Michael Moore [Archive] - MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

Cliarlaoch

03-24-2003, 10:04 AM

Some may disagree with him, some may agree with him, but the guy's pretty good at stirring the pot. So I figured, what with all the controversy over Iraq and what'snot, I'd post a letter from Michael Moore to Bush. Granted, it was a bit late (since it was written in the days right before the US went to war), but it's still pretty good. NOTE: This is meant in good taste, not bashing... okay, possibly Bush bashing, but then, the French get bashed here, too, so... fair's fair. :P Anyway, not trying to bash, just trying to present alternative views on the world. Plus, it's funny. Keep in mind, Moore's an American, from Michigan.

(PS: Would have posted just the site, but the server's wonky)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
March 17, 2003

George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC

Dear Governor Bush:

So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and
the rest of world have to show their cards on the table." I'm glad to hear
that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived
440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much
more. So I'm glad to hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few truths
I would like to share with you:

1. There is virtually no one in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News
aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the
White House and on to any street in America and try to find five people who
are passionate about wanting to kill Iraqis. You won't find them! Why?
'Cause no Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even
threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average Americans think: If a
certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then, believe
it or not, we don't want to kill him! Funny how that works!

2. The majority of Americans Ð the ones who never elected you Ð are not
fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are
that affect our daily lives Ð and none of them begin with I or end in Q.
Here's what threatens us: Two and a half million jobs lost since you took
office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their
retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars Ð
the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away.
Only you need to go away for things to improve.

3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a
popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr.
Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.

4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a Sin. The Pope! But even
worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it have
to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of
course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just like when you
went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.

5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only one (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota)
has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to
stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right
now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every
member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids
for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't think so? Well, hey,
guess what Ð we don't think so either!

6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal screw-ups. Yes,
some of them can be pretty damn annoying. But have you forgotten we wouldn't
even have this country known as America if it weren't for the French? That
it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it for us? That our
greatest thinkers and founding fathers Ð Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin,
etc. Ð spent many years in Paris where they refined the concepts that lead
to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution? That it was France
who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and
a pair of French brothers who invented the movies? And now they are doing
what only a good friend can do Ð tell you the truth about yourself,
straight, no b.s. Quit pissing on the French and thank them for getting it
right for once. You know, you really should have traveled more (like once)
before you took over. Your ignorance of the world has not only made you look
stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can't get out of.

Well, cheer up Ð there is good news. If you do go through with this war,
more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a
lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam Hussein.
After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls
as everyone loves a winner Ð and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin'
every now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). So try
your best to ride this victory all the way to next year's election. Of
course, that's still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a good
hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet!

But, hey, who knows Ð maybe you'll find Osama a few days before the
election! See, start thinking like that! Keep hope alive! Kill Iraqis Ð they
got our oil!!

Yours,

Michael Moore

www.michaelmoore.com

Elfan

03-24-2003, 03:44 PM

Mr. Moore is just a stupid white man ;-)

Seig

03-24-2003, 03:50 PM

The not so silent minority heard from again.....
He is also more than slightly misinformed, but I am not going to debate history or politics on this board.

Rich Parsons

03-24-2003, 04:04 PM

The only thing about Roger and Me that was correct was the Rabbit Lady. :(

The rest was just grand standing for his own ego.

Yet, as everyone else does it, I guess why not him also. :rolleyes: :shrug:

Cliarlaoch

03-24-2003, 04:07 PM

Fair enough, Seig. Just presenting the view of said minority! :)

sweeper

03-24-2003, 07:21 PM

though I do think some of the points about france were worh noting, it wasn't realy untill the second world war that they became "push overs". Though I don't think france is apposed to it for the stated reason, and I don't think americans and french are as close as he states, I mean even when clinton went over there not alot got done (what was it he said? something like "well we agreed that some time way back when both of our ancestors came out of africa" ?)

GouRonin

03-24-2003, 08:00 PM

The UN Geneva convention says that no war can be sanctioned unless there has been an attack on someone first. Like in desert storm when they went into Kuwait. But the same UN didn't do anything when they should have because SH didn't do what he was told. Bush wants to go in and I tell you, a lot of people do. Maybe he jumped the gun, maybe he felt he couldn't wait.

As the kids of South park say...

"Dude, this is pretty %$#@ed up right here."

Cliarlaoch

03-24-2003, 08:42 PM

"It's pretty muddled."

Yeah... I'll say, Gou. At the risk of sounding bitter, cynical, and/or smugly egotistical (in other words, my usual self)...

Ain't it always?

Alright, here's the plan to solve that. I'll arbitrarily declare myself a sovereign state, then attack Kitchener in a blatant display of anti-social behaviour. That way, the US can have its war, the UN can have its happy consensus, and I can get the royal *** kicking I de---wait, no that'll never work. The US would never buy it, and the UN would probably think I had a right to self-determination. Darn. Okay, anybody else got any plans?

(If any of said plans involve the words "Nuke 'em all" or similar slogans involving appropriately bleeped out 4-letter words, you'll be heartily congratulated).

And yes, I AM hijacking my own thread. Feel free to ignore me.

Dennis_Mahon

03-25-2003, 11:51 PM

4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a Sin. The Pope!

Which is a blatant lie; the Pope said that the War did not, in his opinion, meet the criteria for a Just War. He didn't say it was a sin, nor does he have the authority to do so.

Besides, why would a racist Leninist like Moore care what the Pope thinks?

Cliarlaoch

03-26-2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Dennis_Mahon

Besides, why would a racist Leninist like Moore care what the Pope thinks?

Actually, he's not a Leninist or a racist. He's left, sure, but he's not either of those things. And if anything he was exagerating. I don't deny that the man does THAT far too much. But he's no bigot.

Also, his family is Catholic, and he's an NRA member. Not exactly prime Leninism, there.
:rolleyes:

GouRonin

03-26-2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Cliarlaoch
4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a Sin. The Pope!

The Pope also said making love outside of marriage is now ok as long as it's with someone you love.

I guess I can jerk off to my heart's content now and not be worried I'm going to hell.
:rolleyes:

theletch1

03-26-2003, 11:40 AM

I guess I can jerk off to my heart's content now and not be worried I'm going to hell.

Nope, just to the optometrist!!!:D

Cliarlaoch

03-26-2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by GouRonin
The Pope also said making love outside of marriage is now ok as long as it's with someone you love.

I guess I can jerk off to my heart's content now and not be worried I'm going to hell.
:rolleyes:

AAAAAAAGH!

Yes, folks, that was the death rattle of a virgin overactive imagination.

Dennis_Mahon

03-27-2003, 02:18 AM

Actually, he's not a Leninist or a racist. He's left, sure, but he's not either of those things. And if anything he was exagerating. I don't deny that the man does THAT far too much. But he's no bigot.

Well, for a guy who entitle a book as Stupid White Men..., and has a chapter called "Kill ******", he must have some issues with race.
A friend and his wife were at a book signing in London last year, and relayed to me that Moore had made some graphic remarks concerning the violent tendencies of blacks, culminating with the comment: "If there had been any black guys on those flights, we wouldn't have had 9/11". Saying that blacks are inherently violent counts as racist in my book.

As for his political leanings, well, he might not be a Leninist, but he's not that far off.

The Pope also said making love outside of marriage is now ok as long as it's with someone you love.

:rolleyes: You've stop taking your meds again, haven't you, Gou?

Dennis_Mahon

03-27-2003, 02:20 AM

Well, for a guy who entitle a book as Stupid White Men..., and has a chapter called "Kill ******",

Huh. Didn't know that was a banned word.

My apologies to the moderators.

Cliarlaoch

03-28-2003, 11:47 AM

The Chapter was Kill ******. How is that a banned word? His commentary was also on the problems with white culture's prejudices against black people. Maybe I'm wrong here, but he's also a satirist, making FUN of the stereotypical view of African-Americans and others, and pointing out that's its no better than the Jim Crow laws and the more flagrant stereotypes before the Civil Rights Movement "officially" ended them.

Cliarlaoch

03-28-2003, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Cliarlaoch
The Chapter was Kill ******.

Apologies to the Mods. Apparently it REALLY IS a banned word. Sorry about that. :(

rmcrobertson

03-28-2003, 03:53 PM

Why's it racist, exactly, to point out a few unpleasant facts about American history and contemporary society? I live in SoCal, right on the edge of Orange County---home of the John Birch Society, the Saucerians, and a few other little interesting nut groups. Much more to the point, the power structure in this country since 1776 has been run by and for white guys--sure, I'm aware of claims otherwise ("since affirmative action, a white man can't even...." yadda, yadda, yadda), and they're more expressive of class resentment than anything else.

Michael Moore--and I have no doubt he's pretty good at self-promotion--is about the only guy you hear of, at this point, who speaks up for working people. I guess if you do that, it's embarassing enough that all sorts of folks have to accuse you of, "starting a class war," or, "being a racist," or something equally silly.

Oh well. I liked Peter O'Toole's speech better, anyway.

Cliarlaoch

03-29-2003, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

Oh well. I liked Peter O'Toole's speech better, anyway.

Why, what did he say? I didn't actually watch the Oscars... mainly because I knew Chicago was going to win when we all know (or maybe just me) that the Lord of the Rings deserved it. Bah. Hollywood.

jazkiljok

03-29-2003, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Why's it racist, exactly, to point out a few unpleasant facts about American history and contemporary society? I live in SoCal, right on the edge of Orange County---home of the John Birch Society, the Saucerians, and a few other little interesting nut groups. Much more to the point, the power structure in this country since 1776 has been run by and for white guys--sure, I'm aware of claims otherwise ("since affirmative action, a white man can't even...." yadda, yadda, yadda), and they're more expressive of class resentment than anything else.

Michael Moore--and I have no doubt he's pretty good at self-promotion--is about the only guy you hear of, at this point, who speaks up for working people. I guess if you do that, it's embarassing enough that all sorts of folks have to accuse you of, "starting a class war," or, "being a racist," or something equally silly.

Oh well. I liked Peter O'Toole's speech better, anyway.

Well, yes-- let entertainers do their jobs and entertain as Peter O'Toole is well aware but Moore is one of those hybrid celebrity personalities who combine social criticism with their ability to provoke a laugh (like say Harry Shearer, Arianna Huffington, and everyone's fav, Bill Maher).

the Hollywood annual self adminstered BJ otherwise known as the Oscars (sorry admins--) is a pathetic near cosmic banality that deserves little time or consideration but Moore's speech was certainly more entertaining than O'Toole's "hey, i know my place..." speech.

we do risk living our lives as if it's a fictious world-- everyday we go out and ignore the realities we face. we get by as thousands die and no one ever asks how that Nike shoe made its way to our feet.

peace.

peace.

GouRonin

03-30-2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by jazkiljok
the Hollywood annual self adminstered BJ otherwise known as the Oscars

They do it for the exact same reasons that dogs lick themselves...

...because they can.
:rolleyes:

D_Brady

03-30-2003, 02:49 PM

He did what he ment to do, before that alot of people had heard of him, after that everyone has .

Don Roley

03-31-2003, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Cliarlaoch
Actually, he's not a Leninist or a racist.

Does one have to be a racist to be a facist? Because he seems to fit everything else in that description.

A few years ago, just after he had finished writing "Downsize This!" I caught an interview with him on American television. I normally watch Jerry Springer on my trips back to the US to reming me why I want to stay in Japan, but in this case- he really fit the bill.

In this program, he reminded the audience that factory owners only had one vote, and that everyone else in the community had one vote each. He then proposed that the community pass laws saying tha factory owners could not downsize their work force while they were showing profit- which got a round of applause from the good volk attending the meeting.

This seems to fit the meaning of fascism as I understand it. They allow the fiction of private ownership as long as the owners of the means of production follow the micromanagement of the goverment. In the case of a democracy, this means that as long as a majority approve it, then the person who has responsibility for a factory can not run it as he pleases.

So as I see it, Mike Moore is a fascist.

Any disagreement?

jeffkyle

03-31-2003, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by GouRonin
The Pope also said making love outside of marriage is now ok as long as it's with someone you love.

I guess I can jerk off to my heart's content now and not be worried I'm going to hell.
:rolleyes:

I am glad i wasn't drinking milk...or I would have spilt it all over my keyboard. LOL! :rofl:

Cliarlaoch

03-31-2003, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Don Roley
Does one have to be a racist to be a facist? Because he seems to fit everything else in that description.

A few years ago, just after he had finished writing "Downsize This!" I caught an interview with him on American television. I normally watch Jerry Springer on my trips back to the US to reming me why I want to stay in Japan, but in this case- he really fit the bill.

In this program, he reminded the audience that factory owners only had one vote, and that everyone else in the community had one vote each. He then proposed that the community pass laws saying tha factory owners could not downsize their work force while they were showing profit- which got a round of applause from the good volk attending the meeting.

This seems to fit the meaning of fascism as I understand it. They allow the fiction of private ownership as long as the owners of the means of production follow the micromanagement of the goverment. In the case of a democracy, this means that as long as a majority approve it, then the person who has responsibility for a factory can not run it as he pleases.

So as I see it, Mike Moore is a fascist.

Any disagreement?

Yes, I disagree.

1) Let me get this straight, he wants the government to prevent the corporation from laying people off when they start losing money. Sounds more like leftist social democracy to me, man. Or Keynesianism, if you prefer, where you maintain jobs in order to make sure that people have money to BUY YOUR STUFF. This creates demand, and this keeps the economy alive, not to mention that it gives the company some ready-made customers. Again, this is leftist ideology, or more Keynesian-style right-wing economics.

2) Illusion of private ownership? He wants to let the people decide how to run their own lives and their own jobs, for once. They DO have a majority. The white-collar guys don't. So they outnumber the executives. That's old-fashioned direct democracy, not fascism. He's encouraging people to VOTE, not just let the elites run things. Fascism is controlled by an elite cadre, that dictates all life and activities in the society. The workers would have no say, there, while the managers would have it all. He wants the people to start voting for leftist or alternative parties that would take power OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE ELITES. That's the exact opposite of fascism!

