Michael Moore’s $2M hypocrite house: film director lives like the 1% he condemns

[nec209]

Michael Moore’s $2M hypocrite house: film director lives like the 1% he condemns.

 

 

 

It’s no secret that Moore has made millions from his muckraking documentaries, and there’s no reason he shouldn’t have. As one of the most successful documentary film-makers ever, he’s successfully tapped a rich vein of anti-capitalist rhetoric that sells well among U.S. liberals.

 

 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/11/14/michael-moores-hypocrite-house/

 

 

Yap he is saying he is for the people but look it all fake.

[CaptainPanic]

Does he condemn people being rich in general?

Or does he condemn rich people who got rich over the backs of others?

 

I think your complaint is a little oversimplified.

[nec209]

Does he condemn people being rich in general?

Or does he condemn rich people who got rich over the backs of others?

 

I think your complaint is a little oversimplified.

 

 

He dresses like a working class man and and say bad things about the rich and elite but he now is rich .I think most of is documentary is fact he is mad what happen to his home town than being a political activist.

[imatfaal]

He dresses like a working class man and and say bad things about the rich and elite but he now is rich .I think most of is documentary is fact he is mad what happen to his home town than being a political activist.

 

He is a successful film-maker and writer - that doesn't disqualify him from commenting on the political system. In fact it removes the potential criticism that he only attacks the system cos he is jealous, and the further jibe that he does not understand the process of running a project at a profit.

[CaptainPanic]

If you watch his movies, then you will notice that his argument goes a little further than: "Rich is bad. Mkay.".

[Phi for All]

He dresses like a working class man and and say bad things about the rich and elite but he now is rich .I think most of is documentary is fact he is mad what happen to his home town than being a political activist.

This is the result of a carefully constructed propaganda campaign, imo. I've seen this strawman setup with the Occupy Wall Street movement. The real protest is against unfair corporate practices and their influence over politics (something Moore has championed over and over again), but the propaganda machine twists this into class warfare. It's even describing it as between "the capitalist class and the working class". The movement is NOT against capitalism or the wealthy, it's against giving corporations too much power, including the rights of citizens when they have fewer liabilities and less accountability than citizens.

 

Moore doesn't attack "the rich" unless their corporate practices are corrupt and dishonest. I haven't liked all his documentaries, but let's at least look honestly at his work.

[JohnStu]

Having a house doesnt' mean he is living like those guys.

 

Having a house and what you do with it is what determines your side.

 

I believe Michael is using that house as a toy factory to build toys for children for Christmas.

 

Also, it's only a 2 million house. 2 million is nothing

[iNow]

In what way do you presume that earning a decent income removes your ability to speak out against corruption and cronyism authentically? We hear the same stupid argument against Elizabeth Warren, where instead of addressing the content of her position those who oppose her evade and distract by saying she is herself wealthy so is a hypocrite for speaking out openly against Wall Street shenanigans. This type of position is many levels of ignorant wrapped in a blanket of delusion.

[JustinW]

imatfaal,

 

In fact it removes the potential criticism that he only attacks the system cos he is jealous, and the further jibe that he does not understand the process of running a project at a profit.

But it adds one because he attacks the very thing that made him rich. He attacks capitalism, which seems to be working just fine for him, and spouts left wing rederict. It seems very coincedental that the film "A love story" came out at the same time Obama was trying to push through a major agenda. Michael Moore, genuinly concerned, or liberal lapdog? That film was known for a couple of blatant fallacies and seemed to champion socialism in place of capitalism, which is in itself kind of ironic since Moore doesn't seem to want to spread his wealth any. It seems to me that all Moore has done was make money on people's emotional dispair and anger toward government. He even went so far as to blame Wall Street for Hurricane Katrina having such a big impact on New Orleans. WTF! I'll have to admit he does put a hell of a spin on things, but I also can't help but think that someone could just as well put a conservative spin on things if they felt the need. I also have to question the motives of his work. Are his films really made to "open peoples eyes", or is it just a need to reach more people on an emotional level to push an agenda that would have no strength without the spin and emotional rederict.

