I used the word "carburation" in a garage a couple years ago, and the mechanic winced. In the age of digitally controlled fuel injection, you're not supposed to remind them of the bad old days.

At least the carburetor age seems to be over. Socialism keeps coming back.

Y'know, Amy, being an aging guy means trying not be cynical. But it's getting very hard to believe that Americans are ever going to have the clarity about creating wealth and value that they used to have. Why would they? In just about 8 months, Obama signed us up for about ten trillion in debt... For nuthin'... For yesterday's governance, an unremarkable set of federal services with zero promises for improved performance. And that's before health care reform.

Why would a kid entering the markets in these years, with a debt like that hanging overhead, ever think that life could go well for him? To say nothing of the burden of the government intrusions themselves. (Lustig's comments about the FDA in that video come to mind.)

Not that the Chinese will do that much better, or the Indians or anyone else. When America goes soft, humanity has no boner.

I remember a part in a Grisham book (can't recall which one, Street Lawyer perhaps) where a man armed with a gun, tax returns, and an agenda breaks into a law office; to reveal what little these fabulously wealthy men gave to charity as indicated on their tax returns. I'd love to see the Elite's tax returns, compare them to the average American's, or even the average Christian American's.

From Pam Meister over on BigHollywood:

Back in 2007, Americans gave just under $300 billion to charity, with individuals giving a combined 75.6 percent of the total, donating almost twice as much as the next most charitable nation, the UK . And those in the poorest income brackets donate more per capita than their wealthier counterparts. Was there a star-studded telethon that year (aside from the usual Jerry Lewis gig)? I can’t recall. But how strange that many celebs are reluctant to publicly declare how much cold cash they personally donate to a cause.

"When America goes soft, humanity has no boner."

Crid, I can honestly say that I've never, ever heard a metaphor like that one before.

Moore and his ilk are typical hypocrites: Do as I say, not as I do. They'll never give up any of their wealth to set an example. "No, no, that's okay, YOU go ahead."

They all make me ill.

> never, ever heard a metaphor like
> that one

Sorry. It was late at night and it didn't seem so obvious. But who does effective capitalism better than the United States? Again, not trying to be an old fuddy-duddy complaining about the kids today with their hats on backwards and their pants to low, but when Amy worries about socialism, she's right to.

How much money does a person have to give away in order to be considered non-hypocritical when it comes to helping the poor? If a person is creating lots of wealth and jobs for the poor, does it matter that s/he lives in a mansion while they live in apartments?

I'm not giving an opinion on Moore's viewpoints, I'm just sick of always hearing people bash other people for being rich. Being rich doesn't mean they can't have an opinion on helping the poor.

Sure Nicole, they can have an opinion on helping the poor, as long as they put their money where their mouths are, so to speak. When people like Moore spout stuff like this:
When you are in church this morning, please think about this. I am asking you to allow your "better angels" to come forward. And if you are among the millions of Americans who are struggling to make it from week to week, please know that I promise to do what I can to stop this evil -- and I hope you'll join me in not giving up until everyone has a seat at the table., I want to see Moore actually show up with his "better angels", and his checkbook. Otherwise, he's just another lying sack of shit. Seriously, where would he be if it weren't for the capitalism he says is so evil?

Is he dodging out of paying taxes, or is he not contributing to charity?

I guess the question is, what percentage of their income does a rich person have to be willing to part with?

Michael Moore is a parasite. He feeds off of capitalism while degrading it and attempting to kill it.

And like any parasite, he's completely incapable of realizing that when his host dies, he dies with it.

If he thinks socialism is so great, why doesn't he move to Cuba or North Korea?

Moore is using religion both as a vehicle to promote his tired old ideas and as an additional protective layer between his personal behavior and the tired old ideas. Every interview he does lately comes down to "I'm a Christian and if you disagree with me, you're not." I think people aren't quite as stupid as he seems to give them credit for.

NicoleK:

I guess the question is, what percentage of their income does a rich person have to be willing to part with?

Wrong question.