I understand where you're coming from, but you've confused the arguments, I think. He's presenting alternatives to the system, not fascism.

Don Roley

04-01-2003, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by Cliarlaoch
Sounds more like leftist social democracy to me, man. Or Keynesianism, if you prefer, where you maintain jobs in order to make sure that people have money to BUY YOUR STUFF.

Hmm, I would say it is a bit more like Stalinism than merely "leftist." The factory owner can not run his buisiness as he likes. It has to be run by the goverment. Both Fascism and communism disregard the idea of private property, the difference is that communism claims that the means of production will be run by the people. While Fascism states that the means of production has to be run for the good of the people.

And the idea that the people can get together and make the rich pay for what they want has made this a very popular form of politics. Greed and envy keeps collectivism alive and kicking, even after all the countries that it has destroyed stare us in the face.

And Mike Moore is just one of the new breed taking advantage of the greed and envy of so many people to advance himself. I still think that his version of leting the goverment run a factory instead of the person who owns it (even if it is backed by the excuse of an electionof greedy people) is closer to fascism rather than Leninism- but in either case it is a form of collectivism and use of force on others.

rmcrobertson

04-01-2003, 02:51 PM

Who really owns a factory? Who owns nature? The deal-maker? I think not.

More to the point, I continue to be fascinated by the ideological contradictions that these discussion bring out.

brianhunter

04-02-2003, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Don Roley

This seems to fit the meaning of fascism as I understand it. They allow the fiction of private ownership as long as the owners of the means of production follow the micromanagement of the goverment. In the case of a democracy, this means that as long as a majority approve it, then the person who has responsibility for a factory can not run it as he pleases.

So as I see it, Mike Moore is a fascist.

Any disagreement?

Thats the problem with democracy, our country is supposed to be a republic, Democracy at its finest is ruled by the angry masses, at its worse utter chaos. (cant remember who said that).

If you think its not a republic say your pledge...with or without God, it still says "and to the republic".

Cliarlaoch

04-04-2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by brianhunter
Thats the problem with democracy, our country is supposed to be a republic, Democracy at its finest is ruled by the angry masses, at its worse utter chaos. (cant remember who said that).

If you think its not a republic say your pledge...with or without God, it still says "and to the republic".

Good point, I'll admit. Pity. Let's just hope the ol' Republic doesn't become an Empire like a previous one that ruled Italy for so many centuries.

I doubt that will happen... but I'm still allowed to be afraid.

And what's wrong with the angry masses running the show? I like angry masses. Would you prefer depressed masses? Then instead of having the workers run everything, they'd just give up and let everyone rule over them out of despair.

On a serious note, however, Machiavelli once wrote that the greatest strenght of Rome was its conflict between the Senators, the Patricians (the elites/nobles of Rome), and the Plebians (the commoners). This was because they would each fight to advance their own goals; the Senators fought for order, the nobles for power, and the plebes for freedom. The conflict between the groups was what Machiavelli believed drove Roman society to greatness. Its dynamism caused it to become one of the greatest powers on the earth. Its fall occurred when that dynamism and the conflict that caused it stopped.

Why do I say this? Because America is almost exactly like Rome. The conflict is now between polticians, economic elites, and proletariats, instead of senators, patricians and plebes. .

One of America's greatest strengths was and remains the conflict between the classes that make up its social structure. As each group fights for its interests, whether control, wealth, or freedoms, you get the result in the Amendments to the Constitution, the laws that get passed, etc. But part of the problem now is that some sides are getting too much say. The economic elites have a hand in everything in government, and often, they become the rulers of the country. Is that bad? Maybe not. But it does prevent the republic from fully functioning, in that it may not be fully responsive to the will of the people. Take out the will of the people, and you lose an important part of the dynamic of American society. You lose the desire for freedom, and replace it with the desire for wealth of the elites, or for power of the politicians. What I think America needs, then, is more access to power for the lower classes. It needs that social tension again. Because that's part of what drives America to be great: the drive for wealth on the one hand, strength on the other, and freedom on the final hand.

The only difference is the new dynamic, the middle class, and I don't know how it really fits in. In Germany, the middle class jumped to the Nazis because they couldn't find support in big business or big labour to support their needs or protect their interests. Maybe something similar will happen in the US, but then, maybe it won't. Hindsight's always twenty-twenty.

Anyway, figured I'd weigh in with something new on the ideological front. Maybe it'll spark some new debate (which is always my cup of tea, haha!).

Have a good one, folks!

--C

Don Roley

04-05-2003, 07:33 AM

On a serious note, however, Machiavelli once wrote that the greatest strenght of Rome was its conflict between the Senators, the Patricians (the elites/nobles of Rome), and the Plebians (the commoners). This was because they would each fight to advance their own goals; the Senators fought for order, the nobles for power, and the plebes for freedom. The conflict between the groups was what Machiavelli believed drove Roman society to greatness. Its dynamism caused it to become one of the greatest powers on the earth. Its fall occurred when that dynamism and the conflict that caused it stopped.

Why do I say this? Because America is almost exactly like Rome. The conflict is now between polticians, economic elites, and proletariats, instead of senators, patricians and plebes.

The problem with the above statement is that it supposes that the modern version of the Plebians are fighting for freedom. Freedom, in a political context, has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion.

So, when fascists like Michael Moore whip up the volk and urge them to take over the running of other peoples property, it is not the abscence of physical force they are fighting for, they are fighting for the chance to use physical force on others.

And the scary thing is, like many collectivists before him (most recently in Zimbabwe) this unleashing of force to satisfy the greed of the masses is couched in terms of "fairness" by demonizing the holders of wealth and making it sound like the people have some sort of right to the sweat of others. This is needed because no person likes to admit the evil that drives them. So they have to come up with phrases about the rich "giving back" to the community, or hold up extreme examples of rich men doing bad things and try to paint all who own what they want in the same light.

As I said, socialism/ collectivism will not go away as long as men still have greed and envy in their hearts and need a noble sounding mantra to justify their form of gang rape.

Cliarlaoch

04-05-2003, 03:18 PM

Don,

I really don't think I agree with you, however, I've argued this point to death, and I think to save my remaining brain power for exams, I'm going to just say I disagree with you and that Michael Moore is not a fascist at all, but leave it at that. We're all entitled to our opinions...

(Of course, I think mine is right, but then, don't we all?)

arnisador

04-05-2003, 09:22 PM

Did anyone else hear what Dennis Miller said about him on the Tonight Show this week? I couldn't have said it better myself!

rmcrobertson

04-06-2003, 04:14 AM

Let me see if I'm understanding correctly. You have the poor, picked-upon factory owner--and just incidentally, the days of the individual owner are pretty much gone; by the time you get to own a whole factory, you're a wholly-owned subsidiary of...--who gets the largest share of the profits made by others. He gets to choose who works and who doesn't, and who gets the benefits. He has much the greater power in negotiations, law, etc...and he gets to leave his kids a big head start in life.

And the guy who points this out--Michael Moore, in this case--is the fascist?

Just as a point of historical reference, it wasn't the Bauhaus school, or the leftist social critics, who benefited from the German fascism they supported. It was I.G. Farbenindustrie, Volkswagen, Von Braun, and apparently IBM, etc. etc. etc...

Unless I missed it, Moore isn't up in Idaho with the First Church of Christ, Fascist. He doesn't own a factory. He isn't Chancellor of Flint, Michigan...

Don Roley

04-06-2003, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Let me see if I'm understanding correctly. You have the poor, picked-upon factory owner (snip)who gets the largest share of the profits made by others. He gets to choose who works and who doesn't, and who gets the benefits. He has much the greater power in negotiations, law, etc...and he gets to leave his kids a big head start in life.

And the guy who points this out--Michael Moore, in this case--is the fascist?

Micheal Moore did more "than point this out." He openly called on the volk to take control of factories away from the people who owned them.

And he is succesfull because there are always people who are filled with greed and envy and will follow someone who convinces them that what they want is somehow noble. He is succesfull because people like to make villians out of those who have more then them and only need an excuse to give the Micheal Moore's of the world the power to take from others and give to them.

Take a look at Zimbabwe right now. Mugabe was elected on a platform of taking from the rich, white farmers and giving it to the poor blacks. But the only people who seem to be getting the seized land are the elites that support him. The people really are only truning against him because the country has gone to hell. It used to export food, now it imports it.

Is this communism, as Mugabe claims to be, or fascism? When you look at the day to day running of a collective economy, it is hard to tell.

Rich Parsons

04-06-2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Let me see if I'm understanding correctly. You have the poor, picked-upon factory owner--and just incidentally, the days of the individual owner are pretty much gone; by the time you get to own a whole factory, you're a wholly-owned subsidiary of...--who gets the largest share of the profits made by others. He gets to choose who works and who doesn't, and who gets the benefits. He has much the greater power in negotiations, law, etc...and he gets to leave his kids a big head start in life.

And the guy who points this out--Michael Moore, in this case--is the fascist?

Just as a point of historical reference, it wasn't the Bauhaus school, or the leftist social critics, who benefited from the German fascism they supported. It was I.G. Farbenindustrie, Volkswagen, Von Braun, and apparently IBM, etc. etc. etc...

Unless I missed it, Moore isn't up in Idaho with the First Church of Christ, Fascist. He doesn't own a factory. He isn't Chancellor of Flint, Michigan...

Well, I do not know if he, Micheal Moore is a facist.

I do know that most of the people of Flint would lynch him if they recognized him.

I do know that I was raised in a Union Family of GM and that the Union members did not really think it helped their situation when he was out making his rants. His attacks on the company. Now is GM, totaly free from failure? NO Way thay have made many mistakes as many other companies have.

All I know is that growing as a young teenager and adult in the 80's in the city that was almost always in the top three to five for violent crime per capita, and being voted the worst place to live, five years running, in the USA. I think he took advantage of the situation more so than any Large Company out to steal the Bread from the table of the Working Man.

Put what ever label you want on him, I think he is Jerk! My Opinion.

:asian:

Kirk

04-06-2003, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
Put what ever label you want on him, I think he is Jerk!

That's what it boils down to. Great post, Rich.

Rich Parsons

04-06-2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Kirk
That's what it boils down to. Great post, Rich.

Thank You :asian:

Thank You :asian:

Now if I could only make a million or two following his ugly face around and mis-quoting him, and then maybe get an award or two.

That would make me feel better. :D

Oh Well

:eek:

arnisador

04-06-2003, 01:57 PM

See also the discussion in the Humor forum, e.g.:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7208

rmcrobertson

04-07-2003, 07:00 PM

I see. First off, where exactly was it that Moore called for some kind of revolution, some seizing the means of production? Could ya give a reference? Is it anything like that "lynch," remark in one of these posts, or the constant suggestions of violence I read here?

I fail to see where "Roger and Me," attacked working people. Or was Moore wrong about his facts? was there no "Autoworld," put up by the city's leaders, to turn Flint into a tourist attraction? No massive layoffs? No giant payouts to corporate heads and CEOs?

I think you've turned the whole thing on its head. You have a group--composed the rich, and the upper middle class, and the wannabes--who have seized control of the means of production from everybody--that's you and me. They make damn sure that their kids start out with an unfair advantage--or does anybody actually think that Bush, Jr. earned his way into Yale as his father actually did? Or think that Bush Jr. didn't have a hell of a lot of help in making a profit out of various failed oil bidnesses and a job with the Texas Rangers?

Then, we demand our share of the pie and we're the greedy ones?

A lot of folks on these forums complain about the media. Fine, me too. The public airways--the public airways, mind you--got given away to a buncha lobbyists. Not OK, in my opinion. So pretty much none of us approve of this--so when we try and get some of the p[ie back, is that fascism?

Folks, these ideals about strong men a la Howard Roark who wrest their fortunes out of the very earth is a fantasy. Look at the Kennedys, whose patriarch was a bootlegger...look at Barbara Walters, whose dad ran a speakeasy...look at the Rockefellers...look at...well, you get the picture.

Did I fall asleep and Enron disappeared? The massive energy company ripoffs of the last couple years? the....well, add your own list.

I don't see how criticism is fascist.

Kirk

04-07-2003, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

I think you've turned the whole thing on its head. You have a group--composed the rich, and the upper middle class, and the wannabes--who have seized control of the means of production from everybody--that's you and me. They make damn sure that their kids start out with an unfair advantage--or does anybody actually think that Bush, Jr. earned his way into Yale as his father actually did? Or think that Bush Jr. didn't have a hell of a lot of help in making a profit out of various failed oil bidnesses and a job with the Texas Rangers?

Then, we demand our share of the pie and we're the greedy ones?

YES! The lesson with Bush Jr is that your own hard work and
reward carries beyond your own lifetime. You want a share of
the pie that you didn't earn? Get your own pie! Unfair advantage
my butt. There's nothing stopping you from hammering out your
own wealth and putting a silver spoon right into your own kid's
mouth.

Share of the pie :rolleyes:
And you claim to not be a liberal, or socialist?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Or was Moore wrong about his facts?

Yep .. right from the get go, in "truth" number 1. He doesn't
speak for the majority, IMO, and he certainly doesn't speak for
me.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Did I fall asleep and Enron disappeared? The massive energy company ripoffs of the last couple years? the....well, add your own list.

Enron? What does that have to do with anything? Criminals are
criminals. I grow tired of "non republicans" using Enron as some
final evidence that thier platform is the end all be all. So a
corporation ripped people off, big deal. The Indian owned
convenience store down the road ripped me off one time, out of
20 bucks. Are they better, because it was only 20 dollars? Does
it give me the right to say that Indians shouldn't own convenience stores? The only thing you prove by bringing up
Enron is that crooks exist in all walks of life, and in every type of
job.

Rich Parsons

04-07-2003, 11:28 PM

Don Roley

04-08-2003, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I see. First off, where exactly was it that Moore called for some kind of revolution, some seizing the means of production? Could ya give a reference?

As I said, it was a program of a lecture he gave to promote his (at the time) new book, "Downsize This."

He pointed out that under the rules of our democracy, the factory owners could only make one vote each. And since the people in the group and community were many, he made the point that maybe they should pass laws that would not allow a factory owner or big business owner to lay off people while they were making a profit.