[Phi for All]

He attacks capitalism, which seems to be working just fine for him, and spouts left wing rederict.

What is American capitalism to you? Is it mega-corporations who reap 1000% returns on their investments in lobbying to gain tax exemptions or lessen the regulations that keep consumers safe, or is it more about workers and executives taking pride in the companies they work together for and the products and services they sell?

 

And you should look up what rhetoric means. Right-wing pundits have blurred its meaning quite a bit, mostly because they abuse it regularly.

[swansont]

Does he condemn people being rich in general?

Or does he condemn rich people who got rich over the backs of others?

 

I think your complaint is a little oversimplified.

 

Exactly. The complaint against the 1% isn't simply that they are rich.

[JustinW]

Phi,

 

What is American capitalism to you? Is it mega-corporations who reap 1000% returns on their investments in lobbying to gain tax exemptions or lessen the regulations that keep consumers safe, or is it more about workers and executives taking pride in the companies they work together for and the products and services they sell?

It's rather funny you should ask. Once I thought about it for a split second, capitalism to me, doesn't have anything to do with corporations, lobbyists, polititions, or film producers for that matter. All the while having to include them. Capitalism for me is my kids kindergarden teacher selling pies in her shop on the square, or Pete at his hardware store across the street from her who'll cut you a deal if you don't have enough money for what you need at the time. Or Oliver, the grocery store manager who's an a**hole just because he can be, all the while accepting produce from people's gardens just so they can earn an extra buck every now and then. All this complaint about 1% really annoys the sh** out of me. Lets change our whole structure and the reason that America used to be a place where people wanted to come for a better life. Let's switch to socialism or something of that sort just because we let a nasty 1% of America piss us off. Let's not focus on righting that 1% but instead let's do things that will affect the 99% as well. I might could like what Moore has to say if it didn't include an anthem for socialism or the fact that it's not just a complaint against the one percent, but goes towards establishing an idea that this is what America has become. That's BS.

 

And when I mentioned rhetoric, that is what I meant. Is he not inciting action from an audience through argument? Is that not what rhetoric means? Rhetoric comes from both sides and Moore clearly shouts from the side of socialism and the like. Capitalism is what built this country to it's greatness. I remember you saying, Phi, that the so called, "American Dream" is a thing of the past. That it has no place in a world economy such as ours. I beg to differ. Why is it, do you think, that we have an unprecedented number of imigrants, legal and illegal. They come to this country for a better life. They come to this country for a hope to better support their families and themselves. They come to this country in hopes of capitalizing on skills and ideas that they may either posess or contribute to. Capitalism is not a bad thing when you consider the 99%. It is that rhetoric that has has given capitalism a bad name because of the 1%. It is that rhetoric that has shamed people into believeing that we are a greedy nation and that we are incapable of doing what is right without giving up freedom for the sake of fairness and equality. I find it ironic that Moore shouts down the government and the 1%, while championing a way of life that would be strictly run by the government and that same 1%. That doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense to me.

[CaptainPanic]

Let's not focus on righting that 1% but instead let's do things that will affect the 99% as well.

It may be just 1% of the people. But those people represent 15-20% of all the money.

 

15-20% is enough to include them in any economic plans. You cannot ignore such a large part of the economy when you make any new plans.

[JustinW]

15-20% is enough to include them in any economic plans. You cannot ignore such a large part of the economy when you make any new plans.

But you also cannot ignore so many people when it comes to changing their way of life and the way that they do buisness. I say focus on the one percent and leave the 99% alone to live their lives.

[michel123456]

 

It looks furiously like 2 houses.

IMO.

Edited March 1, 2012 by michel123456

[Phi for All]

It's rather funny you should ask. Once I thought about it for a split second, capitalism to me, doesn't have anything to do with corporations, lobbyists, polititions, or film producers for that matter. All the while having to include them. Capitalism for me is my kids kindergarden teacher selling pies in her shop on the square, or Pete at his hardware store across the street from her who'll cut you a deal if you don't have enough money for what you need at the time. Or Oliver, the grocery store manager who's an a**hole just because he can be, all the while accepting produce from people's gardens just so they can earn an extra buck every now and then.