The question should be:

If a rich man wishes to lecture people on the importance of charity, how much must he give of his own free will to not be a hypocrite?

The general form is this:

If a man wishes to lecture people about X, then what should he do in support of his beliefs to show that he's genuinely interested and not an opportunistic parasite.

Every interview he does lately comes down to "I'm a Christian and if you disagree with me, you're not."

Which is gonna backfire on him with his left-wing compadres who are overwhelmingly atheistic, and most are of the militant faction.

Nicole:

I'm just sick of always hearing people bash other people for being rich.

Me too. That's why I can't stand Michael Moore, who has made a very successful career of it.

Jesus, Buddha, Pythagoras, and the Essenes all taught and practiced some form of communitarianism. But their "socialism" was voluntary and practiced in the context of spiritual communities. They also commanded the poor to minimize their needs, by pooling resources and particularly by avoiding procreation. This is glossed over and ignored in modern churches. Martin Larson's masterful "The Story of Christian Origins" lays it all out. The socialism of Moore and other "reformers", on the other hand, is enforced with tax liens, prison sentences and, ultimately, the bayonet. And government can always inflate the money supply or "hold down" interest rates whenever it feels it's not stealing enough through taxation.

Okay, I've searched and searched and can't find ANYWHERE where Jesus supposedly said that 'I am my brother's keeper'. Cain supposedly said it when asked where Abel was in Genesis. If anybody can find it, I'd be interested, just as mental exercise.

Regardless, whether is it Moore or whether it is Obama who using that quote, they are advocating socialism.

As you, Amy, and some of the other commentors point out, charity, in order to mean anything, has to be voluntary, not snatched from the hands of folks who both work hard and provide jobs for others.

Actually, Cain was asking "Am I my brother's keeper?" as in "Why should I care, he's not MY responsiblity."

The real irony in Amy's title is that it wasn't so long ago that Moore did in fact fancy himself as a carburetor expert... remember "Roger and Me"? I still recall a "report" that 60 Minutes did on that. They had a crew going around the Detroit area with Moore, accosting various car company execs and asking them if they knew how to change the oil on a car. They made the mistake of asking Lee Iacocca -- and he did it, on camera. Moore was speechless.

This nonsense about corporations paying no taxes. Here's a story - I used to work for a very large corporation that held some interesting real estate properties in its asset portfolio. These were "tax credit properties." The company would buy an apartment building that would be rented out to low-income people, and the company would get a huge tax credit.

The people renting the apartments would be paying below-cost rents, and frequently didn't take good care of the properties. No matter, the tax credit covered the defecit and the devaluation of the property that occurred because the residents were turning it into a slum.

What happened when the tax credits expired? The company started dumping the properties. But when you took their tax bill and deducted all those tax credits, they weren't paying squat for taxes either. And why? Because of a big government program designed to help the poor. Moore should really do a little more digging before he starts complaining about companies paying little to no taxes.

Moore should really do a little more digging before he starts complaining about companies paying little to no taxes.

That's almost like work. Party Kommisars don't work.

It is evil to take the majority of the pie and leave what's left for everyone to fight over.

The erroneous underlying assumption to that statement is that the size of the pie is absolute and that the whole thing is a zero sum game.

It conflates money and wealth.

And shows that for an ardent critic of (and beneficiary of) the capitalist system, Moore knows nothing about how it works.

And if you are among the millions of Americans who are struggling to make it from week to week, please know that I promise to do what I can to stop this evil....

So, where do I go to get in line for the redistribution of Moore's millions?

Seems to me that when your career is in the arts, you can't afford to assume you'll always be popular enough to be profitable. Cartoonist Aaron MacGruder (sp?) said as much in the long "New Yorker" article about him, a while back.

I DO know that Moore refused to go on one of the "Nation" cruises, out of sheer disgust.

Dang it Conan! I was just about to make that point--the fact that the "pie" being a limited, absolute construct--is a flawed premise that you'll hear over and over from the left. It's not a real pie, people....