Now, if the factory owners had resisted the law and tried to run their factory as they wanted, would they have been dealt with only with strong language, or by police officers carrying guns?

The factory owner would still be allowed the semblence of ownership, just as long as they did exactly as the mob wanted. And when the company failed, the same people who voted for the law would merely grin at their misfortune and cast their eyes out for more victims to exploit.

rmcrobertson

04-08-2003, 03:15 PM

OK, in no particular order.

1) the supposition that I must be a limousine liberal is hilariously wrong. I wish. The details are unimportant, but let me assure you that I did not grow up with money. I've been working for my living since I was 16, and I'm now too damed close to 50. More interestingly, it never fails to amaze me, the way that everything gets personalized.

2) Never said I wasn't a socialist. Wrote I wasn't a liberal, which seems to be about the worst thing that anybody can say about you, these days. If you'd like to assume that I must then be in favor of communist dictatorship, be my guest. Not true, but be my guest.

3) Let me see if I understand this right. Moore calls for passing laws, for giving everybody an equal vote, and this is "revolutionary?" "Scuse me, but last I checked, this is called, "democracy." You may not like what he's arguing for, what he's politiciking for, but it ain't fascism. Or communism. Or revolution.

4) I saw "Roger and Me." Moore never editorializes directly. He asks questions, puts people in awkward situations, and the meaning seems pretty clear. But he doesn't tell ya what to think. The best agitprop never does.

5) I still ain't seen nobody refuting any facts. Was there an Autoworld? Yes. Were there massive layoffs while GM was turning profits? Yes. Did executives get big bonuses and payouts? Yes. Did the auto industry in Flint collapse? Yes. Can we argue about why? Sure.

6) 'Scuse me if I'm wrong, but aren't you folks defending the guys who have been shipping American jobs overseas? Driving family farms out of business, and turning over our agriculture to the likes of Beatrice Foods? Slapping together companies like Enron (here's the connection), sucking them dry, dipping into employee pensions (much like the way they're now dipping into Social Security), running the company into the ground, and walking away with the bucks? How many times does this have to happen before the screwees notice that they're being screwed? How many executives have to be rewarded with multi-million bonuses and salaries, while their companies lose lotsa bucks and workers lose their jobs?

7) Oh. I get it. The only job that should be rewarded at the levels, say, of the Bush family is being an executive, a stockbroker, a lawyer, a banker. That's basically saying that these are the only jobs that count. And what if I don't want to be, say, a banker? What if I'm a good proud auto worker, let's say, and I do a good honest job my whole life? Don't I deserve to have my kid, if she or he is smart enough and works hard enough, going to Harvard or Yale too?

8) Democracy and capitalism have always been strange bedfellows, though arguably ya can't have one without the other. But to pretend that in this country rich and poor are treated alike...come on. Or did OJ get convicted, and I didn't notice? And to argue that any time anybody criticizes or asks for their rights under law, they're being fascists....come on. Why not just say you disagree, and explain why? Attack their facts?

9) I continue to be amazed that people are willing to support those who couldn't care less about them, or democracy, or anything else...other than money and power.

brianhunter

04-08-2003, 03:34 PM

I heard a story awhile back Ill try and paraphrase it to the best of my ability............

The story told of a conservative dad and his student daughter, they had views of society on different ends of the spectrum......
One day when home on break the daughter was explaining to her dad the merits of welfare and govt cheese when he stopped her and asked her how her grades where doing.
She told her dad how she had gotten all A's and was holding the 4.0 she worked very hard for.

The dad then stopped and asked her about her room mates grades.....well the daughter went on and explained how the room mate was recieving D's and F's and seldom studied and partied all the time but hadnt put forth the effort.

Well the dad asked his daughter if she was willing to give away 2 points off of every A and give them to her room mate so that her room mate could pass school also because she deserves it like anyone else and its not fair to fail.

The daughter refused and stated she had worked very hard for her grades and wasnt about to give it away to someone who didnt work or deserve it one bit!

The dad smiled and said "Exactly"

...........................................

I dont think we need the govt to come in and fix every woe. I have yet to see a shining example of how happy everyone in communisim is.

Elfan

04-08-2003, 04:09 PM

liberal: not conservative
conservative: not liberal

Perhaps some of the most useless abjectives I have ever seen for describing political beliefs.

rmcrobertson

04-08-2003, 04:20 PM

Hm. That's funny. I heard a similar story. Daughter comes home, and Dad says, well, we're going to have to pull you out of college. "Why, Dad? I'm getting Bs and As?" "Well, they've raised tuition because they can't pay energy costs, and the plant's talking about laying off some of us. But there's good news: I heard from my boss that his kid's going to Harvard with "C" grades, because his boss pulled some strings, and he made a donation to the school after he got a big bonus this year."

Affirmative action says that everybody--everybody--gets an equal shot. Why in the hell is it fair to me, if my dad ain't rich and doesn't have rich buddies, that I can't get what a rich kid can? Why's it democratic to stick kids with their parents social status?

By the way, if I had my druthers, we'd have affirmative action based on parental income. Why not? We have it now, for rich white guys...

Rich Parsons

04-08-2003, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

I see. First off, where exactly was it that Moore called for some kind of revolution, some seizing the means of production? Could ya give a reference? Is it anything like that "lynch," remark in one of these posts, or the constant suggestions of violence I read here?

You said the above. I was the one that said Lynch. Therefore, it thought you were being personal.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
OK, in no particular order.

1) the supposition that I must be a limousine liberal is hilariously wrong. I wish. The details are unimportant, but let me assure you that I did not grow up with money. I've been working for my living since I was 16, and I'm now too damed close to 50. More interestingly, it never fails to amaze me, the way that everything gets personalized.

I have been working also, since I was 16, earlier if you count mowing lawns and delivering papers. every little bit helps, right?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

2) Never said I wasn't a socialist. Wrote I wasn't a liberal, which seems to be about the worst thing that anybody can say about you, these days. If you'd like to assume that I must then be in favor of communist dictatorship, be my guest. Not true, but be my guest.

Then what are you in favor for?
Socialist, looking for the Government to Own and Operate certain industries. Just curious which ones you want the Government to run?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

3) Let me see if I understand this right. Moore calls for passing laws, for giving everybody an equal vote, and this is "revolutionary?" "Scuse me, but last I checked, this is called, "democracy." You may not like what he's arguing for, what he's politiciking for, but it ain't fascism. Or communism. Or revolution.

Moore Called for passing of laws that made it impossible for a Profitable (* By $0.01 *) to leave the area or to take work elsewhere. Last time I checked this Country was a Republic for of Government, and the Capitalism was our choice of economics.
So what is Moore Arguing for? Everyone to have the same? Everyone to get the same treatment? Why has not Moore done anything with the Flint people and the Flint Economy himself. He just points fingers and gets rich. Hypocrite in my mind.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

4) I saw "Roger and Me." Moore never editorializes directly. He asks questions, puts people in awkward situations, and the meaning seems pretty clear. But he doesn't tell ya what to think. The best agitprop never does.

You say Potato I say Patato. (* Misspelled for effect *) Like I said in the last post, it was not the issue of the Car companies causing the downfall of Flint. The BIG and complete picture needs to be realized. In 1974 and the Oil Embargo. The 1972 Housing Increase Nation Wide. The National unemployment rate in double digits in the late 70's, as well as inflation. Let me guess this is all the fault of some car company. Believe me, if they had that type of power they would use it to get out of paying fines, and improving the quality of emissions. Also the Bail out of Chrysler in 1980. So, yes there is a lot more to the issue.

Are you ... ? Hmmm, No Comment, It makes you wonder why they do not reply? I can ask questions too and make people look silly or bad. Does that make me right? NOPE!

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

5) I still ain't seen nobody refuting any facts. Was there an Autoworld? Yes. Were there massive layoffs while GM was turning profits? Yes. Did executives get big bonuses and payouts? Yes. Did the auto industry in Flint collapse? Yes. Can we argue about why? Sure.

Yes, Autoworld built and proposed by Out of State Financial people, who sold a line of goods to the State and City.

Layoffs? and Profits? Is this some made up comment? I would like to see the proof of this. Please show me the corporate reports for the years that had these major lay-offs. (* See it works both ways *)

Did The executives have the Bonuses already baked into their salary for the year, before all this happened? Did they get less than planned due to the current market?

Did The Auto Industry in Flint Collapse? Show me where it Collapsed? In 1998-9 the Head Quarters of Build was moved from Flint To Detroit and The Renaissance Building. Are there still plants running and producing in Flint? yes? Did one of the locals Strike from 5 times in four years and bring GM to a halt, causing them to loose money and sales. Then The Unions wants to have more bonuses and money?

Now, Unions are good. They give the collective a way to bargain en masse. Also, it avoids the favoritism and ego's for pay. The major benefits of a Union are to bargain for Benefits outside of the Dollar, such as Medical, and Dental, and Optical, and chiropractor, et al. They serve for a better and safe working environment.

Side Note: Similar Argument.
Was there a War Called the Great War to End All other Wars? Yes there was and since we have had some War's since then it was all in vain? I am sure we can argue why we have though.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

6) 'Scuse me if I'm wrong, but aren't you folks defending the guys who have been shipping American jobs overseas? Driving family farms out of business, and turning over our agriculture to the likes of Beatrice Foods? Slapping together companies like Enron (here's the connection), sucking them dry, dipping into employee pensions (much like the way they're now dipping into Social Security), running the company into the ground, and walking away with the bucks? How many times does this have to happen before the screwees notice that they're being screwed? How many executives have to be rewarded with multi-million bonuses and salaries, while their companies lose lotsa bucks and workers lose their jobs?

Ok you want to attack, these cases, fine. How about my example in my previous post where the Union went too far, and forced the closing of the companies. They could not afford to stay open. A nice middle ground would be nice.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

7) Oh. I get it. The only job that should be rewarded at the levels, say, of the Bush family is being an executive, a stockbroker, a lawyer, a banker. That's basically saying that these are the only jobs that count. And what if I don't want to be, say, a banker? What if I'm a good proud auto worker, let's say, and I do a good honest job my whole life? Don't I deserve to have my kid, if she or he is smart enough and works hard enough, going to Harvard or Yale too?

No, The top guys get more than enough now. Just make you points based upon reason and facts. Not on made up supposition and hearsay. Yes Attack the institution, negotiate what you can get for your self or your brothers to be the max, just realize it is a dynamic system, and you may cause it to crumble. Be aware, educate yourself, and make others aware, but not with ignorant comments and innuendoes.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

8) Democracy and capitalism have always been strange bedfellows, though arguably ya can't have one without the other. But to pretend that in this country rich and poor are treated alike...come on. Or did OJ get convicted, and I didn't notice? And to argue that any time anybody criticizes or asks for their rights under law, they're being fascists....come on. Why not just say you disagree, and explain why? Attack their facts?

Gee I thought I have been attacking the Facts of Moore. I lived the era you are talking about in the town you are talking about. He came in and left Richer. Hypocrite. Liar. Fraud. In my opinion.

OJ, yes OJ was sit free, and he had enough money to make it into a circus., but how does this change my argument that Moore is a jerk for what he did? Now if you use this as a single point of data that here is an example of money getting something. then fine, make the statement.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

9) I continue to be amazed that people are willing to support those who couldn't care less about them, or democracy, or anything else...other than money and power.

Yes, let me see. I have the choice of today. People who want to make their religious views the Norm for everyone. Not my way of thinking.

I also have people who want to take all the money from somewhere, and then make everyone equal. Not sure about this one. I agree medical care and basic of life should be able to be gotten at a reasonable price or barter, yet, if I see no advantage to working hard, and I get the same as you? Then explain to me why someone would continue to work?

I also have the other parties, that have a different twist, yet all have a special interest for themselves.

It may not be the best system, yet it seems to be working. Can it be improved, oh yes, get involved and make it better. Just be prepared that as long as I have the right to voice my opinion, I will also do so. As I expect you to do so also.

You can either use the system to change from within, or you can leave and go elsewhere, or you can have a revolution.

Have A Nice Day.

rmcrobertson

04-08-2003, 05:47 PM

Fair enough, Rich, and well argued in my opinion.

There is one problem. Marx was right about capitalism if nothing else, and capitalism couldn't care a bit about human beings. It is capitalism that rewards a few for appropriating the goodies produced by the many. It is our economic system that shifts and moves, and transfers jobs. It is a way of life devoted to the pursuit of the Almighty Dollar (H.L. Mencken's phrase) that devalues everything else, that makes "everything solid melt into air."

In other words, it is capitalism that has made radical changes over the last two centuries--some good (I was at the dentist's last week), some bad (widespread poverty... etc.), some neutral but different.

For example, rewriting the American Dream so that it is equal only to the pursuit of money and possessions is a radical, revolutionary, newfangled idea. I'm agin it.

Or is it more of that hearsay that makes me note how many jobs, how much industry, has fled the US in the last thirty years? It's fine to blame union, environmentalists, etc., but what would you prefer? US workers getting paid piecework? Third World wages? Environmental disasters as in the former Soviet Union, or present China, or the Ruhr Valley, or South America? How well is this system actually working? Have you looked at the Federal deficit figures this year? At the State financial problems caused by reagan's, "New Federalism?" At the unemployment stats?

I'm an old-fashioned guy, and so I suspect is Moore. Personally, I think workers are the backbone of this country, and I despise those rich people who made their fortunes at the expense of what we used to call, "working stiffs." And I have to say, I don't much care for the propaganda bombardment that has left American workers blaming everybody but the culprits...

Don Roley

04-08-2003, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
3) Let me see if I understand this right. Moore calls for passing laws, for giving everybody an equal vote, and this is "revolutionary?" "Scuse me, but last I checked, this is called, "democracy." You may not like what he's arguing for, what he's politiciking for, but it ain't fascism. Or communism. Or revolution.

Urging people to take things away from others by means of a vote is still taking things away from people. If Moore was suggesting that the 88 percent of the population who is not black, voted to make everyone who was black a slave, would you still use the same logic?