I agree with this. And I think corporations are a big part of the picture as well. It's just that free market capitalism (which isn't so free, I know) is unfairly affected when those corporations can skew the laws to favor themselves over other businesses. You can't tell me that the guy who wrote the above isn't bothered when he hears about things like no-bid contracts or mega-corporations that get all the benefits of doing business in the US as a US company but more than half their workers are overseas and they pay no taxes to help maintain the federal infrastructure they use to make money.

 

All this complaint about 1% really annoys the sh** out of me. Lets change our whole structure and the reason that America used to be a place where people wanted to come for a better life. Let's switch to socialism or something of that sort just because we let a nasty 1% of America piss us off. Let's not focus on righting that 1% but instead let's do things that will affect the 99% as well. I might could like what Moore has to say if it didn't include an anthem for socialism or the fact that it's not just a complaint against the one percent, but goes towards establishing an idea that this is what America has become. That's BS.

The reason you're annoyed is that you obviously misunderstand the movement. It's not about changing to anything other than capitalism, it's about replacing the restrictions that the corporations have so meticulously unraveled since charters were allowed at the beginning of our country, and holding those businesses accountable for their actions. The relentless chipping away of the restrictions has resulted in most of the mess we're in right now.

 

And when I mentioned rhetoric, that is what I meant. Is he not inciting action from an audience through argument? Is that not what rhetoric means? Rhetoric comes from both sides and Moore clearly shouts from the side of socialism and the like.

Socialism? Michael Moore?! Why is it socialistic to speak out against closing plants that are the lifeblood of cities and towns all over the US? It wasn't just union wages that started such a mass exodus of US companies.

 

And you're right, rhetoric / persuasion is used by both sides. So why point fingers at one side only? When any pundit mentions the other side's rhetoric, it should be a signal to ignore him or her.

 

Capitalism is what built this country to it's greatness. I remember you saying, Phi, that the so called, "American Dream" is a thing of the past. That it has no place in a world economy such as ours. I beg to differ.

I define the American Dream as hard-working people making their companies strong and taking pride in the fact that their products are sought after as the best. Those people buy products because they're paid well and everyone contributes to help the economy. Business owners really mean it when they say that their companies are all about their people, and they make sure their workers are happy and healthy.

 

So when I see what's happening today, with all the lobbying and the pension thefts and the Enron behavior and the tax exemptions and subsidies for healthy companies and the erosion of worker benefits, while the corporations continue to encourage citizens to play their part in the economy, yes, I think the American Dream is over. If you want it back, we simply need to rein in the abuses of the system, replace the restrictions and regulations, and make those who are most capable of it pay their fair share of the taxes that keep us strong and functioning. That, and we need to bring back a healthy middle class so we can continue to buy what we make.

 

Why is it, do you think, that we have an unprecedented number of imigrants, legal and illegal. They come to this country for a better life. They come to this country for a hope to better support their families and themselves. They come to this country in hopes of capitalizing on skills and ideas that they may either posess or contribute to. Capitalism is not a bad thing when you consider the 99%. It is that rhetoric that has has given capitalism a bad name because of the 1%. It is that rhetoric that has shamed people into believeing that we are a greedy nation and that we are incapable of doing what is right without giving up freedom for the sake of fairness and equality. I find it ironic that Moore shouts down the government and the 1%, while championing a way of life that would be strictly run by the government and that same 1%. That doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense to me.

We're still better than many of the other choices, imo, and I think that's why people immigrate here. And again, capitalism isn't the problem, it's the way some people are exploiting capitalism. Capitalism is a tool, and tools can be misused. Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm against knives because I complain about that big guy who is cutting our piece of the pie thinner and thinner in order to make his piece bigger and bigger. We don't need to take his knife away, but I think we need to get one of those cutting guides that restaurants use to make sure the pieces are fair and even.

[JustinW]

I agree with this. And I think corporations are a big part of the picture as well. It's just that free market capitalism (which isn't so free, I know) is unfairly affected when those corporations can skew the laws to favor themselves over other businesses. You can't tell me that the guy who wrote the above isn't bothered when he hears about things like no-bid contracts or mega-corporations that get all the benefits of doing business in the US as a US company but more than half their workers are overseas and they pay no taxes to help maintain the federal infrastructure they use to make money.

Agreed, and a certain amount of correction should be considered when it comes to the top 1%. But I don't think it should be a type that affects the majority of average businesses out there or the social structure of the country as a whole.

 

 

The reason you're annoyed is that you obviously misunderstand the movement. It's not about changing to anything other than capitalism, it's about replacing the restrictions that the corporations have so meticulously unraveled since charters were allowed at the beginning of our country, and holding those businesses accountable for their actions. The relentless chipping away of the restrictions has resulted in most of the mess we're in right now.

But here you're only talking about one part of the same movement. In Moore's films he touches on more than just corporate America. He also touches on social aspects of America and hints towards the fact that the 1%ers are also responsible for this. The ,so called "movement", is not just about corporate business and economy. It's social justice, social equality, human rights, entitlements, etc... utopian society or close to it.

 

Socialism? Michael Moore?! Why is it socialistic to speak out against closing plants that are the lifeblood of cities and towns all over the US? It wasn't just union wages that started such a mass exodus of US companies.

 

Did you notice the ending song in the film "A Love Story"? It was the socialist anthem "The Internationale". He goes on to interview priests and the like to insinuate that socialism is holier than capitalism. Here is just one link http://www.rense.com...8/socialism.htm.

 

And you're right, rhetoric / persuasion is used by both sides. So why point fingers at one side only? When any pundit mentions the other side's rhetoric, it should be a signal to ignore him or her.

I pointed fingers at one side because it was Moore and what he talks about that was the subject of this thread. And I think I mentioned that I could understand what Moore was talking about to a degree if he wasn't championing this kind of ideology. If he was making a documentary that said, "look we've got a problem that needs to be adressed", then I would say fine. But when he goes on to try and mask his true intentions behind someone's mistakes I say that alone hurts a person's credibility. I wouldn't say to totally ignore what anyone has to say, but I would say that someone like Moore should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

 

 

I define the American Dream as hard-working people making their companies strong and taking pride in the fact that their products are sought after as the best. Those people buy products because they're paid well and everyone contributes to help the economy. Business owners really mean it when they say that their companies are all about their people, and they make sure their workers are happy and healthy.

Very true and for those who have done this, very commendable.

 

So when I see what's happening today, with all the lobbying and the pension thefts and the Enron behavior and the tax exemptions and subsidies for healthy companies and the erosion of worker benefits, while the corporations continue to encourage citizens to play their part in the economy, yes, I think the American Dream is over. If you want it back, we simply need to rein in the abuses of the system, replace the restrictions and regulations, and make those who are most capable of it pay their fair share of the taxes that keep us strong and functioning. That, and we need to bring back a healthy middle class so we can continue to buy what we make.

But when you say something like that it implies that you mean the nation as a whole. When the true fact is that this only applies to the big cities and those top 1%ers. The fact is that when those uppity polititions get together to rein in these abuses, it won't just be those 1%ers getting the shaft. Anything that will happen to them, they will make damn sure it will filter down to average citizens. The fact is that steps need to be taken that directly deal with these abuses that happen between polititions and corporations.

 

 

 

We're still better than many of the other choices, imo, and I think that's why people immigrate here. And again, capitalism isn't the problem, it's the way some people are exploiting capitalism. Capitalism is a tool, and tools can be misused. Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm against knives because I complain about that big guy who is cutting our piece of the pie thinner and thinner in order to make his piece bigger and bigger. We don't need to take his knife away, but I think we need to get one of those cutting guides that restaurants use to make sure the pieces are fair and even.

I don't agree with the analogy. I don't believe that fair and even should be any part of political or social policy. We still need the freedom to allow a company to grow as much as the market will allow them to. We just need to stop the top companies from gaining in a way that others can't, through political gains and such. The restriction wouldn't be on freedom or growth, but rather restrict on political conspiracy and exploitation. Does that make any sense? I'm kind of just going off the cuff here and haven't thought my posts out to any great length. Edited March 1, 2012 by JustinW

[Phi for All]

Agreed, and a certain amount of correction should be considered when it comes to the top 1%. But I don't think it should be a type that affects the majority of average businesses out there or the social structure of the country as a whole.