But the issue of Jesus touting socialism--that's just crazy. He spoke of personal charity--taking care of the poor--no where did He ever endorse the government redistributing wealth among the people. The Bible's views on finances are anti-debt, responsibility, industry, and investment...I won't bore you all with the chapter/verse but it's all in there. To compare encouragement of charitable giving to everyone pouring their money into a common government pot for IT to decide who should get what is ludicrous.

Hey, Michael Moore, since you'd like to quote the Bible, maybe you'd like to read up on hypocrisy...

He would, but there's this mote in his eye...

And shows that for an ardent critic of (and beneficiary of) the capitalist system, Moore knows nothing about how it works.

Or of the irony of his stridently socialist movies (as the last two have been) that earn millions for him and his backers. He either lacks any real insight, or he's playing people - the ones who pay to view his movies at least - for fools. The disconnect is amazing. He'll use all the tools of modern capitalism to raise money for his films and then line his pockets... it's not like he's made the film, working at the director's guild's scale rate (I assume there is one like there is for actors), then set it up so that any profits after recouping the front money go to a charity, or to provide healthcare for poor, or good schooling for kids in East Memphis or something similarly noble. Or charging a sliding scale to see the movie so that those without pay less. Nope, he's pocketing that loot. Laughing all the way to the bank, I'd guess.

> How much money does a person
> have to give away in order to
> be considered non-hypocritical

I say, ask Judaism. The Jewish propensity for financial competence isn't just a stereotype. They've been thinking about this a few thousand years longer than anyone else.

Judaism says you tithe. As with so much ancient wisdom, we shouldn't assume there isn't a whole lot of thought behind that number. These faiths are indeed ancient, and might well have come to that percentage by sheer trial-and-error.

In any case, when judging my own charitability every year on December 26th, that's the standard I've used.

Also, I've cited this before... It's as strong an argument against socialism as you'll find. Obviously anything we do with our tax money to help each other is going to have to be common knowledge— When a government authority spends public money to help a particular party, it's called corruption. But as defined in that cite, real charity can often be an essentially silent, secret thing.

This is maybe the first time the magnitude and detail of a topic has scared me off of blubbering about it here in detail.

Short version: Socialism sucks donkey hose. It's immoral, and it doesn't work.
__________________

Last point, an important one: The fact that cuntly figures like Pelosi or Gore promise that they're using the money they take from us to do good things does not excuse us from cutting off a slice of our wealth to help those who we, as individuals, see to be in need.

Nope, he's pocketing that loot. Laughing all the way to the bank, I'd guess.

I read an interview with Moore in which he said that capitalism has done nothing for him. His reasoning for that statement was that he had to scrape and beg to get his first film made and Disney declined to distribute one of his later movies.

Yet nowhere in that interview (or anywhere else) did he say he had set up a fund with his own millions so that beginning directors won't have to scrape and beg to get their debut films made or eventually face the horrors of having one of many distribution companies decline to carry one of their films.

Capitalism has not only made Michael Moore rich, it has let him keep his money and decide how it gets used.

He freely chose to be selfish with his money. The system didn't force him to be that way.

What about the 10th Commandment? You know, "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, nor his wife, nor his donkey, nor ANYTHING that is thy neighbor's." That really ought to put the kibosh on the notion of Christian socialism.

Moore is at least as much of a biblical illiterate as an economic one. The Old & New Testaments are chock full of poor people who were damned by God because they were hateful & evil, and rich people who were blessed because they were loving & generous. If this fat parasite believed for one moment the religion he is using to prop up his bullshit, he would be trembling in fear of what awaits him on Judgment Day.

To elaborate what I said before: What Aaron McGruder said, in effect, was that if you're going to get into political battles, you have to get your money up.

And, since there are no guarantees in show business, it seems to me that goes double for BOTH McGruder and Moore. One has to save for the day when people stop paying to see your movies, after all, and movies can lose tons of money just as easily as not. But what if you want to keep fighting? Again, you'd need to save money for that.

And, last I heard, Moore's quite happy to create jobs when possible.

And, last I heard, Moore's quite happy to create jobs when possible.

Which doesn't make him any less of a douchebag.