And, do you recall that the biggest facist in history was also elected? Does that fact make what he did all right?

Moore did not call for the people to take over the factory themselves. That would be pure communism. He urged them to control it, while still giving the semblence of private control. That is the fascist system.

And he and others like him succeed because people are motivated by greed and envy and need some sort of noble sounding excuse to take things away from other people. Take yourself for example. You have given a few examples of corporate mismanagement, out of a field of hundreds of thousands, and instead of calling on us to enforce the laws that stop that sort of behavior, you paint all corporations and the rich in an evil light in order to justify what you want to do to them.

Don't you see that if you took your way of thinking and merely replaced the word "the rich" with the word "black people" we would be calling you a small minded, hate- filled bigot?

Take the time to really think about this instead of just jumping in to defend yourself. If you take a hard look at yourself, you may not like what you see. But ignoring the greed and envy inside you will not make it go away, will not make you a better person.

And if you still feel that those who have more are obligated to help those that have less, why not start with yourself? There are people starving in many parts of the world. If you sold your computer, moved into a smaller dwelling place and used bikes to get around, you could save enough money to make the difference between life and death for some people in Africa.

Charity starts at home. Start by giving away all control of your life before you demand that others do the same.

brianhunter

04-08-2003, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

By the way, if I had my druthers, we'd have affirmative action based on parental income. Why not? We have it now, for rich white guys...

Wow, so the root of all evil is rich white guys? Guess I have half of that down, guess I should quit earning and saving money now so Im not identified as part of the problem. Hell someone should just vote me all the money or make a govt program that give it too me but then I wouldnt qualify, $ (earned or not)+ White guy = evil!
Thanks for saving me the effort, God knows I was handed an education, sure it had nothing to do with good grades, serving the military for the GI Bill and college fund, or feeding my kids and wife ramon noodles while I went to school and worked full time, some rich white guy put me up to it!

Rich Parsons

04-08-2003, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Fair enough, Rich, and well argued in my opinion.

:) Same to you Sir,

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

There is one problem. Marx was right about capitalism if nothing else, and capitalism couldn't care a bit about human beings. It is capitalism that rewards a few for appropriating the goodies produced by the many. It is our economic system that shifts and moves, and transfers jobs. It is a way of life devoted to the pursuit of the Almighty Dollar (H.L. Mencken's phrase) that devalues everything else, that makes "everything solid melt into air."

Ah Marx, he was not such a bad guy. It is what people did in his name that became so completely different from what he wrote about. Capitalism cares nothing but for the Supply and Demand of any given product at anytime. Yet it is the People that determine the Demand. No one has to buy a Japanese Car. BTW most if not all of the large Japanese Companies have assembly plants here in the US, now.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

In other words, it is capitalism that has made radical changes over the last two centuries--some good (I was at the dentist's last week), some bad (widespread poverty... etc.), some neutral but different.

Hmm, Poverty, when we were an agricultural society, poverty was every where. A few people owned large amounts of land or key services, such as black smith. The rest all toiled in the field for food and a place to sleep. Please give an example of which society or time frame that, you would like to have as an example. I am very curious. Marx spoke of a Utopia, and so did other philosophers, yet it was almost always on a very small scale. Hence the term Communism. This would work with a small group of people working with similar interests and diverse skills, this would in theory work. Yet, add in the large scale effect, and the increase in the number of variables used caused by the number of people involved, and the understanding or model we have starts to break down. For everyone to give up their individuality for the better, I just do not see it happening with the current state of evolution / state of maturity of mankind. :(

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

For example, rewriting the American Dream so that it is equal only to the pursuit of money and possessions is a radical, revolutionary, newfangled idea. I'm agin it.

Where is it said that the American Dream required money. I have friends who are in income levels lower than I, and they are a happily married couple with two kids. They are happy with their lives. they enjoy the occasional night out yet they do not complain nor do they think I am evil for having a little more then them. :asian:

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

Or is it more of that hearsay that makes me note how many jobs, how much industry, has fled the US in the last thirty years? It's fine to blame union, environmentalists, etc., but what would you prefer? US workers getting paid piecework? Third World wages? Environmental disasters as in the former Soviet Union, or present China, or the Ruhr Valley, or South America? How well is this system actually working? Have you looked at the Federal deficit figures this year? At the State financial problems caused by reagan's, "New Federalism?" At the unemployment stats?

The last time I looked the Unemployment was still lower then the 70's and the 80's, I could be wrong. Heck anyone can change the rules on how to count the unemployed. I like the environmentalist, they make the water and air better for everyone. What I do not like is that California Mandates that 2% of all vehicles will be 0% emission at the tail pipe. This requires with current technology to be electric. Do you know where most of the US's Electricity comes from? Burning Sulfur based Coal. This is much more harmful to the Air and environment. You see knowing the whole story helps to understand and address the real serious issue. As for the Third World, becoming dumping grounds, that sucks. It should be the responsibility of the local government to put into place safety issues. Yes, I agree., But to mandate a certain percentage of a volume of product must be X or to mandate that company Y must remain open. This to me makes no sense, even looking at the greater good of everyone.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

I'm an old-fashioned guy, and so I suspect is Moore. Personally, I think workers are the backbone of this country, and I despise those rich people who made their fortunes at the expense of what we used to call, "working stiffs." And I have to say, I don't much care for the propaganda bombardment that has left American workers blaming everybody but the culprits...

I may or may not be old fashioned. And Yes the "working Stiff" comes in may forms today. The Contract Employee with no benefits, the temp employee hired for a short term, no security. The new Technicians of the working class required to keep everything moving, may or may not be able to be classified as the working stiff. Would your father or grand father say you have it easy for having a car and / or a microwave?

As for blaming the culprits, a psychologist might ask you to look and see why you are unhappy and blaming others. DO you really need others to validate your existence? Or did you buy into a line and it is too late for you to stop the play, since you are already on stage? Externalizing, is not good for you. I say this not to be a smart ..., or a jerk, just as one guy to another. Are the guys on top responsible for some things, yes they are? Is it their fault if they are born into money, or win lotto? Identify each issue and attack it and then decide where the resolution lies, if Blame is a side effect, then so be it, yet to just sit back and be tired and upset at those that have it all. I wish you the best.

Looking forward to our replies
:asian:

rmcrobertson

04-09-2003, 05:05 AM

OK, look. My mental health is fine, thank you very much, and I am quite able to navigate my way through the day and its history. Gee, guys, when you throw around the psychiatric this way, I am reminded of the definition of schizophrenia in the old Soviet Union as, "opposition to the State...." And if we're gonna get into that, how's yer reality testing? Rich white guys DO own nearly everything in this country, last I checked.

The comparasion of a critique of corporations to racist hatred is absurd, for two basic reasons: a) racism is based on biological fantasy, not critique of economic structures, and b) corporations really ARE the major orgaanizations in our economy. Or is, "The Wall Street Journal," just kidding us? This is like saying that black people are racists, because they keep remarking that members of the Klan are pretty much all white men.

As for the accusations of greed, they're hilarious. Let me repeat my basic point: corporate heads lay people off by the thousands while weaseling millions out of stockholders, then taking the company out of the country, and the people who criticize this are the greedy ones? Huh?

The definition of Moore as a fascist is equally absurd. Socialist, sure (yes, I know "Nazi," is an abbreviation for "National Socialist"). You don't have to agree with him, sure.

Read Mark Twain, "The Gilded Age." Read about Teddy Roosevelt--Teddy Roosevelt, mind you--busting trusts in the time when the anti-monopoly laws got passed. Read Upton Sinclair and Mencken. Read about Teapot Dome under Harding. Read Galbraith on the 1929 Crash. Read Eisenhower warning us about, "the military-industrial complex." This crap's been going on for at least the last century and a half....and its present avatars are not just Enron.

By the way, I am not thinking of Marx here. I'm thinking of Sir James Goldsmith, the gazillionaire, who I saw denouncing the evils of contemporary corporate behaviour in a TV interview...

It ain't my fantasy that the American Dream got reduced to screwing the next guy and grabbing as much as you can in greenbacks....and I still want to see somebody explain how it's fair that a kid like, say, Dan Quayle gets preferment over others just 'cause his daddy's rich and connected...or am I wrong, and this isn't a meritocracy, the way rich white guys are always claiming it is?

Oh well.

Don Roley

04-09-2003, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
The comparasion of a critique of corporations to racist hatred is absurd, for two basic reasons: a) racism is based on biological fantasy, not critique of economic structures, and b) corporations really ARE the major orgaanizations in our economy. Or is, "The Wall Street Journal," just kidding us? This is like saying that black people are racists, because they keep remarking that members of the Klan are pretty much all white men.

But you see, my point is that you are using the same tactics and logic as racists do. Instead of saying that everyone should be judged as an individual, you take several examples of bad behavior by individuals of that group, then project that behavior onto everyone in the group.

You need to do this sort of demonizing, because without it you are closer to saying the truth- namely, "they have more than I and I want it."

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
As for the accusations of greed, they're hilarious. Let me repeat my basic point: corporate heads lay people off by the thousands while weaseling millions out of stockholders, then taking the company out of the country, and the people who criticize this are the greedy ones? Huh?

All corporations do this, all???? You see what I mean about how you paint everyone in a group in the same light? The laws you would pass would cover and restrict every corporation, and not just the ones that commit fraud.

And as for the base of your grief, if they are the owners, they do have the right to do as they will with their property. Just like you have the right to use your car, house or car without others taking them away because they feel they need it more than you. As long as the workers are free to leave, people are free to buy or not and there is no deceit involved, then the coporate heads are morally correct in laying off people they want to, or moving their factories to where they can be more proffitable.

Tell me, do you buy products that are more expensive than they need to be? And how would you feel if laws were being passed to FORCE you to buy those products made in America rather than cheaper or better foriegn made ones? So why is it different when someone else tries to do bassically the same thing? In American society we are supposed to treat the rich and poor alike. Yet when I buy a cheaper product to save money, no one has a trouble despite the fact that the company that makes the more expensive product has just as much need as the cheaper product maker. So, if a company does the same with workers and such, it is the same principle- but because they have money it is not acceptable.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
The definition of Moore as a fascist is equally absurd. Socialist, sure (yes, I know "Nazi," is an abbreviation for "National Socialist"). You don't have to agree with him, sure.

If he fits the description of fascism, why is it "absurb" to call him one? Please explain how he can fit the definition and yet not be called one?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Read Mark Twain, "The Gilded Age." Read about Teddy Roosevelt--Teddy Roosevelt, mind you--busting trusts in the time when the anti-monopoly laws got passed. Read Upton Sinclair and Mencken. Read about Teapot Dome under Harding. Read Galbraith on the 1929 Crash. Read Eisenhower warning us about, "the military-industrial complex." This crap's been going on for at least the last century and a half....and its present avatars are not just Enron.

So we should treat all people of wealth as if they were like the examples you bring up? Again, I point you to my comments about how your logic is like that of a racist. There are no good corporations, none at all? And you would treat them all like criminals because of it? No presumend innocent until proven guilty? No benifit of the doubt until they prove bad intent? You would just go ahead and take away their wealth, or their control of their wealth, because you think that all wealthy people are by nature evil?

You need to take a real close look at yourself and the foundation of your philosophy towards life.

Cliarlaoch

04-09-2003, 11:42 AM

The only problem with capitalism and its support of choice in demand, that you seem to suggest, Rich, is that there isn't much choice anymore. We no longer have the option of falling back on traditional methods of production or consumption, for one, and for another, there aren't that many brands out there anymore. True capitalism might have been fine, but it died out once competition for consumers ended with the oligarchy of corporations standing in charge of the economy.

And I've said this before, and I'll say it again, Moore is not a bloody fascist (this is directed to everybody painting him as such). I've read your descriptions of fascism, and I've read what Moore wrote and read what you've said he advocated... and it ain't fascism. The illusion of private ownership? Please. It's just one owner being exchanged for a set of other owners. Oh, no, don't tell me he's frightened people with the thought that workers can actually have a voice. Fascism is government by an elite cadre. What he's advocating is nothing more than radical democracy, wherein (not surprisingly), the policies that have the most votes get advocated. If people want to change those policies, then they'll change their vote in the next election or referendum.

It's called democracy, folks. The lower classes OUTNUMBER the rich classes. If all the poor vote for Candidate Bob, then Candidate Bob will win (unless someone futzes with the ballots). What Moore was trying to get across was that the power of the people is primary in a democratic society. If people decide to elect a group that choses to pursue a given policy, then the minority will have to tag along until they become the majority. That's the way democracy goes, folks. At least, that's the way that most democracies work. The problem is, in the US, it's generally not the way it works. There, only rich elites with very similar agendas get into the halls of power. I'm not saying elites don't run Canada, either, or Britain, but the Labour party of England (until recently) represented the interests of the working class, and would pursue Social Democratic policies like welfare and such. When people want a new party or policy in power, they vote for that new group. Simple as that, and the laws of the country will be changed to reflect the change. You protect the rights of the minority as best you can, and they can always become the majority and change the policy anyway.

Anyway, my two cents.

And yes, he does sometimes seem to be a bit rude, Rich. I won't call him a jerk, since I haven't met him, but if you want to... :P

jazkiljok

04-09-2003, 01:23 PM

In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) and entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism.

Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after...

...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....

...given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, andits opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

rmcrobertson

04-09-2003, 02:09 PM

OK, if that's how we're gonna argue it...I will, however, continue to leave the personalities/states of spiritual/psychological development out of it, if y'all don't mind. But please feel free to fantasize.

First off, some basic economics. In capitalist societies--and this is one--value is created by the transformation of raw materials into useful (or at least desirable) goods/services. Wealth is produced by the creation of what Marx called, "surplus value," which is then accumulated into large piles (bank accounts, for instance), or used to create new ways of producing value, or employed in maintaining and upgrading the old ones.

Second: Surplus value, AKA "profit," is calculated by substracting one's costs (for, say, labor) from one's net income. This means, among other things, that in capitalist societies owners are inherently interested in maximizing profit and cutting costs. Labor being defined as a cost, this means that owners are inherently invested in cutting the costs of labor. And the costs of production.