It shouldn't have to affect businesses that aren't abusing the system.

 

As far as the country's social structure, this abuse by corporations and politicians has affected it much more than any regulations have. Fear of communism, fear of gangs, fear of terrorists and fear of losing your job have literally changed the way most people behave within their communities in the last fifty years. It's changed the way we build our homes and how we raise our children.

 

 

But here you're only talking about one part of the same movement. In Moore's films he touches on more than just corporate America. He also touches on social aspects of America and hints towards the fact that the 1%ers are also responsible for this. The ,so called "movement", is not just about corporate business and economy. It's social justice, social equality, human rights, entitlements, etc... utopian society or close to it.

 

Did you notice the ending song in the film "A Love Story"? It was the socialist anthem "The Internationale". He goes on to interview priests and the like to insinuate that socialism is holier than capitalism. Here is just one link http://www.rense.com...8/socialism.htm.

I don't remember seeing this film. As I said, I don't automatically like everything he does.

 

If I may butcher things with another analogy, capitalism is like a familiar game I enjoy playing. If it's played right, most people enjoy it and do well with it. When some of the players start changing the rules in their favor, we either need to stop playing or go back to the rules that made the game fair and equitable.

 

But when you say something like that it implies that you mean the nation as a whole. When the true fact is that this only applies to the big cities and those top 1%ers. The fact is that when those uppity polititions get together to rein in these abuses, it won't just be those 1%ers getting the shaft. Anything that will happen to them, they will make damn sure it will filter down to average citizens. The fact is that steps need to be taken that directly deal with these abuses that happen between polititions and corporations.

The big corporations often have facilities in small towns. That's what makes it so devastating when they suddenly pull up stakes and move overseas for a little more profit.

 

As for them trying to retaliate if we regulate them more, that's what the market is for. Try to start charging fees for debit card use and maybe we move our money out of your bank.

 

But we're on the same page here, Justin. Anything that is done to correct our political system and the mega-corporations hold over it should be surgical and swift.

 

 

I don't agree with the analogy. I don't believe that fair and even should be any part of political or social policy. We still need the freedom to allow a company to grow as much as the market will allow them to. We just need to stop the top companies from gaining in a way that others can't, through political gains and such. The restriction wouldn't be on freedom or growth, but rather restrict on political conspiracy and exploitation. Does that make any sense? I'm kind of just going off the cuff here and haven't thought my posts out to any great length.

I didn't mean everyone gets an equal part of the pie. I meant that we need better guidelines to ensure that unfair advantages aren't part of a company's freedom to grow.

[JustinW]

As far as the country's social structure, this abuse by corporations and politicians has affected it much more than any regulations have. Fear of communism, fear of gangs, fear of terrorists and fear of losing your job have literally changed the way most people behave within their communities in the last fifty years. It's changed the way we build our homes and how we raise our children.

How is this? Again I think this may be more prevailant in bigger cities than in smaller communities. The only way I could see it affecting the way our kids are raised is for me telling mine that fairness and equallity has shite to do with the real world and the way it works.

 

If I may butcher things with another analogy, capitalism is like a familiar game I enjoy playing. If it's played right, most people enjoy it and do well with it. When some of the players start changing the rules in their favor, we either need to stop playing or go back to the rules that made the game fair and equitable.

This one I can agree with. I wouldn't go for not playing altogether since the other options aren't viable, not to mention ideologically unsound for the spirit of this nation. But I would have no problem with going back to the basics if we could find a way to fit current economics in with same standards the old model gives us.

 

 

The big corporations often have facilities in small towns. That's what makes it so devastating when they suddenly pull up stakes and move overseas for a little more profit.

 

As for them trying to retaliate if we regulate them more, that's what the market is for. Try to start charging fees for debit card use and maybe we move our money out of your bank.

 

But we're on the same page here, Justin. Anything that is done to correct our political system and the mega-corporations hold over it should be surgical and swift.

Agreed.