His reasoning for that statement was that he had to scrape and beg to get his first film made...

Heh. Scraping to get by prior to success is perhaps the most oft-told story of capitalism. I think I recall what he's referring to. Moore made "Roger & Me" on a shoestring budget, then literally drove around the country with the reels to get it screened before finally getting some distribution.

This is how it's supposed to be. If you're an unknown documentary filmmaker creating a controversial film, of course it's going to be hard to get backing. But you bust your ass, persevere, and succeed. And now the man gets the Weinsteins to back his films. I'd say capitalism has done him just fine.

As I said previously, he's either utterly lacking in insight, or playing people for fools. A lean toward the latter.

this guy is prety typical of party members, I am not shocked at all. Do'ya believe that Fidel, or Chavez aren't rich? Putin? Moore is a soft Oligarch, participating in the creative wing. We have to vote with our feet for him, but there are many that will simply accept what he says and pay the money.

Ammusingly I've seen several calls for him to donate the procede of this movie to charity. If he actually believed in what he says.

The Chritian basis for giving is to give because you feel a need to. It has NOTHING to do with government.

So, Mikey? Get OFF my side.

Cousin Dave, that bit was from Moore's show TV Nation, and I believe it was the CEO of Ford, and not Iacocca, who successfully changed the oil. Since he was doing the show for NBC, he then challenged the CEO of General Electric to change a lightbulb.

Moore used to be...well, sane. Roger and Me made a series of good points - GM (and others) were maximising their profits, and leaving hard workers in the lurch. The film intended to show that the big companies stopped (or were stopping) caring about their employees. And the film worked.

TV Nation addressed a lot of valid points - excessive bank fees, racism in cab drivers, etc - all using satire and comedy. GREAT show, well worth seeking out.

At some point he became shrill and annoying, forgetting that in order to get your point across, you have to entertain first. He bought his own press, and thought he could change things directly. The message changed from "We should fix this" to "SHAME on you". According to him, Columbine happened because there were bullets at Wal-Mart, not because there were two very broken boys whose problems should have been recognized and gotten help. He put away the sniper rifle and pulled out the sawed-off shotgun, to pick an ironic metaphor.

Sicko and his new film simply go too far. There are LOTS of examples of capitalism gone haywire, so too flagrant damnfoolery in the heath care industry. But he takes it to the extreme (or is percieved to do) and makes it seem as if the entire process needs to be thrown out, baby and all.

He was on Opie and Anthony, and making very valid points. He made it clear that capitalism is a GREAT system, but things were getting out of hand. The people who we need in this country to invent "the next big thing" that we can then build here sell to other countries, and reverse the trade deficit are instead going into finance, wherer the money is. Scientists and great minds are inventing new inter-bank loan contracts and finding more ways to make money on the "float" between money going from your account to another. All things that people should be worried, even enraged about. But he's so positioned himself as a ragin' loony that the occasional valid points are ignored with the pompous platitudes.

I always like to say, there's nothing more annoying than a know-it-all who's occasionally right. Get that binary "all or nothing mindset out of your head, and understand that Moore's points sound wrong when you hear them at 11, but at about 5 or 6, they occasionally make sense.

I think what many of you are missing is that he's not saying the government should "steal" your money and redistribute it. He's saying that "we" should *WANT* to share it, because we're (supposedly) a bunch of Christians and that's what Jeebus would do. As far as I can see from his quote, he's not so much advocating that the government implement more taxes or whatever, so much as "we" should be voluntarily handing our money over so everyone is warm and comfy at night, with a nice nest egg for emergencies.

I happen to think Moore is a fraud, a liar, and a hypocrite, and I happen to be a capitalist. But to be fair, the point he's making isn't the one you're arguing. Of course, his "should" is even less likely to work than the one you ARE arguing...

Vinne writes: "Cousin Dave, that bit was from Moore's show TV Nation, and I believe it was the CEO of Ford, and not Iacocca, who successfully changed the oil. Since he was doing the show for NBC, he then challenged the CEO of General Electric to change a lightbulb.

Ah, okay. But wasn't Iacocca still at Ford then? Wasn't that back around 1975? Or was it later?

"Roger and Me made a series of good points - GM (and others) were maximising their profits, and leaving hard workers in the lurch. The film intended to show that the big companies stopped (or were stopping) caring about their employees. And the film worked."

Well, we know now that Moore only told one side of the story. I'll buy your contention if we modify it to state "GM (and others) were maximising their short term profits." But it's also true that the UAW was an active and willing participant in that. They were perfectly willing to sell out future members so that current and retired members could have more. They knew, or should have known, that the whole thing was economically unsustainable. There was a discussion over at The Truth About Cars about the origins of Saturn, and the fact that Saturn's original UAW work rules agreement was written entirely on a small card that fit in a shirt pocket. That came about because of a reformer who was in charge of the UAW's GM branch then. But it infuriated the old guard, and they forced him out of the union before Saturn actually went into production. (And I'll point out that Roger Smith was a big supporter of the Saturn concept. Odd, I know, but he was. He too was forced out of his position before Saturn started production.)

The real question on that sort of thing comes down to: are we going to have corporate paternalism or not? We had corporate paternalism back before WWII, and by all accounts, everyone hated it -- until it was gone. Then they got nostalgic for what was good about it. Now, we seem to have a situation where people want the benefits of corporate paternalism, without any of the obligations.

""we" should be voluntarily handing our money over so everyone is warm and comfy at night, with a nice nest egg for emergencies."

Key word VOLUNTARILY. Capitalism gives people the ability to voluntarily support charities of their own choosing. Corporations are large contributors to charities -- of their own choosing. Conservatives (fiscal) donate much more on average than liberals.

What people like Moore and the government and socialists don't like is that these capitalists don't donate to their stinky causes - so they MAKE them... So, it is like stealing.

By the way, regardless of how you feel about religion - Jesus was "anti-government" and anti religious establishment.

Moore's recent interviews (see his one with Wolf Blitzer) have been disasters. The man is a walking contradiction.

..."we" should be voluntarily handing our money over so everyone is warm and comfy at night, with a nice nest egg for emergencies.

Except that everyone won't be "warm and comfy at night, with a nice nest egg for emergencies." Everyone will be kept perpetually dependent.

Remember the words of Adrian Mole: "We are kept by the state in the style that the state wants to keep us, i.e., in poverty."

I missed the part where Moore interviews the boat people who escaped the horrors of US capitalism and made it safely to Cuba. They can share their stories about why the trip to socialism's paradise was worth it. It probably will be on the DVD.

Look at China. People there are happy? Why? What has happened there in the past 30 years? Expanded socialism? Less capitalism? I don't think so.

Moore is good at entertaining. But with every film he continues to lose credibility.

> I missed the part where Moore
> interviews the boat people who
> escaped the horrors of US
> capitalism and made it safely to
> Cuba.

LSJ comes through like a brother. (Sister, whatever.)

Wanna skip dinner tonight? Google images, enter "cuba hospital"

I think a typical socialist would say that left to its own devices the free market will fail to provide a social safety net for the losers of society(whatever the reason they are). However, since the state already taxes 50% of GDP(at all levels), how can we really know? I think they typically point to the early part of the Great Depression when Hoover wasn't willing to seriously expand the dole as a "market failure" to provide safety net.

A few years ago, Christopher Hitchens evicerated Moore - I couldn't find the link but it's buried somewhere in his web site (Hitchensweb.com). Sadly, he keeps coming back for more, and I eagerly await another swipe to two from the Hitch towards Moore.

Crid, enjoyed the fisticuffs in yesterday's blog about Steyn and the kangaroo court in Canada (even though it got off subject, in a way). Both Steyn and Paglia are my heros, and you are, too. Well done.

"He either lacks any real insight, or he's playing people - the ones who pay to view his movies at least - for fools. The disconnect is amazing."

The man's an outright liar - but the horror, for me, is that some accept his version of events at face value, no thinking allowed.

I found more evidence for the American public being schizophrenic last night - at a talk by Richard Dawkins.
During the Q&A session, a postgrad student claimed he had been ousted from a department at USC, "...because I'm an atheist and voted for Obama."
Maybe 500 of the 2500-or-so there actually applauded.

What?

Of the people who came to see the Professor, a large number celebrate the conjunction of "atheist" and "voted for Obama" - a man who spent 20 years at a church and minister he then disavowed, solely to seek office?

Even the good Professor's audience is highly confused!

> enjoyed the fisticuffs

Weak jokes, bad rhetoric and worse spelling... These are our tools.

"It is evil to take the majority of the pie and leave what's left for everyone to fight over."

True. That's why it is wrong for the government to control an increasing share of the economy and stifle economic growth, thereby turning society into a contest between competing interest groups fighting it out over dwindling resources.

I recall back in 2000 Moore wrote a column on why he was supporting Ralph Nader. Among other things, he criticized Democrats for throwing his sister (a single mother) off welfare and into work.

With all the money Moore makes, surely he could just write out a check to her for a half mil or so and she wouldn't have to worry about making a living. If I had the money Moore does, there is no way I would let anyone close to me struggle.

Eviscerated ... my bad.

"If I had the money Moore does, there is no way I would let anyone close to me struggle."

Sure you would - right after they threw away what you gave them. People who earn money keep it far more skillfully than those who are given money. This is counted on by every pol who buys votes with public money (along with the frightful absence of memory in the people (s)he exploits).

You have only to look at the dismal fate of lottery winners and some sports stars. You can be confused by awarded money.

If you won a big prize yourself, you'd immediately be judged by shallow people by how much you spent on them. Strangers would claim to be close friends. Your family and existing property would be at greater risk. All sorts of organizations would start begging right away, for "just a little" of your time and money.

Think this out.

Radwaste writes: "Sure you would - right after they threw away what you gave them. People who earn money keep it far more skillfully than those who are given money."

I know where you're going with that, Rad, and I totally agree on the face of it. But it's Moore's fellow travelers that keep telling the rest of us that we have an obligation to keep supporting the losers in spite of that. If the losers throw away the money we give them, then, well, we're supposed to give them some more. Else we're greedy capitalist racist homophobes who deserve to have our money be taken away by the government. We'd just like to see someone like Moore walk the walk, for a change.

P.S.: USA Today has an article about how the top 20% wealthiest Congressional districts are all represented by Democrats now. That's the problem with protection rackets: they usually work.

From what I've read, admittedly on fairly Moore-hostile sites, MM is not only a hypocrite, but hell to work for. He was fired from Mother Jones magazine for being autocratic and ignoring important deadlines; he sued them, settled out of court, and used the money he was awarded for "wrongful dismissal" to make Roger and Me.

He treats his employees, at least according to my information, like utter peons, all the while claiming to be the prophet of the proletariat. He makes a big fuss about being Catholic, while openly opposing a lot of Church teachings (abortion and divorce, to name two---I do not want to set off a firestorm on here about abortion, but I'd think that someone who makes such a point of being Catholic would keep his dissent on that subject quiet) and earning himself a reputation as a liar and hypocrite.

If his schtick didn't tickle the fancies of the limousine liberals and parlor Pinks that infest academia and the chattering classes, nobody'd ever have heard of him other than as a failed autoworker.

It seems to me that Michael Moore is screaming, LOUDLY, that he wants his career (such that it is) to be over.

PLEASE

I never knew about Mother Jones thing, though we'd been told that there were some inexcusable manipulations of the "documentary" materials and sequences in Roger & Me... (And every film since.)

Y'know, maybe it's not a deep psychological mechanism that he wants his career to be over, maybe he's just played out. What was that, 1991? People don't go to Demi Moore movies anymore, either.

It's not like he was first of new breed of similar talents. A couple years later we had Tarantino, and he has half a dozen clones.

How else did he divide up two loaves of bread and five pieces of fish equally amongst 5,000 people?

I'll tell you how he didn't do it. He didn't force everyone else at spearpoint to give up their food so he could redistribute it.