Third: there are two basic social classes in our society--middle and working. Middle class pushes the paper (I'm middle class, by definition, as a teacher), working class (my dad, for example) works with their hands. The middle class gets the majority of the profit. The working class gets the majority of the labor. The middle class produces what might be called, "paper," value--stocks and bonds, for example. The working class produces things of one sort or another, or services. Middle class people get paid more than working class people, on the whole, because the middle class controls the paperwork.

Fourth: in capitalism, businesses must by definition expand. They have two basic ways to do this--enlarge their markets, or create a new market. Therefore businesses, by definition, must compete with other businesses or die out. In capitalist theory, this Darwinian tendency is considered a good thing, since it "improves," the individual business and force-feeds the invention of new products. It also suggests, however, how we got into a position in which much of our economy depends on consumers constantly buying more and more, and buying what they do not strictly speaking need. Profits must maximize, so that businesses can compete, and most Americans already have plenty, so...

This stuff really is Econ 101. And it isn't particularly Marxist--more like, "The Wall Street Journal"--until the separation between a) capitalism is a good thing, because it's natural (we're all competing in an economy that mirrors Darwin's view of nature) and useful (we compete and evolve; businesses compete and society is evolving); b) capitalism is a bad thing, because it drives the exploitation of individuals and the production of worthless things. This is what we're really arguing over.

Now, then. I think that in such societies, businesses are inherently, "crooked," because in such societies, businesses are by definition constantly trying to chisel more profit. It isn't a matter of a few rotten apples, though that's always the excuse. One example: I know a guy who works for a BIG law and accounting firm. Know what he does all day, what the entire firm does? It advises corporations/businesses on ways to cut their taxes. All day, every day--that's what they do. They bill clients $700/hour. Another example: corporations like Enron, or telecommunications compaanies, etc. etc, have direct access to legislators. Guess what happens when they want something? And they have been central to capitalism--not accidents, not freaks, not occasional, but central--since the South Sea Bubble and the Tulip Craze.

I realize it's possible to consider this the product of fantasy, but it's what in fact happens. Sure, we can easily disagree (and do) about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Again, however, read "The Wall Street Journal." Watch NPR's "Nightly Business Report," or their radio show, "Marketplace." Read, "The Economist." Hell, read Buckley's, "National Review." They'll all tell ya the same stuff I am--it's just that they're also going to tell you it's a good thing, too.

Go back and read the basics on capitalism--Adam Smith (either one), for example. They will tell you that the capitalist economy is completely beyond any morality. At their best, capitalist societies produce morality because a) they are meritocracies, b) they produce so much affluence that people have the leisure to be moral, c) they constantly produce more and better goods and services, plus jobs. They have no inherent responsibility to workers whatsoever, however...if jobs are lost in the US but "created," overseas, that's a good thing. If an individual company collapses because they're out-competed by something "newer and better," (as if WalMart were better than the small hardware stores they drive out of business!), that's a good thing. If workers' wages and benefits are cut to maximize profits, that's a good thing. It ain't a few bad apples. It is the way the system works, by definition.

And since the question of patriotism came up--in capitalism, businesses have no inherent responsibility whatsoever to individual nations. They are only responsible to maximize profits--which is exactly what businesses keep saying, so I'm not sure why this is news.

Oh well. I'm going to shut up on this topic now. Sorry if you don't like the way I write, I guess it's too many years as a professor. But you don't know me from Adam, so let's leave the speculations out of it, OK? otherwise, I'll have to unleash my analysis of the fantasy of the author in political discussion...and nobody wants that. OOOOOHHHH! he's gonna sic writing on me....OOOHHHH, knees are knockin,' yah sure.

Thanks for the discussion.

rmcrobertson

04-09-2003, 02:12 PM

OOOH, rockin' Mussolini quote. Nice to see actual facts and evidence. Thanks; I'm gonna steal it.

Kirk

04-09-2003, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
OOOH, rockin' Mussolini quote. Nice to see actual facts and evidence. Thanks; I'm gonna steal it.

You chose to ignore facts that you didn't agree with. Nice lie
though.

Rich Parsons

04-09-2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
OK, look. My mental health is fine, thank you very much, and I am quite able to navigate my way through the day and its history. Gee, guys, when you throw around the psychiatric this way, I am reminded of the definition of schizophrenia in the old Soviet Union as, "opposition to the State...." And if we're gonna get into that, how's yer reality testing? Rich white guys DO own nearly everything in this country, last I checked.

rmcrobertson ,

I apologize if you took my comment wrong. I meant it in the hoest, ability of the helping idea. My Reality, is just fine. I saw a counselor wiht the ex-wife, befoer the divorce. I also continued to see a Psychologist during the divorce. You see the ex blaimed me for everything, and I was the opposite and I believed it was all my fault. Now, I know some of it was my own and some of it was her own. :) Nice and Healthy, HERE! See the Pretty Stamp of approval. :rtfm:

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

The comparasion of a critique of corporations to racist hatred is absurd, for two basic reasons: a) racism is based on biological fantasy, not critique of economic structures, and b) corporations really ARE the major orgaanizations in our economy. Or is, "The Wall Street Journal," just kidding us? This is like saying that black people are racists, because they keep remarking that members of the Klan are pretty much all white men.

For once I agree, that the comparison of Economics and Racism is absurd. Yet, I see the point trying to be made is that, the masses can vote for anything they want, it just may not be the right thing to do. :(

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

As for the accusations of greed, they're hilarious. Let me repeat my basic point: corporate heads lay people off by the thousands while weaseling millions out of stockholders, then taking the company out of the country, and the people who criticize this are the greedy ones? Huh?

Do you own stock? have a 401K?

I never said the coprorations were perfect. I never said, they did not make mistakes. The Stockholders require that the companie makes money or they pull their money out and invest it somewhere else. Yes, many people lost a lot in the retirement accounts because the slow down of the Market. Gee, no one reads history and or realized that a slow down was inevitable?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

The definition of Moore as a fascist is equally absurd. Socialist, sure (yes, I know "Nazi," is an abbreviation for "National Socialist"). You don't have to agree with him, sure.

You know, I knew this, abstractly, but I did not know it was an official usage. Thank you

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

Read Mark Twain, "The Gilded Age." Read about Teddy Roosevelt--Teddy Roosevelt, mind you--busting trusts in the time when the anti-monopoly laws got passed. Read Upton Sinclair and Mencken. Read about Teapot Dome under Harding. Read Galbraith on the 1929 Crash. Read Eisenhower warning us about, "the military-industrial complex." This crap's been going on for at least the last century and a half....and its present avatars are not just Enron.

Read Robert A. Heinlein and any of his early works where he talks about the future, being from 1960's to now. Some scary insight. Read in particular the Fifth Column. Note: This author is just as valid a point as Mr Twain :), so no Sci Fi Crack! :D

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

By the way, I am not thinking of Marx here. I'm thinking of Sir James Goldsmith, the gazillionaire, who I saw denouncing the evils of contemporary corporate behaviour in a TV interview...

No Comment, I did not see the interview.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

It ain't my fantasy that the American Dream got reduced to screwing the next guy and grabbing as much as you can in greenbacks....and I still want to see somebody explain how it's fair that a kid like, say, Dan Quayle gets preferment over others just 'cause his daddy's rich and connected...or am I wrong, and this isn't a meritocracy, the way rich white guys are always claiming it is?

Oh well.

Hmm, I can see that the "Rich White Guy" is the problem here as well. You see where I work, I can be just as good as the next person. Be they White, Black, Asian, ..., Male or Female. Yet, if you are not the ones at the top of the performance and I mean the absolute top, you do not get promoted unless, ..., . Well Just let me say there are more younger women and minorities who are promoted to compensate and to meet a perceived perception. Most if not all are qualified, yet, it just seems really hard for me when I claimed Caucasion versus American Indian or Hispanic, which I get personel asking all the time. The system is not perfect. I choose not to claim a minority to try and prove that I am who I am. Not something that was given to me. And to me that is the pursuit of happiness, and the American Dream. Not this I just sit back and wait for mom or dad and the government to give me something. You see, I am out there doing my best for myself and for others. I take jobs that I think will help out in the long run. I helped to build better Tanks and NBCR's to help our militray men survive, I also work in the field that improves the performance of the vehicles for Fuel Economy and for Emissions. I try to look at teh big picture and see where I fit in the best help myself and to best help change the system or to help others.

rmcrobertson

04-09-2003, 04:54 PM

Dear Kirk:

Sigh. I'd ask you to discuss the ideas, offer evidence, present quotes, show me where I'm mistaken, and skip the invective, but there appears to be no point.

Always nice to be called a liar, though. I'd respond in kind, but I don't think you're lying, I don't have the right or the ability to judge the state of your soul, I don't respect over-the-net psychiatry, and I don't believe in name-calling.

Lesbian communist innuendo directed against all that's decent, now that's another story.

Thanks,
Robert

As for the actual discussion. (I was going to take out, "actual," but wottehehell.) Rich, please just leave out the "helping." I don't mean to be unkind, but it's really--well, I don't know quite how to put this--inappropriate, and regrettably it trempts me to respond in kind, and I don't see how that helps. I take it, too, as a sign of what Foucault described as the extension of the medical and psychiatric into the realm of the judicial....

Of course I agree that spending much time debating such issues on MartialTalk is a bit weird, but then, aren't we all in that boat?

As for Heinlein, well, I've read everything--and I mean everything--by that wacko. His god was Mark Twain, who had few things to say about corporate and personal greed, as well as patriotism being the last refuge of scoundrels.But then, so did Robert A....

Again, my major point here is that we're trying to talk about the world as it really is, not as it 'spozed to be or might, in some alternative history, be. And here on this planet, capitalism rules. And partly because of historical accident, partly because of the way capitalism emerged in tandem with colonialism (Marx seems to've argued that the middle-class needed the rush of money that only the exploration and exploitations of late-Renaissance Europe made available, in order to take over from feudalism), the facts seem to be that rich white guys do run this country, as well as the rest of the Western world.

If those aren't the facts, show me where I'm wrong.

As for meritocracy...Does anybody really think that the guys running the country, and our corporations, really are the best and the brightest? Their place at the top, for the majority--not all by any means (Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton pretty much earned their places, as did Bill Gates and lots of others), but the majority--sure looks like it's due to a) luck, b) contingency, c) wealthy parents. I mean, I'll grant you a Buckley or a Goldwater or even a Limbaugh, no real argument--but DAN QUAYLE? And does anybody really think that Reagan was smart and well-educated? leaving out little things like arms-for-hostages so-I-can-put the-money-into right-wing-death-squads (and I wish I were making that up, I was raised to think better of my country), he had an astrologer--AN ASTROLOGER, for chrissakes--determining his weekly schedule.

Hell, it's even quite arguable that the way our system works, we don't even want anybody smart, well-educated and genuinely moral running things--Jimmy Carter was brilliant by all accounts, ex-Navy, a nuclear engineer and successful businessman who actually meant it when he espoused Christian principles, and look how badly HE screwed up.

Hey, here's a question. We all kvetch about the way that money changes everything in martial arts. There are examples everywhere--so if Michael Moore's so wrong about capitalism, corporatism, and businessmen's greed, what are we all kvetching about? Doesn't the state of American ma's provide a wonderful example of the way capitalism converts everything into its own image, very much as ol' dead Karl argued?

Thanks, for the discussion.

Kirk

04-09-2003, 05:10 PM

You're lying again sir. Just because you don't say, "YOU are an
{insert insult}" does NOT mean that you don't. You're an
educated man, I KNOW you know what you're doing. Granted,
you're much more tame here, than on kenponet, but you're still
very insulting, and demeaning.

Thanks,

Kirk

Reagan is the sole person responsible for ending the cold war ...
I'd say he's a smart man.

If those aren't the facts, show me where I'm wrong.

You're also dodging the questions of your personal contributions
to the poor, non white folks of this country. What do you drive?
What's the estimated value of your home? What college did your
kids go to? How many poor kids have gone to college on your
dime?

Don Roley

04-09-2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Cliarlaoch
The illusion of private ownership? Please. It's just one owner being exchanged for a set of other owners. Oh, no, don't tell me he's frightened people with the thought that workers can actually have a voice.

That is what is scary. That he has no respect for the rights of people to their own property. What if you were the target for the people taking over whatever they want? What if, instead of determining what people can do with their factory, they were advocating what a newspaper could print?

Originally posted by Cliarlaoch
Fascism is government by an elite cadre. What he's advocating is nothing more than radical democracy, wherein (not surprisingly), the policies that have the most votes get advocated. If people want to change those policies, then they'll change their vote in the next election or referendum.

The thing is, many fascists get elected to power. They may feel that democracy is bunk (like Moore's comments about sheep that Dennis Miller commented on) but they will use it to get to power. Most often by means of a popular message demonzing those who have more than most of the voters.

Now, I do admire people who are willing to help those less fortunate than themselves. But to force others to help the people, when they themselves are of the people, is just plain greedy.

Let us face facts. Everyone on this thread advocating making the rich help the poor are rich by the standards of the majority of the people on this planet. Just living in North America or Western Europe has made you so much better off than most of the people in Africa or Asia. So, what are you doing to help them? The K-12 education you got for free is the envy of people in Kenya, and you can not make the claim that your own efforts got you that education. It was because of your parents that you got that great education, lived in houses so much better than the hovels most live in, ate better and are healthier. So now that you have been given a great advantage over the people in the rest of the world (through the advantages of your birth) what are you willing to do to help them?

I have heard people talking about the great advantages that people like the Kennedy family, or industrial giants, have had from their parents and heard talk of how this justifies taking away their control of their wealth. Well, you all are richer than most of the world and charity starts at home. If you actually apply the same set of ideals to your own actions as you would subject others to, then I will admire you. But if you merely wish to target the wealth of those above you and ignore those less fortunate, then you stand as a sterling example of why I feel that collectivism is generated by greed and envy.