 

 

I didn't mean everyone gets an equal part of the pie. I meant that we need better guidelines to ensure that unfair advantages aren't part of a company's freedom to grow.

Also agreed. Man I love it when a plan comes together.

[nec209]

This is the result of a carefully constructed propaganda campaign, imo. I've seen this strawman setup with the Occupy Wall Street movement. The real protest is against unfair corporate practices and their influence over politics (something Moore has championed over and over again), but the propaganda machine twists this into class warfare. It's even describing it as between "the capitalist class and the working class". The movement is NOT against capitalism or the wealthy, it's against giving corporations too much power, including the rights of citizens when they have fewer liabilities and less accountability than citizens.

 

Moore doesn't attack "the rich" unless their corporate practices are corrupt and dishonest. I haven't liked all his documentaries, but let's at least look honestly at his work.

 

His program shows the problem !! He never is saying this is the problem and this is what you have do.

 

In the end it up to how the person who sees these programs and say to them self may be this is the problem and this is what we have to do.

Edited March 1, 2012 by nec209

[JustinW]

His program shows the problem !! He never is saying this is the problem and this is what you have do.

 

In the end it up to how the person who sees these programs and say to them self may be this is the problem and this is what we have to do.

 

These were some of the inaccuracies that were mentioned on wiki of all places. It is kind of hard to decide what is accurate and what to do about mentioned "problems" once some things turn up to be inaccurate. Like I said "grain of salt".

 

Topical accuracyThe Associated Press's national business columnist Rachel Beck reviewed the accuracy of three points made in Capitalism:

 

1. Three months after a scene in which Moore approaches Goldman Sachs headquarters to reclaim taxpayers' funds, the bank was one of the ten that repaid part of the $68 billion received from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Moore responded to the action: "We're not talking about the majority of people who took the money ... not even 10 percent of the $700 billion has been returned."^[18]
2. Moore criticizes Wal-Mart for "dead peasant" policies, all 350,000 of which were cancelled in 2000. However, Moore notes that the termination of the policies was covered in the presentation of facts and quotes in the closing credits.^[18]
3. The documentary criticizes Senator Christopher Dodd and other government officials for benefiting from exclusive financial programs; Moore lambasts Dodd in particular for predatory lending as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. The AP reported that the interest rates and fees involved were norms for the industry, and that the Senate's Select Committee on Ethics cleared Dodd and Kent Conrad of getting special treatments, though it cautioned the senators to exercise "more vigilance" with such deals.^[18]

The Association of Advanced Life Underwriting issued a statement that Moore "mischaracterized" corporate owned life insurance, stating that the issues were addressed by Congress in the 1990s and again in 2006. The AALU further states that corporate-owned life insurance (COLI) is only taken out on highly compensated employees, and only with their knowledge and consent, that COLI finances employee benefits and protects jobs and that employees pay nothing for COLI, but receive substantial benefits.^[19]

 

Upon the film's February 2010 theatrical release in the United Kingdom, film critic Mark Kermode, appearing on The Culture Show, asked the BBC's business editor Robert Peston whether Moore's "crusading" had been based on a misrepresentation of American capitalism. Canada's Centre for Research on Globalisation characterized the response: "Peston cannot fault the facts of the movie, though he appears a little uncomfortable having to say so."^[20]

 

 

[edit] Religious subject matter

Religion expert Anthony Stevens-Arroyo stated that the film should be considered "a special kind of Catholic achievement" and asked whether Michael Moore should be named "Catholic of the Year" for raising the serious issues in the context of Catholic teachings, and for presenting "Catholic currents of social justice" in the film.^[21]

 

 

[Phi for All]

How is this? Again I think this may be more prevailant in bigger cities than in smaller communities. The only way I could see it affecting the way our kids are raised is for me telling mine that fairness and equallity has shite to do with the real world and the way it works.

When I was 10, I could take my bike pretty much anywhere I wanted to within about a 1 mile radius, even alone. Three years ago, when my daughter was 10, I wouldn't dream of allowing her to go roaming the neighborhood like I did unless she was with at least three other friends, or an adult I trusted could keep an eye on them. While I might believe she could handle herself, society today would crucify me if anything happened to her under such obviously inferior and uncaring supervision. And after all the warnings and admonitions, I'd probably crucify myself first.

 

There aren't as many parks nearby, since most folks with kids have playsets with swings and slides and rings right in their back yards. The kids rooms are built bigger to accommodate TVs and computers. There are more basements with home entertainment centers. The home has become a compound you don't have to leave to get your entertainment. Home security systems are more the norm nowadays than the rarities they were when I grew up. Fear rules our lives more these days, since we hear about every attack on 24/7 news.

 

It's hard to tell if there are more maniacs out there threatening our families or if we're simply hearing about every single one of them now. I'm sure the reality is different in small towns where you tend to know most people, but even rural social structures have changed since I was a kid. There's more drugs, and more crime due to drugs and unemployment. I'd like to hear you make a case for why the War on Drugs has lasted so long with such backwards results, results that would have scrapped any private project that failed so badly. To me, it's a prime case of political and corporate abuse of the system. I think the only thing the War on Drugs has helped is the companies who profit from it.

 

So yeah, I think our country's social structure has been changed already, and for the worse. Wars that help the enemy grow defeat their primary objective.

[JustinW]

When I was 10, I could take my bike pretty much anywhere I wanted to within about a 1 mile radius, even alone. Three years ago, when my daughter was 10, I wouldn't dream of allowing her to go roaming the neighborhood like I did unless she was with at least three other friends, or an adult I trusted could keep an eye on them. While I might believe she could handle herself, society today would crucify me if anything happened to her under such obviously inferior and uncaring supervision. And after all the warnings and admonitions, I'd probably crucify myself first.

Although I am much younger than you, I myself have had these same feelings. And now you've got me wondering if this is a manufactured fear by those who profit from such, or has our society really declined to the point to where we are not as safe as we used to be in the not to distant past. I can also see an implication on the social aspects of future generations. I would hate to think that society will recluse itself more and more as such fears progress.

 

The war on drugs is very much like our current war on terror. It's unwinnable. With drugs we're fighting against human behaviour and the feel good factor that so many yearn for. They're too easy to come by. In my small neck of the woods drugs are just as prevailant as they were 2 or 3 decades ago. There has been trends that come and go, but as far as that connecting to other type crimes I haven't seen any change in my area. That's not to say that it doesn't have a connection in bigger communities. One thing that has grown in my community over the past couple of decades has been the illegal immigrant population. The amount of crime such as robbery and sexual assualt has went up accordingly also. I would have to assume that that is because illegals don't have the same fear of the law that citezens do. Just a couple of months ago a 75 year old woman was robbed and raped three blocks from my house. This is something that is virtually unheard of around here. It was later heard that the suspect had already fled back across the border to evade the law in this matter. So from a local stand point I would have to say that illegal immigration is more of an issue than the war on drugs. I could fairly say that I would feel safer letting my 9 year old daughter ride her bike through a neighborhood of these backwood dope smokin rednecks before I would feel safe with her riding through a neighborhood of illegal immigrants. You might ask "How do you know they're illegal?", and I would reply, "around here you can tell fairly easy". It isn't as hard in a small town to recognise such as it probably would be in a city. But then again I also have to question my fears just as I have above. Are these manufactured fears or a decaying of the populations scruples that account for these fears? Something to think about.

[Phi for All]

Well, to sum up my position, Moore isn't being hypocritical unless it can be proved that he's abusing the corporate/political system the way the antagonists in his documentaries are. People who want to make it seem like he's waging class warfare are either supporting and/or propagating a huge strawman argument against the progressive movement and Moore in particular.

[rigney]

Well, to sum up my position, Moore isn't being hypocritical unless it can be proved that he's abusing the corporate/political system the way the antagonists in his documentaries are. People who want to make it seem like he's waging class warfare are either supporting and/or propagating a huge strawman argument against the progressive movement and Moore in particular.

 

Who isn't somewhat hypocritical in one way or another? I don't care a rats a-- about the guy, his movies or philosophy. But if I had his money I'd live where ever the hell I wanted to. Moore wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth.