Persistence of Vision

On June 28, the Fox News Channel featured MPI fellow Stuart Browning on Your World with Neal Cavuto, where he reacted to the media circus surrounding the release of Michael Moore's Sicko and discussed his own series of short films on single-payer health care.

Questioned by Cavuto, Browning acknowledged that patients in single-payer systems pay less than half of what Americans spend on private insurance -- but noted how these putative "savings" are offset by unacceptably long waiting lists and inferior treatment. Canadians can wait up to four years for othopedic surgery, he pointed out, while others in single-payer systems literally die waiting for "free" medical treatment: More than forty percent of cancer patients in the United Kingdom never see an oncologist. Browning cautions Americans to think long and hard about whether they want to inflict such a system upon themselves.

Click on the image above to see an archived webcast of Browning's Fox News appearance, and visit FreeMarketCure.com to view his compelling series of short films.

Michael Moore's Sicko isn't fooling people who know something about health care--and Stuart Browning's short films are proving to be an excellent antidote to Moore's cinematic effort to sway an important policy debate in the direction of socialized medicine. Film, as both Browning and Moore know, is the way to reach the masses; a movie about policy is far more likely to reach a wide audience than a white paper or even an op-ed, no matter how well-written and carefully argued the latter are. So it's nice to see MTV, one of our hippest, most youthful news and entertainment outlets, getting in on the act.

In a review of Sicko, Kurt Loder outlines the strengths and the shortcomings of Moore's film (which he concludes is "breathtakingly meretricious). He also directs readers who want the whole truth about single payer care to watch Browning's movies:

The problem with American health care, Moore argues, is that people are charged money to avail themselves of it. In other countries, like Canada, France and Britain, health systems are far superior — and they're free. He takes us to these countries to see a few clean, efficient hospitals, where treatment is quick and caring; and to meet a few doctors, who are delighted with their government-regulated salaries; and to listen to patients express their beaming happiness with a socialized health system. It sounds great. As one patient in a British hospital run by the country's National Health Service says, "No one pays. It's all on the NHS. It's not America."

That last statement is even truer than you'd know from watching "Sicko." In the case of Canada — which Moore, like many other political activists, holds up as a utopian ideal of benevolent health-care regulation — a very different picture is conveyed by a short 2005 documentary called "Dead Meat," by Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg. These two filmmakers talked to a number of Canadians of a kind that Moore's movie would have you believe don't exist:

A 52-year-old woman in Calgary recalls being in severe need of joint-replacement surgery after the cartilage in her knee wore out. She was put on a wait list and wound up waiting 16 months for the surgery. Her pain was so excruciating, she says, that she was prescribed large doses of Oxycontin, and soon became addicted. After finally getting her operation, she was put on another wait list — this time for drug rehab.

A man tells about his mother waiting two years for life-saving cancer surgery — and then twice having her surgical appointments canceled. She was still waiting when she died.

A man in critical need of neck surgery plays a voicemail message from a doctor he'd contacted: "As of today," she says, "it's a two-year wait-list to see me for an initial consultation." Later, when the man and his wife both needed hip-replacement surgery and grew exasperated after spending two years on a waiting list, they finally mortgaged their home and flew to Belgium to have the operations done there, with no more waiting.

Rick Baker, the owner of a Toronto company called Timely Medical Alternatives, specializes in transporting Canadians who don't want to wait for medical care to Buffalo, New York, two hours away, where they won't have to. Baker's business is apparently thriving.

And Dr. Brian Day, now the president of the Canadian Medical Association, muses about the bizarre distortions created by a law that prohibits Canadians from paying for even urgently-needed medical treatments, or from obtaining private health insurance. "It's legal to buy health insurance for your pets," Day says, "but illegal to buy health insurance for yourself." (Even more pointedly, Day was quoted in the Wall Street Journal this week as saying, "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years.")

Actually, this aspect of the Canadian health-care system is changing. In 2005, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled in favor of a man who had filed suit in Quebec over being kept on an interminable waiting list for treatment. In striking down the government health care monopoly in that province, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said, "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care." Now a similar suit has been filed in Ontario.

What's the problem with government health systems? Moore's movie doesn't ask that question, although it does unintentionally provide an answer. When governments attempt to regulate the balance between a limited supply of health care and an unlimited demand for it they're inevitably forced to ration treatment. This is certainly the situation in Britain. Writing in the Chicago Tribune this week, Helen Evans, a 20-year veteran of the country's National Health Service and now the director of a London-based group called Nurses for Reform, said that nearly 1 million Britons are currently on waiting lists for medical care — and another 200,000 are waiting to get on waiting lists. Evans also says the NHS cancels about 100,000 operations each year because of shortages of various sorts. Last March, the BBC reported on the results of a Healthcare Commission poll of 128,000 NHS workers: two thirds of them said they "would not be happy" to be patients in their own hospitals. James Christopher, the film critic of the Times of London, thinks he knows why. After marveling at Moore's rosy view of the British health care system in "Sicko," Christopher wrote, "What he hasn't done is lie in a corridor all night at the Royal Free [Hospital] watching his severed toe disintegrate in a plastic cup of melted ice. I have." Last month, the Associated Press reported that Gordon Brown — just installed this week as Britain's new prime minister — had promised to inaugurate "sweeping domestic reforms" to, among other things, "improve health care."

Browning's films on health care are available free at FreeMarketCure.com. Dead Meat, an earlier film that seeded much of Browning's current work, can be viewed here.

As debate heats up about Michael Moore's Sicko, a pattern is emerging. Commentators find Moore's portrayal of single-payer health care to be lacking (or, in the words of MTV's Kurt Loder, "breathtakingly meretricious")--and turn to another filmmaker for balance: MPI fellow Stuart Browning. Browning's short films on health care, available at FreeMarketCure.com, offer a crucial antidote to Moore's blinkered romance with the troubled health care systems in Canada, Cuba, and Britain--as critics such as MTV's Loder, Fox News's Neil Cavuto, and others have noted.

The latest in this distinguished line of policy analysts, critics, and pundits is National Review Online contributing editor Deroy Murdock:

Moore claims 50 million Americans lack health insurance. The Moving Picture Institute’s Stuart Browning challenges that oft-repeated “fact.” In a case of dueling documentaries, Browning’s nine-minute film, Uninsured in America, deconstructs the more common “45 million uninsured” soundbite and finds that 9 million of these people earn over $75,000 annually and can buy coverage but don’t. Some 18 million are healthy, 18-34-year-old “young invincibles” whose priorities exclude insurance.

“If I’m out eating, I want to eat good food,” Faye Chao, 26 and uninsured, told Browning. “There’ve been times I’ve been in New York, and I’m spending at least $800 a month just going out.”

These Americans also turn to local clinics for treatment when necessary.

For instance, Chandra Nalaani, 27 and uninsured, visited San Francisco’s Lyon-Martin Women’s Health Services.

“I got an annual exam,” Nalaani said. “They tested me for a bunch of things…In my case, because I wasn’t making much, it was free.”

Of the uninsured, 14 million fail to enroll in Medicaid and other low-income health programs for which they are eligible.

Even if these numbers somewhat overlap, Browning estimates that just eight million Americans chronically lack coverage. Moore’s 50-million-man standing army of the uninsured thus is a Potemkin force.

Last week, the annual Freedom Fest gathering was held in Las Vegas--and MPI was a major presence. The creation of Mark Skousen, Freedom Fest has, since 2002, convened the "best and the brightest" to discuss, debate, and celebrate liberty. Dedicated to "great books, great ideas, and great thinkers," the event is independent, non-partisan, egalitarian, and open to everyone.

MPI founder Thor Halvorssen delivered a talk as part of a panel on promoting freedom through film. Other panelists were Rollins College English professor Maurice O'Sullivan, IndieVest CEO and founder Wade Bradley, E Pluribus Unum Films program director Greg Rehmke, and Napoleon Dynamite assistant director Tim Skousen. Discussion centered on how film can be a more powerful medium than print for conveying ideas, ranging over crucial examples such as Blood Diamond. The panelists also delivered recommendations of their favorite films, which included Water, Once, and Apocalypto. The next day, Halvorssen delivered a talk entitled "Just Show It: Promoting Freedom Through Film."

MPI films were on center stage at Freedom Fest. A packed evening screening of Mine Your Own Business drew lots of questions and provided Halvorssen with an opportunity to offer free copies of the film to anyone willing to hold a "movie party" for their friends and associates. MPI also maintained a booth at Freedom Fest that featured trailers from MPI films shown on a 50 inch flat screen TV. The booth was well attended, and was so attractive that waiters and other people working the event frequently stole moments to watch the films being shown.

Check out MPI fellow Stuart Browning discussing single-payer health care, Sicko, and his own short films on the subject.

In late June, Mine Your Own Business enjoyed a remarkable national premiere in Ghana, running on prime time television on four consecutive nights. "Hopefully it will be seen by most of the population in this country where mining plays such a significant role in the economy," said filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney. "We are delighted at the already positive response we have had from people and the media."

In an interview with Philadelphia's Bulletin, MPI fellow and Indoctrinate U director Evan Coyne Maloney explains why the one-sidedness of our colleges and universities has implications for much more than the quality of higher ed:

"The repressive nature of many universities today is having a coercive effect on the country," Maloney told The Bulletin. "One of the reasons political discourse has deteriorated and is in the gutter is that you have people graduating from college without any idea how to engage in political debate."
Students haven't quieted down though, at least not the ones who are saying what administrators and professors want to hear. The problem, Maloney says, is that certain ideas are simply not stood for on many campuses.

[...]

Maloney stresses that there is absolutely no problem with students saying capitalism is bad. They have a constitutional right to speak freely and loudly. The problem, he says, is that many students who want to say capitalism is bad don't think anybody has a right to say it is good. In fact, they are trying to silence those who disagree with them, and they are succeeding.

While many have pegged Maloney "the conservative Michael Moore," he says his aims are not to play politics, even though academia's extreme politicization makes it hard not to.

"I am not calling for the university to be a place where everyone thinks like me," said Maloney, a self-described libertarian. "I don't think people need to change their opinions; they just need to respect people that don't share their ideas."

Since he worries college students might miss the lesson on political discourse, Maloney has some advice of his own.

"Don't assume that someone is stupid or evil just because they don't agree with you," he advises. "Start with the assumption that they came to their conclusions in good faith and argue with them from that point. Just respect that people have a right to think differently and think freely."

If everyone took his advice, Maloney wouldn't have much material for his documentary. But he would probably be glad for it.

Sign up to see it here -- and be a part of the grassroots movement to get this film shown in theaters across the country.

On June 26, James and Maureen Tusty's remarkable and moving film about Estonia's peaceful bid for independence, The Singing Revolution, made its Washington debut. The Singing Revolution is the most popular documentary film in Estonian history, and received a fifteen minute standing ovation when it premiered at the Black Nights Film Festival in Tallinn last December. But as wonderful as that is, the Tustys made the film for audiences that don't already know the story of Estonia's nonviolent revolution--and the film's debut in North America, with the support of MPI, marks a crucial moment in its fulfillment of its destiny.

The U.S.-Baltic Foundation, which co-sponsored the event with MPI, has the details:

Over 75 guests – including Congressional staff, other government officials and representatives of universities and NGO’s – attended the program which was co-sponsored by Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL) and Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL). USBF board members participating included Ambassador Ints Silins, Dom Repici, Maria Ogrydziak (Chair of USBF’s 2008 Gala) and Linas Kojelis (Acting Executive Director). Also participating were filmmakers Maureen Castle and Jim Tusty, producers of the documentary film (www.singingrevolution.com).

This is an amazing, yet little-known story. Many North Americans have forgotten intellectually, even though I am sure they remember residually, exactly what freedom means. That's not freedom with a capital "F". That's a small "f" freedom that appeals to Democrats, Republicans, the Left, the Right, Conservatives, and Liberals...the freedom to do what we each wish to do. We all take that for granted. We assume we can speak up. For Estonians under the Societ occupation, that was not possible without severe consequences, and only the bravest among them spoke up then.

The Singing Revolution takes place in Estonia, but is not really about Estonia. It is about humankind's unstoppable dream for individual freedom and and political self-determination. Even under the harshest conditions ... executions, deportations, arbitary arrests ... Estonians never lost the hope of reclaiming their independent nation. That hope was fulfilled when they played a critical, though little known, role in the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

The success that freedom brings to a society often is the very enemy of freedom. It is hard to stay focused on this precious gift when one has the ability to make a focus on one's family and improve life on any level that one wishes to measure success. We forget how important freedom is just like we forget how important oxygen is. We just breathe.

Mine Your Own Business, MPI's incendiary film about how radical environmentalists are trying to prevent the world's poorest people from improving their economic circumstances, continues to ride a long, strong wave. It's been making headlines for months, with coverage in Newsweek, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and a host of other print and television venues. Most recently, Kevin Vance of the Washington Times has turned his attention to the film:

"Mine Your Own Business," a film produced by New Bera Media in association with the New York-based Moving Picture Institute, exposes what it calls "the dark side of environmentalism."

In impoverished villages in Romania, Madagascar and Chile, filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney, both fellows of the MPI, encounter environmentalists who want to stop proposed mining projects. Many villagers who appear in the documentary say the mining projects would bring much-needed financial resources into their economically deprived regions.

Left-wing groups have called the film propaganda, noting that it received significant funding from Gabriel Resources, the company trying to begin mining operations in Rosia Montana. The filmmakers acknowledge the funding at the beginning of the film, saying they agreed to produce the film on the condition of complete editorial independence.

Rob Pfaltzgraff, executive director of the MPI, called it a "sign of transparency" that the film included information pertaining to its relationship with Gabriel Resources. "There was no editorial control whatsoever, and everyone who has met these filmmakers knows how stubbornly independent they are."

The documentary portrays environmental organizations as opponents of economic development that want to preserve what they call a quaint way of life where people drive horses rather than cars.

[...]

The MPI has dubbed the film into Spanish and is distributing it worldwide. Mr. Pfaltzgraff said the film exposes the hypocrisy of environmentalists.

"They want people with no cars, no indoor heating, no plumbing, while they themselves live in the creature comforts," he said. "These are people who think poor people are a cancer. Their thinking is responsible for keeping millions of people in Africa, Latin America and Asia mired in poverty and misery."

Few Americans know about the concept of "libel tourism" and fewer still understand the connection between that obscure legal activity and global terrorism. But they should.

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has penned an important editorial for the Washington Times:

One of the most potent weapons that global jihadists have to advance their cause is one of the least-remarked: censorship. And Rachel Ehrenfeld, founder and director of the American Center for Democracy, stands today as one of the primary targets of this tactic — and, by her ongoing resistance, one of the foremost defenders of the freedom of speech against encroaching attempts at legal intimidation that, if successful, will effectively silence the anti-jihad resistance.

Billionaire Saudi financier Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz sued Miss Ehrenfeld in the U.K. for libel: in her book, "Funding Evil," she wrote that he was involved in funding Hamas and al Qaeda. Mr. bin Mahfouz denied that he had knowingly given any money to either. Taking advantage of British libel laws that place the burden of proof on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, Mr. bin Mahfouz sued not in the United States, where Miss Ehrenfeld lives and published her book, but in Britain, where neither he nor Miss Ehrenfeld live and where his entire case depended upon a handful of copies sold in that country mostly through special orders from Amazon.com, and the appearance of one chapter of the book on the Internet, where it may have been read by British readers.

Britain's libel laws have given rise to the phenomenon of wealthy "libel tourists," who sue there on the slimmest British connection in order to ensure a favorable ruling. Mr. bin Mahfouz had the good fortune of having the case heard by Judge David Eady, who has a long history of strange rulings in libel cases — rulings that generally ran in favor of censorship and against free speech. In connection with another of these rulings in May 2007, British journalist Stephen Glover wrote: "Mr Justice Eady is beginning to worry me. Is he a friend of a free Press? There are good reasons to believe that he isn't."

In May 2005 Justice Eady ruled that Miss Ehrenfeld must apologize to Mr. bin Mahfouz and pay over $225,000. This fine remains uncollected, and Miss Ehrenfeld sees no reason to apologize. Now she cannot travel to Britain, and her writing and research work has of course been banned there — thus preventing important information from reaching the public.

Spencer calls for "open and thorough investigation, unhindered by legal intimidation" to determine whether "Saudis or others who have indeed supported the global jihad are able cover their tracks using British libel laws to silence investigators."

He's right. And to that we would add a recommendation to see MPI's upcoming film, The Libel Tourist. A hard-hitting documentary about Ehrenfeld's experience, this timely film will be key to the crucial work of educating the public about this pressing and unresolved issue.

411Mania interviews Indoctrinate U director Evan Coyne Maloney, and the result is some very sharp commentary on education, film, and American public culture:

411: How would you categorize yourself politically? Is this a "conservative" film?

ECM: All political labels are inaccurate to a certain degree, but I would describe myself as a libertarian. I favor limited government, minimal taxation, free markets, and a strong defense. I am what some call a classical liberal.

As for Indoctrinate U, it is definitely a film that presents my own view of academia, but that view is informed by a number of verifiable facts. The evidence we present in the film is publicly available for all to see.

And I think regardless of whether someone agrees with my own personal political philosophy, they can agree with the premise of the film: that free speech and free thought are important ideals and should be respected on campus. You can't have a true marketplace of the mind--which is what higher education is supposed to be--if expressing certain views can lead to your academic career being ruined.

Free speech and free thought are not partisan values. They are American values.

411: Considering this is a documentary, what are your thoughts in regards to the current state of documentary films with the rise to stardom of filmmakers such as Michael Moore and Robert Greenwald, who have been accused in the past of being one-sided or sensational with their films? Do you consider Indoctrinate U to be a "fair" documentary?

ECM: I don't have a problem with Michael Moore and Robert Greenwald putting out one-sided documentaries. They are partisans, and they are open about it. Because they tell us where they stand, we have the ability to judge what they say in light of knowing where they're coming from.

That's just a reflection of a changing media environment. I think people recognize that the old media notion of "objectivity" isn't really possible. For years, the old media has been telling us they're objective, and time and time again, evidence comes out that proves that they're not. Every person has his or her own way of looking at the world, and that perspective will shape how they see the world and how they describe what they see to others.

I think it is more honest to admit that you have opinions than it is to pretend that you don't. I'll trust someone who tells me where they're coming from much sooner than I will someone who says, "I'm a journalist, I'm objective, and bias never enters into my reporting." It just isn't possible. Besides, if someone spends years working on a documentary film and has absolutely no opinions on the topic they're covering, they're either lying or brain dead.

Of course, one can still present their own views while being fair. If the facts of a film are correct, if there's no deliberate attempt to deceive, if important details are not left out to try to sway the viewer away from the truth, then I think a film can be fair while still presenting a particular point of view.

That's how I see Indoctrinate U. I have a particular view of academia, but that view is informed by an awful lot of evidence. I present that evidence along with my view in the film. People may look at the evidence I present and still come to a different conclusion than I have. Is that fair? To me it is, because by being up front about my opinions, I'm disclosing my own personal biases to the viewer. And the viewer can evaluate what I say in light of that.

Sign up to see the film--and do your bit to effect change--at IndoctrinateU.com.

Al Gore's singularly one-sided An Inconvenient Truth is making its way into schools, and in some areas is required viewing for students. To combat the wrong-headedness of teachers and school boards who think Gore's story is the only story to tell about the environment--and to encourage educators to provide students with a more rounded understanding of the issues than a single partisan film can offer--MPI has partnered with Demand Debate, a non-profit that "educates and empowers parents and students about bias in environmental education."

Demand Debate focuses on two aspects of environmentalism: the debate about climate change, and the debate about development, global poverty, and sustainability. And Mine Your Own Business is central to DD's educational project. "While many people are aware that the world’s poor desperately need economic development," the site notes, "few realize that a major obstacle to overcoming global poverty is the anti-development and anti-human environmental movement that camouflages itself under ubiquitous 'Earth-friendly' shades of green":

This lack of awareness is no accident. It's come about through a "See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil" syndrome, where 'evil' refers to the many ills of the modern environmental movement. Consider the example of the new documentary, "Mine Your Own Business: The Dark Side of Environmentalism."

--See no evil. Greenpeace and 80 other environmental groups tried to block Mine Your Own Business from being shown in Washington, D.C. and in Romania, where much of the documentary was filmed.

--Hear no evil. Although the World Bank agreed to a limited screening of Mine Your Own Business, the filmmakers had to promise that they would not tell anyone that the bank showed the film, the bank reneged on an agreement to distribute the film to local schools, and bank employees were not allowed to discuss the film.

--Speak no evil. While consumer products giant Procter & Gamble agreed to a limited distribution of Mine Your Own business to its employees, the company refused to make a public statement to the effect that the it is important to hear alternative viewpoints on environmental topics.

The combination of intimidating environmentalists and intimidated organizations has resulted in a tragic absence of debate about the environmental monkey on the backs of the world’s poor.

Until we can at least talk about what environmental policies may be doing to developing nations — let alone debate these policies — we will have little hope of changing the lamentable state of affairs that has blocked life-saving economic development.

Last spring, MPI completed a Spanish-language version of Mine Your Own Business and entered into negotiations to bring the film to audiences in Ecuador, El Salvador, Peru, and Chile. Now the fruits of that labor are showing--and so is Ocupate de lo Tuyo. Starting next week, Ecuador's Televisión Catolica de Los Encuentros will broadcast the film on three dates: Monday, July 30, at 7:30 PM; Saturday, August 11, at 12:30 PM; and Friday, August 17, at 7 PM. The film is of special interest to Latin American audiences, featuring as it does a revealing and resonant segment about how global environmentalists are working to prevent a gold mine from opening in the Andes--despite the fact that the mine will be conducted in a sustainable manner, that it will create thousands of jobs and bring much-needed income to the area, and that the people affected are overwhelmingly in favor of the mine. Las mentiras tienen las patas cortas.

MPI encourages everyone to take part in the important grassroots work of promoting freedom through film. And one of the best ways to spread the word about MPI's films--and about the important issues they raise--is to host showings in your community. That's what computer programmer and novelist John J. Enright did last weekend; Enright was moved to host a showing after his wife returned from Freedom Fest raving about Mine Your Own Business.

It sounds like the event went very well:

We had a good crowd for the Mine Your Own Business DVD-viewing party. People enjoyed watching it and it generated a lot of discussion.

My favorite line was from some British academic. He said that progressives have stopped believing in progress.

I stopped and thought about that one. Like most broad generalizations of big ideological movements, it's easy to find exceptions. But it's true that Progress with a capital P is no longer the ideal it once was in liberal circles.

Move forward with a will.
Forget about standing still.

Try stopping in your tracks,
And you'll soon start drifting back.

Last winter, when Mine Your Own Business came to Washington, Greenpeace joined with 80 other environmental NGOs to try to prevent the film from being shown. Deeply offended that the National Geographic Society had allowed MPI to book its auditorium for the screening, Greenpeace spearheaded the effort to try to shame National Geographic into cancelling the event--and so effectively announced that as an organization it favors suppression of views that don't tally with its own. To National Geographic's credit, the screening went ahead as planned, and audience members were able to see the film and decide for themselves what they thought about its criticisms of the environmental movement.

Now, in an interesting twist, Greenpeace is announcing its own entry into the movies:

Amidst the proliferation of greenhorn green groups clamoring for attention, one of the environmental movement’s oldest and most powerful players, Greenpeace, almost seems to have been left out of the media shuffle.
But the 36-year-old org is learning how to move with the times, establishing a creative arm, Greenpeace Works, and aligning with Golden Globe and Grammy-winning songwriter and producer Dave Stewart (perhaps best known as Annie Lennox’s other half in Eurythmics) and his Weapons of Mass Entertainment venture to produce music and feature films.

"The bottom line is that these film and music productions are dealing in the big world,"says Greenpeace Works creative director Mark Warford, who stresses that the projects will move beyond straightforward environmental advocacy. "We want to put a really big story out to a really big audience.”

Grenpeace Works' still-untitled inaugural feature – for which they are in negotiations with a major indie – will film in the Amazon, telling the story of Dorothy Stang, an American-born nun whose outspoken opposition to Brazilian deforestation lead to her murder in 2005.

Nearly 24,000 people have signed up to see Indoctrinate U so far--and seven cities have surpassed the magical 500 sign-ups mark. They are: New York (961), Washington D.C. (821), Minneapolis/St. Paul (723), Los Angeles (626), Denver (573), Chicago (554), and San Jose (507). Thanks to the effort and interest of the people living in these areas, the film will be coming soon to theaters near them. Following hard on their metropolitan heels are Seattle (461), Cambridge, MA (444), and Atlanta (426).

So it looks as though Indoctrinate U will be going on tour soon -- but in the meantime, you can watch snippets that didn't quite make the final cut. Here's one about Evan Coyne Maloney's adventures filming at Columbia University--where the students were charming, the police were enforcing, and the administrators were unforthcoming.