for me to remember any specific statements the film makes.


Are they thinking critically, or are they uncritically regurgitating The Corporation's party line? I'm asking honestly, since I don't interact with those kids and you do.

I mean, this is my problem: if I thought the film would stimulate critical thought, I'd agree with you entirely. But at least back when I was in school, there was never any critical thought. Even I didn't really learn not to agree with the last argument I heard until 15 or 16. If you're targeting 13-year-olds, that's probably not stimulating debate so much as indoctrination.

Of course, a lot will depend on the individuals doing the watching and teaching, but there is a great deal of opportunity for critical thought brought about by the topics in the film, and there has been extensive co-operation between the film makers and a number of educational institutions in various countries to develop tie-ins with their curricula, using the film as a catalyst or teaching aid.

The Ontario Institute of Studies in Education (OISE) at The University of Toronto, for example, has put together a free teacher's resource: (http://www.tvo.org/thecorporation/teachers.html)

Television Ontario has developed a comprehensive study guide to use as a teachers' resource. This resource guide for teachers was generously provided by The Ontario Institute of Studies in Education of the University of Toronto.

This website is intended to provide teachers with ideas and resources that allow them to structure lessons relating to TVO's 3-part series of The Corporation.

It provides curriculum correlations, lesson ideas, and reproducible blackline masters for a variety of secondary school courses. A list of relevant Internet Web sites that represent different points of view has also been provided to allow for extensions of content in the film. Key themes that are covered include:

• Ethics
• Corporate social responsibility
• Politics and ideology
• Economic and social interdependence among individuals, corporations and • nations
• Impacts of commercial activity on individuals, communities and the environment
• Impacts of globalization

Lesson plans provided there tie into high-school courses on Philosophy (which is taught in high-school here), Social Sciences, Civics, Economics, Politics, Business, Marketing, English, Media Studies, and something called "Organizational Studies" (which wasn't offered way back when I was in high-school, so I have no idea what's covered). Just glancing at the curriculum correlation there (http://www.tvo.org/thecorporation/curr.html), I think it's safe to say that they are attempting to foster critical thought in a very wide variety of ways.

There's also a very similar resource available for Australian teachers. As a PDF (http://www.thecorporation.com/media/TC.pdf), it's quite a bit less comprehensive, but you can see by glancing at the lessons there that it's certainly not all one-sided regurgitation of the film's message either, and students are encouraged to express opinions either for or against what's presented.

(There is also a US study guide available, and a Business School Curriculum prepared by Prof. Tima Bansal of the Richard Ivey School of Business, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_ivey_school_of_business) but both require passwords for access, so I can't say what they contain)


I don't know about the Aussie side of things, but I have a couple of close friends who are professors at OISE, and that organization is very well respected in educational circles, and extremely careful about what they put their stamp on. More to the point, they wouldn't bother going to all that trouble if they thought the film was completely devoid of merit.

[J Arcane]

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

Really, just utterly shocked that Ox of all people has come to this conclusion. I for one am in complete surprise.

OF course, I rather enjoyed the movie, but mainly because it had the stones to say the kinds of shit I've been saying about the subject for years. The corporation, as a concept, is fundamentally broken, as is the resulting economic system that has built around it. We've gone beyond mere capitalism to an economy built entirely around organizations that exist solely for the pursuit of unlimited profit, regardless of the expense to the rest of humanity. Ox, of course, points to the handful of crooks that got what they deserved, because of course it lets him ignore the countless ones who get away with all manner of shenanigans on a regular basis.

The film may lean a little too hard at times on guys like Moore, which I wish they hadn't done because they make it rather too easy to dismiss completely, and I think at times the rhetoric is deliberately inflammatory, but in a way I rather like it for that latter quality, because it is so rarely addressed in such a vicious tone.

[Ox]

Just glancing at the curriculum correlation there (http://www.tvo.org/thecorporation/curr.html), I think it's safe to say that they are attempting to foster critical thought in a very wide variety of ways.
I tend to find that a curriculum is not a very good guide to the nature of a class. But I'm happy to say that these schools use The Corporation to foster critical thinking. You could use Mein Kampf in that class, as well. But I don't think this is much of a defense of Mein Kampf.

Moreover, looking at the PDF, there's very little attempt to discuss whether the indictment is true or relevant. The goal is to understand the message the film is communicating, but actually finding logical or factual flaws with its arguments is not even attempted except on page 7. Which is pretty striking, if you think about it. After all, one of the central allegations in the film is that corporations are legally forbidden from considering any factor except the profit for the shareholders. This is not really true in most circumstances, and the only instance in which it might be true -- in change-of-control transactions -- it's still "not entirely clear," as the Delaware Chancery Court said.

Ultimately, corporations are controlled by the fiduciary duties of care and loyalty. The directors of a company are hired by the shareholders to manage their money, and thus the directors have sharp duties not to betray the shareholders by self-dealing. However, the directors do get the benefit of the business judgment rule, which means that any business action which could plausibly be said to be in the long-run interests of the shareholders will be approved. Directors are certainly allowed to take into consideration the interests and views of workers, the local community, and other groups; they just aren't allowed to sacrifice the shareholders' interests for another group's without the honest belief that the shareholders will ultimately be better off. The Corporation seems to demand that shareholders cede their property to people who say upfront, "I have no intention of caring whether you ever get this back. I'm going to use it for whatever purposes I see fit." It's hard to see how that is either a workable strategy for society or one that would be more beneficial.

But the PDF doesn't offer any opportunity to discuss this objection, or any of the other meritorious objections to The Corporation's argument. Instead, it simply presents three of the worst conceivable objections to The Corporation's argument. Maybe the professors need a lesson in critical thinking, too.

More to the point, they wouldn't bother going to all that trouble if they thought the film was completely devoid of merit.
Sure. But do I really need to point out that people tend to apply a lower standard to material with which they agree? Or that academics have a marked tendency to lean strongly to the left?

After all, take a look at the "Further Reading" and "Further Viewing" sections at the bottom of the Aussie PDF. Notice anything missing about those lists? Imagine studying Marx in college, as I did, and only being assigned a reading list of Soviet critiques. Would you really be fostering critical thinking?

[Ox]

Ox, of course, points to the handful of crooks that got what they deserved, because of course it lets him ignore the countless ones who get away with all manner of shenanigans on a regular basis.
Oh, you won't catch me claiming that plenty of corporate criminals don't get away with it. Just like I won't claim that there aren't a bunch of ordinary American citizens who get away with crime. I'm not sure this demonstrates that the very existence of corporations or America is broken, though. Maybe you do.

[Goronmon]

We've gone beyond mere capitalism to an economy built entirely around organizations that exist solely for the pursuit of unlimited profit, regardless of the expense to the rest of humanity.Well, you obviously have a strong opinion on the subject. What do you think is a valid alternative to "corporations"?

[J Arcane]

Well, you obviously have a strong opinion on the subject. What do you think is a valid alternative to "corporations"?
Honestly, I'm not all down on them, conceptually the combined capital and industrial power of the corporate structure is I think sadly a necessity for certain kinds of progress, particularly technology. Academia is great for creating new technologies, but not so great at getting them out to the public in wide acceptance.

I just think more oversight needs to be in play, the control of corporations over present politics needs to be drastically reduced, if not damn near reversed, and that the corporations themselves need to learn to actually use that "business judgement rule" that Ox mentions, as often times that same tendency to rush towards ever escalating short term profits often ultimately harms the corporation as much as it does the people it knocks down to get to them.

The current social push however just seems to be ever in the opposite direction. Even now, in the face of a near economic collapse at the hands of that endless pursuit of profit over sense, it doesn't seem like anyone's really thinking about social and economic attitudes that led to this mess in the first place.

I don't pretend to have worked out some grand solution to all this. In my more socialist moods I've been known to suggest more tighter limits and controls on how much a corporate body can dip it's fingers in and how large it can get, but I think at this point it's far too late for those kinds of solutions. To spin an analogy, the car is broken, and I know as much because I'm driving in it, but that doesn't mean I'm a mechanic enough to know how to fix it myself.

[Ox]

the corporations themselves need to learn to actually use that "business judgement rule" that Ox mentions, as often times that same tendency to rush towards ever escalating short term profits often ultimately harms the corporation as much as it does the people it knocks down to get to them.
This isn't a particular issue with corporations: go to any high school if you want to see how often people sacrifice their long-term interests for short-term gains. It is, however, a particular issue with the principal/agent relationship, which underpins most of the objections people think they have with corporations.

Fundamentally, it's extremely common that one person asks another person to look after his interests. You ask your doctor to look after your health, your lawyer to look after your case, your babysitter to watch the kids. Your agent, however, has his or her own agenda, which may not be the same as yours: your doctor may perform unnecessary tests, your lawyer might drink on the job, your babysitter might veg out on the couch. This is the problem of the principal/agent relationship: the agent is charged with looking after the principal's interests, but too often, he subordinates the principal's interests for his own.

Resolving this issue has been one of the primary focuses of social, legal, and political thought for, oh, about the past 2500 years. So, first, we should probably approach it with humility and recognize that we may not solve it this year. In the context of the corporation, the agents -- the corporate officers and directors -- have different agendas than the shareholders. For example, few corporate officers are still working for the same company 50 years later, so their interest in receiving their paycheck 50 years hence is low. But the corporation would like to still be successful 50 years from now.

The only perfect way to resolve the principal/agent relationship is to remove it: to do it all yourself. This, incidentally, was Karl Marx's solution: each of us would grow our own food, make our own clothing, compose our own music, be our own whores, etc. Most of us aren't quite willing to say we want to spend all our time overseeing every aspect of our lives; we need to trust each other, especially when there is an issue that requires specialized knowledge that takes years to acquire. So the real answer is to try to figure out ways to ensure that the agent's interests line up accurately with the principal's. That's hard.

Ironically, J Arcane praises both the notion of increased oversight over corporations and the "business judgment rule." But these are opposites: the business judgment rule is a rule that reduces oversight and gives corporate officers more discretion.

[J Arcane]

Ironically, J Arcane praises both the notion of increased oversight over corporations and the "business judgment rule." But these are opposites: the business judgment rule is a rule that reduces oversight and gives corporate officers more discretion.

It is the clash between the anemic-but-still-clinging-to-life hopeful optimist in me, and the more practical pessimist side of me.

In other words, I'd like for corporations to exercise some better judgment, and thus obviate any external involvement at all, but I lack much great faith that this will happen on a wide enough scale to actually make external oversight unnecessary.

[Bingley Joe]

Sure. But do I really need to point out that people tend to apply a lower standard to material with which they agree?

Even at their lowest, OISE's standards are still extremely high, Ox.

I mean.. I'm not exactly sure what your point is, but I don't see how you would begin to argue that they haven't clearly put a very large amount of work into developing thought-provoking lessons based on the issues covered in the film for a very wide range of classes.

These are dedicated, highly respected educators. They're not interested in half-assing a bunch of lesson plans and calling it a day just because they saw a movie they thought was cool.


Or that academics have a marked tendency to lean strongly to the left?

Again, I'm not sure how that's relevant here.. are you saying that if all the academics at OISE who developed these teaching resources had been right-wingers (which some very easily could have been), they would have reached the same conclusion as you: that the film was entirely without merit? I seriously doubt that to be true.

Case in point: RISB seems to have felt it was worth using as a teaching resource as well.

We don't get to see the contents of their curriculum, but even a cursory glance at their list of alumni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_ivey_school_of_business#Alumni) will leave you with little doubt as to where the politics of that place tend to fall :eek:


After all, take a look at the "Further Reading" and "Further Viewing" sections at the bottom of the Aussie PDF. Notice anything missing about those lists? Imagine studying Marx in college, as I did, and only being assigned a reading list of Soviet critiques. Would you really be fostering critical thinking?

Yeah, the PDF is pretty basic, and I really don't have much to say about how it relates to the Australian education system in general, since I have absolutely no knowledge of that system whatsoever.

The book list provided by OISE (http://www.tvo.org/thecorporation/ref.html) is far more comprehensive.

[Ox]

I mean.. I'm not exactly sure what your point is, but I don't see how you would begin to argue that they haven't clearly put a very large amount of work into developing thought-provoking lessons based on the issues covered in the film for a very wide range of classes.
There's been a lot of work, yes. But I'm not seeing a lot of critical engagement in the curriculum you provided. There may be thought, but it is not critical thought: there is little attempt to say, "Is this true? Is this indictment of corporations correct? What alternatives does the film offer? Are those alternatives better or worse?"

Look, I studied political theory. Marx, Locke, Hobbes, Plato, Rawls, each of them had radically different ideas of how best to organize society. And we pitted them against each other: what is Marx's criticism of Locke? What would Locke's criticism of Marx be? Why does Plato think both of them are ball-munchers? Isn't Plato a mouth-breating moron?

Again, I'm not sure how that's relevant here.. are you saying that if all the academics at OISE who developed these teaching resources had been right-wingers (which some very easily could have been), they would have reached the same conclusion as you: that the film was entirely without merit? I seriously doubt that to be true.

Case in point: RISB seems to have felt it was worth using as a teaching resource as well.
Again, pointing out that the film is useful is different from saying it's meritorious. Socrates would frequently use obviously absurd arguments to teach his students how to spot absurdity. That doesn't mean those absurd arguments were good arguments.

The book list provided by OISE (http://www.tvo.org/thecorporation/ref.html) is far more comprehensive.
This is better. Still, let's do a count of books on one side or the other, shall we? I'll count stuff like Stiglitz and Soros as pro-market, which is generous of me.

Anti-market: 23
Pro-market: 6
Ones with which I'm not familiar: 7

[Telefrog]

I saw this a couple of years ago.

I gotta go with Ox on this one. It's simplistic biased drivel. The Corporation had a compelling premise and some truly great film moments, but it was filled with bullshit propaganda. Moreso than a lot of other truly biased documentaries I've seen. Even Walmart: The High Cost of Low Prices avoided many of the outright lies that this film presented as truth.

I mean, really? Corporations can and will do anything and not face legal penalties? Please.

[Narradisall]

The new one, with C. Bale?

He is. Digitally. For like 30 seconds. Get ready.

Yea, I'd read an article with him quoting they were going to add him in digitally for a scene (maybe). Im glad they've done it for pure amusement/awesomeness.

[Bingley Joe]

There's been a lot of work, yes. But I'm not seeing a lot of critical engagement in the curriculum you provided. There may be thought, but it is not critical thought: there is little attempt to say, "Is this true? Is this indictment of corporations correct? What alternatives does the film offer? Are those alternatives better or worse?"

Ummm... well no, you wouldn't see precisely that. For Pete's sake, man -- it's a curriculum! (And to be precise, it's actually just a curriculum correlation for the Province of Ontario, meaning it only indicates how the lessons in the Teacher Resource correlate to the broader provincial curricula)

No one is going to mandate that the entire province watch The Corporation and be graded on their analysis of it, and it would piss off an awful lot of people if they did. That sort of thing would be indicated in what's called a Course of Study, which in Ontario is set out on a school-by-school, class-by-class basis by individual teachers and principals.

But the curriculum correlation does indicate the broad range of subjects for which the film can play an [entirely optional] roll in learning. Not only that, but fully half of the 24 courses listed in that correlation actually require that students "demonstrate critical thinking skills" in their Specific Requirements (meaning that they will be graded on their ability to do so).

The rest of the courses Specifically Require some form of analysis that would simply be impossible (or at least ridiculously awkward even for teenagers) to conduct without drawing on some form of critical thought. So if a teacher chose to use the film as a learning aid at some point, then the students absolutely would be applying critical thought. I'm not really sure how someone as smart as you could possibly have missed any of that.

But never mind. Here are some snippets (just snippets, mind you) from the actual lesson suggestions at that site, which is where you would find questions like the ones you pose:

• After viewing The Corporation , ask students to identify issues that caused dispute between different people. Generate a class list of possible topics that might be suitable for a debate based on issues identified.

• Conduct debates, allowing for debriefing and class discussion after each. Some potential areas for debate might include (but certainly are not limited to):
- Labour practices in developing countries - while some argue that paying workers pennies a day to manufacture goods for export actually benefits developing countries and their citizens, others feel that this practice is unfair.

- Ownership of "commons'-some argue that natural resources such as water or air should be publicly-held (i.e., by governments and citizens), others argue that privatizing them (i.e., shifting ownership to private companies) will actually contribute more to their care and protection.

- Advertising to children - while some argue that advertising to children is taking advantage of their lack of cognitive development, others feel it is fair game to help them satisfy needs and wants.

• After viewing The Corporation , discuss the nature of ethics as a class. Be sure to discuss the difference between "ethical" and "legal" issues.You may wish to provide relevant pre-reading for students prior to viewing the film.

• Generate a list of ethical issues raised by the film. Issues might include (but are certainly not limited to):
- A stockbroker in the film said "in devastation, there is opportunity," and gave examples of the positive market outcomes of tragedies such as 9/11 and wars. Are there any implications for this attitude, or is it simply looking for the "silver lining"?

- What responsibility do corporations have to provide consumers with the risks associated with their products? What are their responsibilities for testing products? Is there a difference between what is legally required, and what is ethically required?

- Who should own "commons" such as natural resources and services for citizens (e.g., healthcare, police, education)? Who should make the decision about ownership? Is it the case that only those who own such commons can have an interest in maintaining them?

• Have each student select an ethical issue for analysis. Distribute BLM 1: Ethical Analysis Sheet to use as a guide. Consider using BLM 2: California Academic Press Holistic Critical Thinking Rubric to assess their responses. If it is to be used, it should be distributed and discussed before students begin the activity.

There are 5 in total (the one about stealth marketing is particularly interesting), but you'll have to read through them on your own time. Frankly, quoting all of this is already foolish enough, since it's quite clear that the students get ample opportunity to answer questions like the ones you suggest they should be.

So yes, the film can be used for stimulating critical thought, and can provide students with an entry point for engaging in debate on topics they might otherwise find completely uninteresting (lesson 4 specifically asks them to analyze whether or not the film's presentation was successful in doing so). No, they are not simply regurgitating The Corporation's party line.

[Ox]

Okay, I stand corrected.

[Bingley Joe]

YAY!! Now take back that thing you said about those adorable goats and the lime Jello