Rich Parsons

04-09-2003, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
As for the actual discussion. (I was going to take out, "actual," but wottehehell.) Rich, please just leave out the "helping." I don't mean to be unkind, but it's really--well, I don't know quite how to put this--inappropriate, and regrettably it trempts me to respond in kind, and I don't see how that helps. I take it, too, as a sign of what Foucault described as the extension of the medical and psychiatric into the realm of the judicial....

Robert, No Probelm telling me to go jump into a lake. I was just a little tired of hearing how it was always someones elses fault then yours. The world hates you and this is why you are where you are at. I guess I was wrong. You say you are healthy and fine. So be it. I guess I am Wrong. :asian:

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Of course I agree that spending much time debating such issues on MartialTalk is a bit weird, but then, aren't we all in that boat?

Wierd, Nothing is wierd at all about this. Sooner or later all discussion turn into Politics, sex or religion. I could be Wrong. I have been before and will be wrong again.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
As for Heinlein, well, I've read everything--and I mean everything--by that wacko. His god was Mark Twain, who had few things to say about corporate and personal greed, as well as patriotism being the last refuge of scoundrels.But then, so did Robert A....

Heinlein A wacko? THanks for the insult. Did I insult Twain? Nope!
By The Way you brought into the this discussionthe first Writer of Fiction. I just thought I would reply.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Again, my major point here is that we're trying to talk about the world as it really is, not as it 'spozed to be or might, in some alternative history, be. And here on this planet, capitalism rules. And partly because of historical accident, partly because of the way capitalism emerged in tandem with colonialism (Marx seems to've argued that the middle-class needed the rush of money that only the exploration and exploitations of late-Renaissance Europe made available, in order to take over from feudalism), the facts seem to be that rich white guys do run this country, as well as the rest of the Western world.

So, now it is the fault of the first cave man who traded some meat for a better club?

[/b]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
If those aren't the facts, show me where I'm wrong.

Sir, I asked for examples and counter points from you. I ahve not seen them.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
As for meritocracy...Does anybody really think that the guys running the country, and our corporations, really are the best and the brightest? Their place at the top, for the majority--not all by any means (Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton pretty much earned their places, as did Bill Gates and lots of others), but the majority--sure looks like it's due to a) luck, b) contingency, c) wealthy parents. I mean, I'll grant you a Buckley or a Goldwater or even a Limbaugh, no real argument--but DAN QUAYLE? And does anybody really think that Reagan was smart and well-educated? leaving out little things like arms-for-hostages so-I-can-put the-money-into right-wing-death-squads (and I wish I were making that up, I was raised to think better of my country), he had an astrologer--AN ASTROLOGER, for chrissakes--determining his weekly schedule.

So it is ok for some white guys to be rich and not for others? So if one rich guys makes money he is to give it away and not allow his family to have it? Maybe we should make them prove them an make it on their own before they get their money from their family. Oh wait, this idea was published By Heinlein the Wacko.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Hell, it's even quite arguable that the way our system works, we don't even want anybody smart, well-educated and genuinely moral running things--Jimmy Carter was brilliant by all accounts, ex-Navy, a nuclear engineer and successful businessman who actually meant it when he espoused Christian principles, and look how badly HE screwed up.

Did Jimmy Carter screw up or did he inhereit a mess? And in four years he was not able to show the recovery, yet with in 6 months of the Reagon era, things were fine? Maybe the groung work was laid back in the Carter Era?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Hey, here's a question. We all kvetch about the way that money changes everything in martial arts. There are examples everywhere--so if Michael Moore's so wrong about capitalism, corporatism, and businessmen's greed, what are we all kvetching about? Doesn't the state of American ma's provide a wonderful example of the way capitalism converts everything into its own image, very much as ol' dead Karl argued?

Once again with Karl Marx. Yes the system and environment does affect the idividual or the object. Yet, this is Physics, and understanding the big picture and the variable involved.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Thanks, for the discussion.

Yes it is a great discussion. I apologize if I have upset or bothered anyone on this thread. I was only trying to express my opinions and have a discussion. I think maybe I have misunderstood some replies and or issues.
:asian:

rmcrobertson

04-10-2003, 02:33 AM

Here's a point that I don't think I've made clear. Analysis of systems, and an outlining of their development in history, is not dependant upon blaming anybody. It's easier to read it this way, but that is not the point.

Second, Reagan may have been smart. At least in some ways. But to argue that he ended the Cold War when I raised the issue of a) arms for hostages/channeling money to death squads, b) having an astrologer set your appointment calendar is what they call on courtroom dramas, "non-responsive."

Third, the intentional fallacy. Never assume you can judge what an author's thinking, or their moral character, because you read their words. To be sure, none of us actually remember this. However, calling those we do not know liars...oh, take a breath. Exhale completely. It's just internet woofin.'

I didn't dodge a bloody thing, guys. I didn't talk about the whole world. However, since the question's come up, I've worked in hospitals, been in school, or taught for nearly all the last thirty years, mostly in poorer areas. I gave at the office.

Then too, one of the things I do not like about capitalist society is the fact that we all--WE ALL--make our living, especially in the First World, at the expense of others elsewhere. Is this supposed to recommend the present world to me? The fact that our economic system requires taking advantage of others, blinders, and hypocrisy?

Heinlein's a wonderful writer. He's also a whackazoid libertarian, wwith a very appealing but fundamentally warped understanding of history. On the other hand, I bet he was a lot more fun to have dinner with than Che. And I suspect that Karl Marx never really cleaned behind his ears.

I remain interested in discussing the role capitalism plays in kenpo: thanks, Rich.

Don Roley

04-10-2003, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
I didn't dodge a bloody thing, guys. I didn't talk about the whole world. However, since the question's come up, I've worked in hospitals, been in school, or taught for nearly all the last thirty years, mostly in poorer areas. I gave at the office.

You gave at the office. Great. And you worked in the hospitals and schools, not for free I assume. Now before you talk about how those with more than you should give to the poor, you should set an example. Is the computer you are reading this on yours? If you sold it, you could get the equivelent of a years average wages in Burma. You know how many people can be saved if you just got rid of most of your possesions, only used what was needed for survival and sent the rest of your wages to the third world?

Or is your version of socialism is not world based but rather national? And it only applies to people who have more than you? Are you not willing to sacrifice for those with less than you, but will make those with more than you sacrifice for you?

You earlier wrote this,

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Now, then. I think that in such societies, businesses are inherently, "crooked," because in such societies, businesses are by definition constantly trying to chisel more profit. It isn't a matter of a few rotten apples, though that's always the excuse. One example: I know a guy who works for a BIG law and accounting firm. Know what he does all day, what the entire firm does? It advises corporations/businesses on ways to cut their taxes. All day, every day--that's what they do. They bill clients $700/hour.

So, do you try to pay as little as possible in taxes? If so, why is it wrong for a big buisness to do so? You can search out and find every chance to reduce your taxes, but it is a proof of greed that some corporation does the same? Your way of thinking does not seem to be very consistent.

So if keeping what you have is greed, then maybe those that feel that way should stop keeping hold of what they own and send it to the less fortunate. When you come to others telling them they have to sacrifice without doing so yourself, you will only be treated as a parasitical hypocrite.

rmcrobertson

04-10-2003, 01:14 PM

First off, Don, courtesy being fundamental to martial arts last time I checked, why not just discuss the issues--a little Internet sparring, see--and skip the name-calling?

Now here's one of the things you wrote: "So, do you try to pay as little as possible in taxes? If so, why is it wrong for a big buisness to do so? You can search out and find every chance to reduce your taxes, but it is a proof of greed that some corporation does the same? Your way of thinking does not seem to be very consistent."

This is precisely like the scene in "Duck Soup," where Groucho says, "Well, I'm standing here waiting for the moment when I can hold out my hand to him. But what if he doesn't take it? I hold out my hand to him, and he spits in my face. Well, I'm not having it! I won't tolerate these insults any longer! We'll go to war, then," or words to that effect. You've no idea what I do with my taxes, and you are leaping to conclusions, then basing your attacks on conclusions you've drawn.

It is a similar leap or three of logic to draw conclusions about people's character based upon the kind of stuff we hear on talk shows, then jump to what such a person must be thinking and doing, then attack for what they did based on our leaps.

Rather than attack what I must be up to though I'm not, why not just attack what you read on the page? I still haven't seen much about facts, or quotes, or anything else...just the personalities, and I have to tell you that I don't know who this guy is you're writing about, but it sure ain't me.

This is precisely why, in martial arts, Clyde insists upon looking at the chest and hips, never the eyes.

Don Roley

04-10-2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
You've no idea what I do with my taxes, and you are leaping to conclusions, then basing your attacks on conclusions you've drawn.

So, do you pay as little as you can in taxes? Everyone I know does. I have never even heard of someone who purposely pays more than they need to. Most look up ways to claim any exemptions they are entitled to under the law.

This is what the companies you mentioned are doing. How is this wrong? Everyone does it, and I assume you do too. But why is it wrong only for big companies to do it? Why is the act of keeping the money you have earned from a buisiness for yourself instead of passing it over to the goverment some sort of "greed?" Unless you give your money totally over to the goverment and let them dole out only what they think you need to survive, then you are holding others up to a standard you are not willing to maintain yourself.

rmcrobertson

04-10-2003, 06:34 PM

How can I put this plainly.

Corporations are not people.

Corporations, and the people who run them, have a helluva lot more money.

Corporations have access to resources that are unavailable to ordinary folks like you and me.

In the great race of life, shouldn't everyone be treated equally? Sure. And everybody should start, too, from the same place at pretty much the same time.

Kirk

04-10-2003, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
How can I put this plainly.

Corporations are not people.

Corporations, and the people who run them, have a helluva lot more money.

Corporations have access to resources that are unavailable to ordinary folks like you and me.

In the great race of life, shouldn't everyone be treated equally? Sure. And everybody should start, too, from the same place at pretty much the same time.

NO!!!!!!!

That's life. If you want more than you have, work more!

Do you have kids? What college did they go to? Probably the
same one at which you teach, and they probably went there for
free. Was that fair? And again I ask you ....
let me space it away from the paragraph, so you won't have any
reason to miss it, or whatever it is you do to not answer
questions ....

How many children of no relationship at all to you, have you put
through college??

You're gonna reply, yet again, asking for facts. Well that's what
we're trying to establish here, aren't we?

arnisador

04-10-2003, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Kirk
How many children of no relationship at all to you, have you put through college??

Quite a few, if you're an American taxpayer.

Kirk

04-10-2003, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by arnisador
Quite a few, if you're an American taxpayer.

Ah, but that's not what's being stated. Rich people paid thier
taxes too. Mr McRobertson feels that Bill Gate's kids shouldn't get
to go to Harvard, or that Mr Gates should not have gone to
Harvard either, because his parents, and now he, have are
considered rich. He directly said, "And everybody should start,
too, from the same place at pretty much the same time. " Well
I contend that his kids went to a better school than a LARGE
amount of poor people out there. And realizing he is only one
man (but still one man of the belief of wealth distribution, so that
no one makes more or has more than the other), I'd like to know
how many people less fortunate than he got to go to college on
his dime? I sure know it wasn't me, I worked 2 jobs to pay for
mine.

Don Roley

04-10-2003, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
How can I put this plainly.

Corporations are not people.

But they are composed of people who own them. So, let us say we change the question. Every small business I know of also tries to keep as much of its money instead of paying it in taxes.

So is it greedy for the store on the corner run by a family to seek out ways of keeping their money, just like the corporations?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Corporations, and the people who run them, have a helluva lot more money.

And why should that matter, when we are all supposed to be treated equally under the law? You complain that rich people may get different treatment than poor folks, and now you are encouraging it? This is nothing but greed and envy on your part.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Corporations have access to resources that are unavailable to ordinary folks like you and me.

They have the potential to resources, and we have the potential down the line too. Again, you are beating up on them because they have more than you and you envy their wealth. There are people who were born athletes, and they have access to resources of their body that I do not have. As long as no one gains their advantage by fraudulant or violent means, why be so filled with petty greed and envy?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
In the great race of life, shouldn't everyone be treated equally? Sure. And everybody should start, too, from the same place at pretty much the same time.

Well, in the eyes of the law, they should. This means the rich as well as the poor. Some people will have more. And yes, just like you as compared to a peasent in Burma, they will be born with a greater advantage.

Now why do you want to stop me from making my daughter's life better? You keep talking about how others are put on this earth in better positions through the efforts of their ancestors rather than their own hard work. Well, as a father, I can tell you that I am going to make damn sure that my daughter has every advantage I can give her going into the world. All your envious talk about how people should not inherit the wealth they do sounds to me like you do not want me to give anything to my daughter other than what you feel fair. Why on earth should I care about what you feel is fair for me to give to my daughter?

Well, I can tell you that I am going to work as hard as I can to build up a comfortable life for my daughter and give her every penny I can, every educational and health advantage. You are talking about taking away my right to produce wealth and deal with it as I see fit and are trying to get your paws on the legacy I work so hard to build.

Rich Parsons

04-10-2003, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by Kirk
Ah, but that's not what's being stated. Rich people paid thier
taxes too. Mr McRobertson feels that Bill Gate's kids shouldn't get
to go to Harvard, or that Mr Gates should not have gone to
Harvard either, because his parents, and now he, have are
considered rich. He directly said, "And everybody should start,
too, from the same place at pretty much the same time. " Well
I contend that his kids went to a better school than a LARGE
amount of poor people out there. And realizing he is only one
man (but still one man of the belief of wealth distribution, so that
no one makes more or has more than the other), I'd like to know
how many people less fortunate than he got to go to college on
his dime? I sure know it wasn't me, I worked 2 jobs to pay for
mine.

Hmmm Rich People, I am plural? OR is thar Rich Parsons you are trying to type there Kirk?? :D :rofl:

Seriously, I worked at least two jobs, if not 6 part time jobs to make end meet, and those ends were not very well. :( Part of my eating habits of cleaning my plate and all is when I was hungry and or had to clean a plate for I would only eat one meal a day. Now, before, anyone thinks I deserve compasion or sympathy, I choose to do this to get through college. My Choice to help educate myself. I did borrow money from my Dad and I would pay him back as the semester went on.

Gee Kirk, we have something in common? :D I hope I have not hurt your feelings with this post. :)

:asian:

rmcrobertson

04-11-2003, 04:53 PM

First off, it's like complaining that I have something against Mars, because I observed that it's a coldish, apparently-dead planet---it's an observation, not a judgment. Are you arguing that the rich are treated equally under the law? Are you arguing that their kids don't have big advantages from the git-go? As far as I can see, you're arguing that it's perfectly OK for them to have advantages, not that they have no advantages--so we're in agreement.

If you'd like a judgment, here it is: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven," and, "Radix malorum est cupiditas."

Now secundus. I realize that it's easier to pass what I'm arguing off as a psychological issue, or one of envy, or some other such nonsense. I realize, too, that you've got all sorts of ideas about who/what I must be--probably because of years of claims by assorted media sources that anybody who says anything like, "Gee, you know, money isn't distributed fairly in this country, and the way it's distributed threatens a lot of the ideals and institutions that Americans believe in," must be a) a liberal (nope, wrong), b) gay (none of your beeswax, and who cares anyway?), c) an America-hater (sorry, no, I still get upset when I see the sloppy way Americans display flags, and when I see one touch the ground), d) ignorant of other viewpoints (doesn't it bother you a teeny bit that I know what Buckley, "The American Spectator," the "National Review," Ricardo and Adam Smith, etc. etc have to say?), e) against our soldiers (wrong again), f) ignorant of military history (wanna hear a recap of Bruce Catton on the Civil War?), g) born rich (hilariously wrong), h) unwilling to work (even funnier), i) jealous of rich people (sure...aren't you? I'm also jealous of, say, Bernie Casey and Sam Shepard, and I can live with it), j) weak (don't confuse manners with weakness), k) wanting to take away what you've worked hard to get (no, revolutions scare me, and it wouldn't be right).

Have I missed any of the assumptions? Oh, right, l) pointy-head intellectual. Guilty as charged; I don't even like it, some days, but I worked damned hard to get my education, and I'm proud of that work.

Just argue the ideas, gentlemen. I guarantee that there's plently there. Here, I'll start us out:

a) what is it in Marx's ideas that legitimated the Soviet Union, which ended up very high on anybody's list of Worst Goevrnments Ever? I think it's probably Marx's assumption that the period 1844-1848 encompassed a genuine epistemological break, giving him privileged access to historical truth, but what do you think?

b) if Marx was so right about historical evolution, why is capitalism still expanding? I think it's because it hasn't yet become a world-wide system, together with the fantasy-creation of the mass media, but those are fairly-common answers.

I don't leap to assumptions about y'all. So let's play nice, or I'm gonna take my smart-ass football and go home.

Kirk

04-11-2003, 05:05 PM

Wrong. I believe that the kids of those who worked hard to
establish their wealth deserve to pass it on to as many
generations as they can. No one is stopping anyone from doing
the same. It's not like anyone is saying "hey, we have enough
rich ppl in America today, so those that are fortunate will be from
now on, and those who aren't will never be". The best thing
about this country is that with hard work, you can change your
own stars. A person born into a poor family, at THAT generation
and get up and change his social/financial/whatever status, it's
a beautiful thing! And when he does that, you're not entitled to
a penny of his money. It's his, he earned it, and he can do
whatever he wants with it .. INCLUDING giving it to his kids.

You say you don't pass judgement, but you also say:

I realize that it's easier to pass what I'm arguing off as a psychological issue, or one of envy, or some other such nonsense. I realize, too, that you've got all sorts of ideas about who/what I must be--probably because of years of claims by assorted media sources that anybody who says anything like, "Gee, you know, money isn't distributed fairly in this country, and the way it's distributed threatens a lot of the ideals and institutions that Americans believe in," must be..."

The problem I have with people who believe in Marxism, Socialism,
Lenninism ... collectivism of any sort is that none of them realize
what kind of simple peasant they'd be in a world like that. It's
either that, or they think that they're so far out of the norm ...
so much more special than every other swingin *ahem* out there
that they'd end up being one of the leaders of it all.
I'm sure you'll take insult from that, but that's the god's honest
truth of how I feel about it. And none that I have ever spoken
to have ever given me reason to believe otherwise.

The bible quote is true. The message behind is that greed can
get you into trouble. A rich person, has just as much choice as
you and I, under christian belief, to go to heaven or hell. The
scripture you quoted serves as a warning .. it doesn't say share
it all with everyone.

rmcrobertson

04-11-2003, 09:20 PM

..."collectivism of any sort is that none of them realize
what kind of simple peasant they'd be in a world like that. It's
either that, or they think that they're so far out of the norm ...
so much more special than every other swingin *ahem* out there
that they'd end up being one of the leaders of it all.
I'm sure you'll take insult from that..."

Yep, I'm a bit offended. Not much, though: I can probably deal with the assumption that a) I've never thought about my ideas and b) I want power. It can't be more than 25 years ago that I first read LeGuin's, "The Dispossessed," and probably no more than 35 since I first read, "1984," so to be sure I've never considered the implications of either collectivism or absolute power.

Nonetheless, I thank you for the response.

Don Roley

04-12-2003, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Are you arguing that the rich are treated equally under the law? Are you arguing that their kids don't have big advantages from the git-go? As far as I can see, you're arguing that it's perfectly OK for them to have advantages, not that they have no advantages--so we're in agreement

Some of the rich are treated differently under the law. Many people have some sort of advantage over others in what is supposed to be an equal playing field in the eyes of the law.

Now, if you try to make the case that all rich people have some sort of super advantage over the peons, that is a broad statement that treats everyone in a group the same instead of on their individual merits. In other words, bigotry.

And the distrubution of wealth you propose would hit every rich person equally, whether or not they commited some offense against others. So you would treat every rich person based, not on what they do themselves, but on what you think of the nature of the entire group. This is bigotry.

It does not matter how much you say, "but it is true! all Xs really are Y," any attempt to treat each member of a group not as an individual but rather by the group they belong to is bigotry. And bigotry and greed is what you are appealing to and justifying your grab of other peoples wealth.

And, if rich people get out of certain laws or get treated better by the goverment, is not the correct response to tryt to prevent them from getting out of laws we have to follow? The only side of this aurgumetn that makes the claim that certain people should be treated differently under the law is your side.

And let us get back to the fact that you complain about people who inherit advantages, and your using this as justification for taking away the rights of anyone who has more wealth than you. Why is it wrong for me to work hard to give my daughter a better life? I am not some Kennedy scion that you can demonize. I am a working class guy who wants to make my child's life better. You are complaining about how people inherit wealth. Well if I can get some wealth, I want to pass along every penny of it to my daughter. It probably will not be enough to buy the state of Texas, but if I can get enough money to send her to the best university I will. You complain about how the rich do not get into such places on their own finances, I am an example of a father eager to make the sacrifices to give my daughter any advantage such an education can give her. And you are the one that says that other people, like yourself, should somehow pass judgemetn on whether she is worthy or not for my money.

Now why should I give you any say what so ever in how I deal with my wealth and what I pass along to my daughter?

We are talking principles here. Please do not bring up examples of bad people that inherited wealth. We know that there are abuses in every factor and element of human existence. Tell me why you have the right to take away the wealth I build up from practically nothing and out of the mouth of my child.

If you, you want to help those that are less advantaged with your own money, I will only applaud. But you are talking about how you should have a say in the wealth I build and pass along to a daughter I love more than life itself. Charity begins at home. There are many things you can do to help those that need it that does not indirectly line your own pockets.

rmcrobertson

04-12-2003, 11:36 AM

Mr. Roley:

Let me repeat. I've no intention of taking away a thing from your daughter, and I've no idea how the hell you got this notion--other than, to repeat myself again, the way that left-wing and socialist ideas typically are presented on talk shows. One more time: no, that is not the idea. Not at all.

Secondly, the assertion that one is, "bigoted," because of actually looking at reality is, well, a bit twisted. In the first place, I wrote nothing about all individuals--I wrote about a class. And I believe the idea that the rich, the upper middle class, earned their money through sheer hard work and talent is sheer humbug.

What would you call the latest gigantic tax rebate, if not one more example of a class taking advantage of its privileges? I know, I know, a "rising tide lifts all boats." The wealthy will, "use the money to invest in America." It's trickle-down economics revived yet again--the same trickle-down (wonderful image, by the way) that Bush Sr. once called, "voodoo economics." Fine, I guess--just don't pee on my head and tell me it's raining.

I've met some of these guys, OK? They couldn't care less about helping America--their big idea is to grab as much as they can. Of course, capitalist theory says that that's a Good Thing....

Thanks for the discussion.

Kirk

04-12-2003, 11:49 AM

You've just written a bunch of gobble-dee-gook. Once again you
fail to address the issues at hand, and go off on your own
personal rant of what was stated, yet not answering questions.

When presented with fact, you question the source, when
presented with opinion of how things would work under the
regime you desire, you come back with sheer sarcasm. And now
you've made an attempt to change the subject to current events.

I've no intention of taking away a thing from your daughter, and I've no idea how the hell you got this notion--other than, to repeat myself again, the way that left-wing and socialist ideas typically are presented on talk shows. One more time: no, that is not the idea. Not at all.

Then what is the idea???? You want everyone on equal footing, but don't want to take away from anyone? How's that possible?
Or is it that you just want to take from the rich, and who cares
about those less fortunate than yourself?

Secondly, the assertion that one is, "bigoted," because of actually looking at reality is, well, a bit twisted. In the first place, I wrote nothing about all individuals--I wrote about a class.

Yep, and entire group of people, and you put labels on them.

And I believe the idea that the rich, the upper middle class, earned their money through sheer hard work and talent is sheer humbug.

Ever hear of Bill Gates? Walt Disney? Henry Ford? Steve
Wozniak? Steve Jobs? Not to mention the multitude of
immigrants who have come to this country with nothing, busted
their butts and have joined the classes which you abhore. How
about a change on the Statue of Liberty? "Give me your tired,
your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free ... so
they can support the lazy bums of this country that don't want
to earn their own living".

brianhunter

04-12-2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

Secondly, the assertion that one is, "bigoted," because of actually looking at reality is, well, a bit twisted. In the first place, I wrote nothing about all individuals--I wrote about a class. And I believe the idea that the rich, the upper middle class, earned their money through sheer hard work and talent is sheer humbug.

So when you bastardize a whole class of people and label them it is not prejudice? So lets take a green money symbol and make all rich white guys sew it on their jacket so they are easily recognized. Someone once did this with the star of David too because they singled out a group for all the economic whoas of their country.

I keep waiting for you to answer some of the questions asked of you or justify something with a fact, not a theory, or something you read in a science fiction novel, or marxist text. I suppose the questions where retorical since they already knew the answers you refused to give. You continue to try to amaze people with verbal feces instead of answering the question.....I guess its easy to parrot "No war for oil" since thats what all evil rich white guys want, instead of looking into facts.

I know a man who had a 9th grade education and could barely write a check or his name in cursive, who later dusted himself off started his own business and made 6 figures a year by the time he was 40, dont tell me it cant happen. Its here if you want it bad enough.

Phil Elmore

04-12-2003, 12:36 PM

Envy is an ugly thing, even when it wears the mask of egalitarian good intentions.

A Life Of One's Own: Individual Rights and the Welfare State (http://www.philelmore.com/objectivism/lifeown.htm)

khadaji

04-12-2003, 01:33 PM

So when you bastardize a whole class of people and label them it is not prejudice? So lets take a green money symbol and make all rich white guys sew it on their jacket so they are easily recognized. Someone once did this with the star of David too because they singled out a group for all the economic whoas of their country.

This was done in history to single out the peasants from the upperclass.. in some places I see this in our time now. (Posible example: low wage erning jobs mostly all have bad uniforms that are no where close to the more refined look of the managers.)

Here is some contibutions to the discusion

something said from Lester Throue (a professor at a time of MIT of economics, and business, and he has been the CEO of several companies, and has writen atleast one book)

he said to the effect that: The wealthy are the ones who have benifeted, and have gained the most from our society, so they should be the ones who should give back to it for the best of the society. They should do this out of respect, and honor to the society that has helped them to gain so much.

His basic arguments were that the rich should pay more in tax, and other stuff because they owe it to the society that permitted them to get to were they are. Its like giving thanks.

If I continue, In other some societies, people are not allowed to get rich, nomater how lucky, or hard they work. In the past or present.

surely wether you have a liberal, or conservitive veiw this seems like a reasonable situation. (There are more veiws then these two as well)

Now from a different veiw. As a county we have costs, they have to be payed some how. Rich are a good idea, becasue they have all the reasources, the poor and middle class have far to little. I am not to say that the poor and middle class should not pay there share, but lets be reasonable. Even if ALL they had was taken, its simply not enough. Simply because its the only way its going to work, the rich have to contibute more. Its not because its fair, or right, its the simple truth.

I could write a lot more, but I think thats enough for now...

:asian:

Don Roley

04-12-2003, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by khadaji

His basic arguments were that the rich should pay more in tax, and other stuff because they owe it to the society that permitted them to get to were they are. Its like giving thanks

People did not give or permit the rich to get where they were the are, they traded with them because it was in their own self interest.

Let us look at it like this, how many of us could be in on this discussion if it was not for Bill Gates? Not a lot I bet. Are we forever in his debt because he allowed, permitted, granted or whatever you call it, the use of our computers?

No, of course not. We paid him for a service, he gave us the product just as freely as we gave him the money and our obligations towards each other ended there.

How many people own their own computers and are posting from them? Does the buisiness owner who paid your wage from which you bought that computer have any right to it's use? No. You exchanged services for cash, and your obligations ended there. So if you exchange cash for the services or products of a business, how come they are still obligated towards you?

Food for thought, eh? People are quite willing to say that others are obligated towards them, but when you turn the logic on them they realy start to fluster.

rmcrobertson

04-13-2003, 03:04 AM

Well, this is hopeless. I've repeatedly cited facts, events, figures, books, etc., and apparently they don't mean diddley.

Walt Disney? Yep, love Disney's cartoons. However, kindly old Walt was a raving anti-semite, and ripped off the work of better cartoonists, most famously Ub Iwerks. Henry Ford? despised working people, said so time after time, which is why his particular version of Taylorization (that's Frederick Jackson Taylor, generally thought to be the originator of time/motion studies and the central theoretician behind the modern assembly line) made sure they never learned how to do more than one thing. Sure, he paid better than was usual. Absolutely it was an improvement. Over slavery and feudalism, and by comparasion with the grotesque jobs that the other poor bastards had.

As for Gates, Wozniak, Jobs, etc., sure sure sure. They worked hard. And now, they largely "make," money through administration and stock manipulation; haven't done any real engineering in years. And oh, by the way, they largely became successful through ripping off the work of an unsung team of engineers at XeroxPARC. And oh, by the way, didn't Gates just finally "lose," a major anti-trust suit?

Even Lester Thurow--Lester Thurow!--is not conservative enough for ya?

If y'all want to feel that rich people are on your side and so is capitalism, OK fine. For your sakes, I hope it's true and I hope it stays that way.

After all, corporations would never treat anyone unfairly, or stick it to America when it helped the bottom line.

Why, if that were true, Levi-Strauss would have moved oversears and so would've Life Savers. We'd have decaying cities and infrastructure, in the wake of heavy industry pulling out. Drug companies would be promoting medications we don't need on TV, and paying kickbacks to doctors. Energy companies, accounting firms, would be cooking the books. Paper companies and logging corporations would be clear-cutting and ducking environmental reglations. Companies like Beatrice Foods would be running family farms out of business, and sucking the Ogallalla Aquifer dry in the Midwest. Car companies would be fighting tooth and nail to avoid fuel and weight restrictions, despite the clear links of automobile pollution to global warming. Veteran's benefits would be getting cut so that the Defense Department could dump the cash into bigger and better high tech systems. Even sports and entertainment would become blander and blander, as they became more and more dominated by multinational tycoons like Rupert Murdoch and Gulf & Western and Sony. Mom and pop stores would be replaced, everywhere, by something called Wal-Mart.

Why hell, if corporations weren't benificent, the average work-week would be crreping up over the last twenty years, together with the average commuting time, while real wages would be in decline and there'd be a widening gap between what a CEO makes and what an average worker makes.

Whew. Good thing none of that is happening.

brianhunter

04-13-2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson

Car companies would be fighting tooth and nail to avoid fuel and weight restrictions, despite the clear links of automobile pollution to global warming.

Yeah! I know the SNOW we got in APRIL last week would have been sooo much worse if not for global worming! It has got to be stopped! :shrug: Im glad Al Gore invented the internet so we could all have this discussion!

khadaji

04-13-2003, 11:07 AM

Well, this is hopeless. I've repeatedly cited facts, events, figures, books, etc., and apparently they don't mean diddley.

I have argued for years to my professors and teachers that goig through the effort of citing scholory work, resources, facts, and such was pointless becasue people simply believe in what they want to anyway.

Food for thought, eh? People are quite willing to say that others are obligated towards them, but when you turn the logic on them they realy start to fluster.

The ones who are wealthy, have all the food, the rest of the poor only have thought. Is it so much trouble for some wealthy people to simply have one less Boat, house, or car simply so less fortionet people could have enough to stay alive in a life that does not suck. when you proportion things out, there is so little wealthy have to give up, so the rest can actualy have a deacent life.

Bill Gates him self even commented that once you have got your sell a Billion dollars, that it is basicly imposible to make your life improve after that. Becasue nothing is out for your ability. Having more then that will not imporve your life style becasue you already have the best that can be gotten.

all of this is simply resource distibution. :shrug:

arnisador

04-13-2003, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by khadaji
I have argued for years to my professors and teachers that goig through the effort of citing scholory work, resources, facts, and such was pointless becasue people simply believe in what they want to anyway.

"When somebody persuades me that I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?"— John Maynard Keynes

rmcrobertson

04-13-2003, 01:14 PM

Boy, are you last two guys right. The amazing part is, I've been teaching for over twenty years and I still haven't figured out a smart way around it--probably because there is no way around it.

Thanks, though. Good reminder of reality.

rmcrobertson

04-13-2003, 01:19 PM

Just for fun--increasingly chaotic weather, like unusual snow in April, is a hallmark of global warming. Read the stuff: from what little I understand about what NOAA and others are saying, it happens because you're dumping more heat into a closed system...which, come to think of it, is more or less what I've been doing on this thread.

arnisador

04-13-2003, 01:20 PM

I've found logic to be of little value in actual arguments--and I'm a a mathematician. Most people are vested in their beliefs and very reluctant to change them. Logic and carefully ordered, well-supported arguments are, as a practical matter, over-rated.

Luckily, mathematicians tend to be more responsive to facts!

rmcrobertson

04-13-2003, 01:36 PM

Hm. English professors sure aren't--and what's worse, on the community college level where I now teach, they spend a lot of time with pseudo-scientific nonsense about "testing," and "assessment," so they often claim that they have an actual basis in measured reality. And you're quite right--I just continued to be fascinated by ideology, as well as baffled by it. It's like that Schermer book, "Why People Believe Weird Things..."

Kirk

04-13-2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Well, this is hopeless. I've repeatedly cited facts, events, figures, books, etc., and apparently they don't mean diddley.

You've been cited facts as well. Mostly you just insult the source.
They don't mean diddley to you either.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Walt Disney? Yep, love Disney's cartoons. However, kindly old Walt was a raving anti-semite, and ripped off the work of better cartoonists, most famously Ub Iwerks. Henry Ford? despised working people, said so time after time, which is why his particular version of Taylorization (that's Frederick Jackson Taylor, generally thought to be the originator of time/motion studies and the central theoretician behind the modern assembly line) made sure they never learned how to do more than one thing. Sure, he paid better than was usual. Absolutely it was an improvement. Over slavery and feudalism, and by comparasion with the grotesque jobs that the other poor bastards had.

We can point out character flaws of anyone. What has this got
to do to prove your argument for distributed wealth?
The point I was trying to make was that they built their fortunes
from the ground up. Ripped off works? Where's your source for
this? The way I heard it, is he paid good money for those
cartoons. Edison had people of his employ that invented things
that Edison owned the copyright on. Those people in his employ
had the same freedom of choice that Edison had when he
amassed his fortune.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
As for Gates, Wozniak, Jobs, etc., sure sure sure. They worked hard. And now, they largely "make," money through administration and stock manipulation; haven't done any real engineering in years.

The fact still remains they earned their money through hard work
and their own personal inovation. No one handed it to them.
Because they don't engineer now, they somehow don't deserve
the money they've made? They don't have the right to send their
kids to the finest schools money can buy? They haven't earned
that right?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
And oh, by the way, they largely became successful through ripping off the work of an unsung team of engineers at XeroxPARC.

You're only presenting part of the story now, aren't you? The
fact is, they had already built their company up from
nothing when they met with Xerox. The fact is, Xerox
received stock for their information. The fact is, Xerox
had no interest in pursuing home computers at that time. It
was a legitimate business deal, in which Xerox benefitted. Is
Apple to blame because Xerox didn't have the foresight to know
they were sitting on a gold mine?

And just FYI Wozniak has never stopped engineering. He just
launched a new company recently, selling a product in which he
engineered himself.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
And oh, by the way, didn't Gates just finally "lose," a major anti-trust suit?

Yes, he did. The democratic legislation went after him with
everything they had. Probably because at the time, MS only had
2 lobbyists on staff. Not nearly enough to distribute the wealth
among the politicians in power at the time (democrat majority
btw). But the anti-trust practices he was accused of ... how does
that present the argument that he should distribute his wealth,
and that his children aren't entitled to the money he's earned?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
If y'all want to feel that rich people are on your side and so is capitalism, OK fine. For your sakes, I hope it's true and I hope it stays that way.

Well capitalism has certainly lasted longer than the economic
system of the Soviet Union. How long was it, something like
85 years or so? Where else has it worked? If you say China,
then you're kidding yourself. If it wasn't for us capitalist pigs
importing their products, they'd be starving right now.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
After all, corporations would never treat anyone unfairly, or stick it to America when it helped the bottom line.

More of that sarcasm I was talking about. Plenty of corporations
have NOT done these acts. But they all need to fall under the
checks and balances that you speak of?

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Why, if that were true, Levi-Strauss would have moved oversears and so would've Life Savers. We'd have decaying cities and infrastructure, in the wake of heavy industry pulling out. Drug companies would be promoting medications we don't need on TV, and paying kickbacks to doctors. Energy companies, accounting firms, would be cooking the books. Paper companies and logging corporations would be clear-cutting and ducking environmental reglations. Companies like Beatrice Foods would be running family farms out of business, and sucking the Ogallalla Aquifer dry in the Midwest. Car companies would be fighting tooth and nail to avoid fuel and weight restrictions, despite the clear links of automobile pollution to global warming. Veteran's benefits would be getting cut so that the Defense Department could dump the cash into bigger and better high tech systems. Even sports and entertainment would become blander and blander, as they became more and more dominated by multinational tycoons like Rupert Murdoch and Gulf & Western and Sony. Mom and pop stores would be replaced, everywhere, by something called Wal-Mart.

That's always happened. But it's not limited to a capitalist arena.
Damned good t hing we live in a democratic republic. Where if you
could rally up like minded people like yourself, and put a stop to
this. But I'm sure you've got a finger pointed somewhere to give
you an excuse as to why that can't happen. Whew. Good thing
the ERA didn't cop your attitude.

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Why hell, if corporations weren't benificent, the average work-week would be crreping up over the last twenty years, together with the average commuting time, while real wages would be in decline and there'd be a widening gap between what a CEO makes and what an average worker makes.

Whew. Good thing none of that is happening.

More condescention, more sarcasm. You insult through this
media, others do it more candidly, or more blatant. Yet they're
still the same. Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you.

arnisador

04-13-2003, 03:11 PM

The Xerox PARC situation is much more complicated than it appears. I recommend Go To (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465042252/qid=1050260923/) by Steve Lohr for a balanced discussion. In short, Xerox PARC wasn't ripped off--they were proselytzing (or parts of it at least) and there were many informal contacts made before the "big day" of the infamous walk-through.

As to testing and assessment in the humanities--you don't have to tell me. Sometimes it seems as though it's all they do. I could go on at great length on this...

rmcrobertson

04-13-2003, 03:13 PM

One of the problems I've often noted--of course, it's been noted elsewhere--is that us intellectual types are always at a disadvantage in public discussions. We tend to be long-winded, because we think that complex issues take a while to explain; we try to avoid (though we don't always manage to) insults, because we think that public discussion should have rules; we can't offer easy answers, because we don't believe in them. Worst, we have a bad habit of seeing the other guy's point of view.

I am sorry that there's no basis upon which we can converse, Kirk, given what I would have thought would be our common ground, kenpo. But your writing becomes, at times, a kind of bullying. It's no different from some of the lower belts I've seen who are big, strong, and aggressive, and presume on the better manners of others to take advantage. Problem is, this makes it harder for other students like myself, and it makes it hard for them to really learn martial arts.

I'm fairly sure--it's a judgment of character that I feel confident enough about--that you don't even think about behaving that way on the mats.

I'm also just plain stubborn, and I'm sure we'll disagree further. I'm sure that this post will occasion another direct insult or two. So I'll leave you to it. But I hope that at some point, we'll just take a class together; one of the nice things about kenpo (and martial arts generally, to be sure) is the way it provides common ground for very different people.

Kirk

04-13-2003, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
One of the problems I've often noted--of course, it's been noted elsewhere--is that us intellectual types are always at a disadvantage in public discussions. We tend to be long-winded, because we think that complex issues take a while to explain; we try to avoid (though we don't always manage to) insults, because we think that public discussion should have rules; we can't offer easy answers, because we don't believe in them. Worst, we have a bad habit of seeing the other guy's point of view.

I am sorry that there's no basis upon which we can converse, Kirk, given what I would have thought would be our common ground, kenpo. But your writing becomes, at times, a kind of bullying. It's no different from some of the lower belts I've seen who are big, strong, and aggressive, and presume on the better manners of others to take advantage. Problem is, this makes it harder for other students like myself, and it makes it hard for them to really learn martial arts.

I'm fairly sure--it's a judgment of character that I feel confident enough about--that you don't even think about behaving that way on the mats.

I'm also just plain stubborn, and I'm sure we'll disagree further. I'm sure that this post will occasion another direct insult or two. So I'll leave you to it. But I hope that at some point, we'll just take a class together; one of the nice things about kenpo (and martial arts generally, to be sure) is the way it provides common ground for very different people.

I've been told by a couple "mutual friends" (most you've met
face to face while I've only talked to them on the phone) that you
and I would probably get along extremely well in a face to face
situation. Although they do suggest we talk about anything
OTHER than politics. I've told them that I find that hard to believe,
yet I respect their opinions and would definitely at least give it
a try ... if I can ever make it out to Cali (a.k.a Kenpo Mecca).

The biggest problem with you and I is from the kenponet. My side
of things is that you resulted to personal attacks, which at first
I just blew off, because I know how it is when reading something
that disagrees with every political belief I hold. One time the
posts there dwindled to very little, and this board didn't exist
yet. I posted some right slanted post with the title "here's one
for Mr McRobertson", and you tore me, my character, the post,
and my source to absolute shreds. I posted, for reason of getting
some activity on the board and the title I felt would help celebrate
the difference between our opinions. Instead, you chose to
attack me.

This causes a major problem with you extending any kind of olive
branch in this direction. I can't seem to find faith enough to trust
you. It's hard to believe that it's a genuine olive branch and not
a fist hidden behind your back waiting for me to let my guard
down. I know this is an insult to you, but it's honestly what's
going on over hear. I'm sorry that I HAD TO insult to express
myself. I don't see a way out of this impasse.

I'm going to TRY to stay away from the religious and political
threads from now on .. but ya gotta admit .. for the both of us ...
it's not an easy thing to do.
:asian: