Saturday, March 5, 2011

HnC Vault: Moore or Less

Readers- Just a reminder that I'm now posting "golden oldies" on weekends, along with a brief word of current commentary from today's perspective. -Stilt

9/13/2009 - To the surprise of precisely no one, liberal darling Michael Moore has declared that his new documentary proves capitalism is "evil" and "you have to eliminate it." The movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story" is debuting in Venice, so that Mr. Moore's handlers will have access to enough water to frequently moisten his vast, wrinkly hide.

Update 3/5/11 - Michael Moore has just re-emerged from his watery seclusion to announce that Wisconsin isn't broke, and Washington isn't broke. There's PLENTY of money in rich people's pockets (and homes, and investments) but "
We’ve allowed them to take that. That’s not theirs, that’s a national resource, that’s ours."

In other words, if you've earned money, saved money, created a business, invested in business, or otherwise made any money...Michael Moore says you're a thief who has stolen from the common people. But where would Michael Moore get the ridiculous idea that anyone is entitled to the money in other people's pockets? We think it came from his lifetime of stealing the food off of other people's plates.


Jazz said...

And just how much as Michael Moore pocketed of other people's money with each of the so-called documentaries he has sold to a gullible public? Will he be turning that over for the "greater good of the people"?

John the Econ said...

And the ultimate irony?

Liberals/Socialists/Progressives/Communists like to portray "evil capitalists" as only interested in exploiting the poor & ignorant masses for their labor and wealth.

By those terms, Michael Moore is possibly the most evil capitalist of them all.

robert said...

You know, capitalism might be the oldest profession, next to prostitution of course. If you think about it, even millennia ago, if two people in a village set up two vegetable stands and the goods were of equal quality, the sales would go to the one with the lowest price, no? Is that not the essence of capitalism? If all hell broke loose and our society completely fell apart, the ones left would be trading coffee, cigarettes, food, ammo, stuff like that. I would call that capitalism. That is just the nature of human beings. Or am I completely off base?

StupidLiberal said...

He's a hypocritical pig that parrots good arguments but makes no attempt to resolve any of the issues he points out. It doesn't make for good film to show someone as a monstrous enemy, then try to humanize them.

Kind of like when chief fearmonger Bill O'Reilly tries to get his viewers to see the WI as violent thugs, by talking about them, and then showing video of union workers in a completely different state. That's just dishonest.

StupidLiberal said...


Thanks for the great link to Mediaite. They had this wonderful link about a completely non-violent, peaceful and totally legit Tea Party group protesting a fundraiser by a local Muslim group provide services for the homeless. It's particularly great when the mongoloid teabaggers scream at these Muslims to go home, especially when a lot of them are native born American citizens. Go Tea Party! You're not racist at all!

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

StupidLiberal- "Mongoloid?" This when you're arguing about showing sensitivity? Oh, that's right - your alleged president thinks it's funny to watch "mongoloids" try to bowl in the Special Olympics.

As far as the video goes, it's not pretty and some people seem to cross lines of good taste and good sense. But then again, where are the "lines" these days? Americans are confused when an Islamic radical shoots U.S. military people while shouting "Allahu Akbar" - but then our government (repeatedly) refuses to admit that Islamic radicalism could be the reason for the killings.

Couple that with the fact that a number of Islamic "charities" have been proven in courts to be funneling funds to terrorists. Not all charities, probably not even most - but enough that suspicion regarding such charities is well grounded in reality...not racism or paranoia. That's not the fault of concerned Americans - it's the fault of radical Muslims who abused our trust and good will in the past, and have unfortunately cast suspicion on their innocent brothers and sisters.

But let's consider this event "to provide services for the homeless." Among the speakers was a man accused (by a U.S. Attorney) of being a conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and another man who is vocal in his attacks on Israel and support of Hezbollah - a terrorist organization. So this wasn't exactly the church bake sale you're making it out to be.

Again, I don't support any excesses from the flag-waving demonstraters - but they're fearful and with some justification. They live in a world where the threats are real and those running our government refuse to acknowledge it when not actively covering it up. That's a scary combination.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

Robert- You're not off base. Commerce in one form or another is as natural (and vital) to humans as breathing.

Pete(Detroit) said...

Robert - I always find it amusing when the scare mongers start shouting 'the economy is collapsing, buy gold and silver!'
If I thought the economy was truly collapsing, I think 'precious metals' would quickly turn out to be brass and lead...
Precisely because, not only can bullets be traded for food, they can be converted into it..

Bobo said...

@ Robert - I agree, brass and lead are the precious metals of the future if things continue the way they are. Gold and silver can buy you everything AND get one killed. Brass and lead have been the commodity for eons that also will get you everything, including the gold and silver others possess. Unlike gold and silver brass and lead may also be the two things one has to keep themselves alive.

John the Econ said...

Robert: I don't get your point. People seeking the best value in exchange for their labors is called "efficiency". It is the basis in which we achieve any standard of living beyond subsistence.

camdon said...

I really do enjoy how people think Michael Moore is hypocritical by having people pay to see a movie he made. News flash: Moore needs film distributors to actually get his movie out to theaters so he can spread his word in the first place, and would you think they'd do that for free? Would the many multiplex theaters?

It's worth noting that Moore held some select free screenings of his movie to cities around the country hit hard by economic turmoil, including his hometown of Flint, Michigan.

I'm not a Michael Moore fan (or at least, I don't really hate him), but I think if you want to debate his logic and viewpoints, you might want to start off with rebuttals that aren't ignorant observations like "This film says money is bad but he wants money for film! LOL!"

Fat jokes are cool, though -- keep those rolling.

JustaJeepGuy said...

I can guarantee you that Moore is making money from his "crockumentaries". How else can he afford to live on the upper east side of Manhattan? So he held some "free" screenings for his film. Big deal. That's nothing but PR. The fact that he pimps for unions but does most of his work with Canadian people--NON-UNION people helps him out, too. Find the book "Do As I Say, Not As I Do: Profiles In Liberal Hypocrisy" for more on Moore.

camdon said...


Well, no duh, he makes money off of the movies. I never asserted that he didn't. My point was that if he wanted to be a successful filmmaker, he'd have to make money. Moore isn't the only person involved in producing his films. And his last two films: "Capitalism" and "Sicko" were produced by The Weinstein Company, an American company.

Moore's also released a film "Slacker Uprising" for free on the internet, and even promoted people viewing a pirated copy of "Sicko" on Google Video (this was before Google Video became just a new search engine for youtube and other smaller streaming video sites).

You misunderstood my reply, I believe. I'm not trying to defend Moore; I'm not really a big fan of his films (his documentaries are blatantly biased in presenting sources -- Moore himself has admitted this). What I'm saying is it's rather ignorant to discredit Moore just because of his movie criticizing capitalism because you had to pay to see it in a theater. And if you've actually seen the film, it's not that he is rejecting the entirety of capitalism, but rather the methods some use to exploit the 'lesser' people through capitalism. Frankly the film didn't really interest me too much since Moore provides little proposition to this conflict outside of saying, "Look at Europe! Aren't those countries awesome?!"

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

Camdon- Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we're all on the same side here. Or nearly.

It's not "ignorant to discredit Moore just because of his movie criticizing capitalism because you had to pay to see it in a theater." Because in your own posts, you acknowledge that for Moore to be successful and spread his message, he has to make money.

That's the whole argument in a nutshell: to excel and achieve great things, you need to earn money and spend money. Sometimes a lot of it. Millions for a movie? Yep.

That's not something the "lesser people" can afford to do... but it's the freedom to make the attempt (and sometimes succeed) that allows some people to break out of the "lesser people" category, and usually take quite a few people with them.

I'm not criticizing Moore for being successful or being a capitalist. I am calling him out for being a hypocrite when he says that the investment accounts of the wealthy are a "national resource" that should be raided.

JustaJeepGuy said...

Having to pay to see Moore's movies is the essence of capitalism. Maybe if Moore were charging just enough box-office for all involved in the production to break even, he might have an anti-capitalist leg on which to stand. MY point is, he's not taking a minimal piece of the movie's earnings and therefore is as capitalist as a Rockefeller, and therefore a capital-H Hypocrite.

I have to wonder how Moore would react when, after all the money of "the rich" is taken and "the poor" still demand more, they then want to take Moore's money. Is he going to try to tell "the poor" he's one of them while he cowers in his upper-east-side-Manhattan apartment?