[Gunnair]

RUEZ RUEZ:

andyt andyt:

He created a product people wanted to consume.

Interesting, you just described a lot of people in that 1%.

Yeah but our token racist under achiever is simply too stupid to see his own pathetic hypocrisy.

[BRAH]

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Well, umbrage aside, do you not see a bit of hypocrasy in banging the drum for the impoverished 99% and then at the end of the day retiring to your umpteen square foot home to eat a fresh baked sharkfin pie?

Come on, I get that the Post is taking a bit of a cheap shot but this is kinda like Lindsey Lohan waving her finger at those who drive drunk while sitting behind the wheel of her Mercedes with four fingers of tequila in her hand!

I see your point here, it's like someone pointing out David Suzuki is making greenhouse gas while spreading the word of the evils of greenhouse gas by busing and flying around Canada, but it's not quite the same.

What utter...

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

And you don't see yours. It's part of the human condition.

This is similar to th "global arming is a pile of crap because AlGore is fat" argument. Michael Moore looks pretty fat too actually. I suppose, for the more gullible amongst us, this kind of personal attack will suffuce in place of any actual ratonal position.

Except I honestly have no issue with his wealth at all. I don't like the man all that much, but, he made his money, and he can spend it however he likes. My issue is that he rails against the 1%, while being apart of the 1%, and not understand, or just ignoring that a majority of the 1% aren't Mr. Scrooge, exploiting for every penny.

Even in Michael Moore's own personal letter, donating a great deal of wealth to charity isn't exactly unique amongst the ultra rich. You can be rich all you like, and hell, even champion causes for the poor and whatever else. However, trying to rail against other individuals for achieving the success that he has is just reeking with hypocrisy.

[Zipperfish]

Gunnair Gunnair:

I guess the thing that bugs me is that coming out during the day, standing with the homeless and the poor, then retiring to your mansion really irks the crap out of me. I'd be less irked if he moved in to an occupy movement (yeah, he'd still get to go home some time but for a while he'd be sharing the discomfort) It's these really easy stances that not only cost him nothing but earn him street cred amongst the liberal elites for really doing nothing and sacrificng nothing just burns me!

As a "liberal elite" I get the same feeling when I see these radical right types, who (in the US) almost invariably profess to follow the teachings of Christ, talking about how morally important it is that the rich keep everything and screw the poor.

As I stated above, the only contsant is the hypocricy.

But even if Micahel Moore were to give everything to the poor, or Andrew Brietbart were to actually start acting like the Jesus he professes to believe in, would that change anything? Would that mute the controversey?

No, quite the contrary.

The more these people sacrificed themselves to their princples, the more people would be outraged and condemn them. And if they managed to virtually eliminate their hypocricy; if they managed to actually approach, in reality, the perfection for which they strived, they would find themselves quickly nailed to a cross.

[andyt]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Except I honestly have no issue with his wealth at all. I don't like the man all that much, but, he made his money, and he can spend it however he likes. My issue is that he rails against the 1%, while being apart of the 1%, and not understand, or just ignoring that a majority of the 1% aren't Mr. Scrooge, exploiting for every penny.

Even in Michael Moore's own personal letter, donating a great deal of wealth to charity isn't exactly unique amongst the ultra rich. You can be rich all you like, and hell, even champion causes for the poor and whatever else. However, trying to rail against other individuals for achieving the success that he has is just reeking with hypocrisy.

How does he rail against other individuals? Can you provide links where he says all 1 percenters are scum or that their wealth should be confiscated? What I see him proposing is that the 1 percent should pay more taxes (he paid his), that wages of the 99 percent should go up and income inequality down. That a lot of people made out like bandits pre 2008 because they were behaving exactly like that - bandits. He's against shipping jobs offshore. How is saying that in any way hypocritical unless you can show he evades taxes or hires illegals for starvation wages or something or makes his movies in China?

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Except I honestly have no issue with his wealth at all. I don't like the man all that much, but, he made his money, and he can spend it however he likes. My issue is that he rails against the 1%, while being apart of the 1%, and not understand, or just ignoring that a majority of the 1% aren't Mr. Scrooge, exploiting for every penny.

Even in Michael Moore's own personal letter, donating a great deal of wealth to charity isn't exactly unique amongst the ultra rich. You can be rich all you like, and hell, even champion causes for the poor and whatever else. However, trying to rail against other individuals for achieving the success that he has is just reeking with hypocrisy.

Oh, he's a hypocrite all right. I say him pull this same stunt on an interview with David Gilmour (not the guitar player) on the CBC years ago. He gets nasty when cornered. To me, the fact that he's a hypocrite does not detract at all from his movies. Axl Rose is, by all accounts, an insufferable buffoon, but Appetite for Destruction still rates in the top 10 rock'n'roll discs in my book.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

Can you provide links where he says all 1 percenters are scum

Can you provide links where Lemmy said he hated poor people, as you claim?

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Oh, he's a hypocrite all right. I say him pull this same stunt on an interview with David Gilmour (not the guitar player) on the CBC years ago. He gets nasty when cornered. To me, the fact that he's a hypocrite does not detract at all from his movies. Axl Rose is, by all accounts, an insufferable buffoon, but Appetite for Destruction still rates in the top 10 rock'n'roll discs in my book.

I don't. That's the thing. If you can make millions selling movies and books based on what you believe, more power to you! To me, that's a sign of success. I might disagree with him politically, but that's fine. His wealth, is not what makes him hypocritical, because I'm sure that he does donate his money to charities and such.

However, I take issue with him somehow believing he is unique to the ultra-wealthy of the world. Many millionaires and billionaires are well known as philanthropists, and commonly became wealthy and successful through innovation or creativity. Somehow acting like he isn't a part of the 1% is far more hypocritical than acting like he's some outlier of it.

[bootlegga]

Robair Robair:

There's three sides to every story. Here's the other side, the third side would be the truth. That one's always in the middle somewhere.

$1:

Life Among the 1%


By Michael Moore

Friends,

Twenty-two years ago this coming Tuesday, I stood with a group of factory workers, students and the unemployed in the middle of the downtown of my birthplace, Flint, Michigan, to announce that the Hollywood studio, Warner Bros., had purchased the world rights to distribute my first movie, 'Roger & Me.' A reporter asked me, "How much did you sell it for?"

"Three million dollars!" I proudly exclaimed. A cheer went up from the union guys surrounding me. It was absolutely unheard of for one of us in the working class of Flint (or anywhere) to receive such a sum of money unless one of us had either robbed a bank or, by luck, won the Michigan lottery. On that sunny November day in 1989, it was like I had won the lottery -- and the people I had lived and struggled with in Michigan were thrilled with my success. It was like, one of us had made it, one of us finally had good fortune smile upon us. The day was filled with high-fives and "Way-ta-go Mike!"s. When you are from the working class you root for each other, and when one of you does well, the others are beaming with pride -- not just for that one person's success, but for the fact that the team had somehow won, beating the system that was brutal and unforgiving and which ran a game that was rigged against us. We knew the rules, and those rules said that we factory town rats do not get to make movies or be on TV talk shows or have our voice heard on any national stage. We were to shut up, keep our heads down, and get back to work. If by some miracle one of us escaped and commandeered a mass audience and some loot to boot -- well, holy mother of God, watch out! A bully pulpit and enough cash to raise a ruckus -- that was an incendiary combination, and it only spelled trouble for those at the top.

Until that point I had been barely getting by on unemployment, collecting $98 a week. Welfare. The dole. My car had died back in April so I had gone seven months with no vehicle. Friends would take me out to dinner, always coming up with an excuse to celebrate or commemorate something and then picking up the check so I would not have to feel the shame of not being able to afford it.

And now, all of a sudden, I had three million bucks! What would I do with it? There were men in suits making many suggestions to me, and I could see how those without a strong moral sense of social responsibility could be easily lead down the "ME" path and quickly forget about the "WE."

So I made some easy decisions back in 1989:

1. I would first pay all my taxes. I told the guy who did my 1040 not to declare any deductions other than the mortgage and to pay the full federal, state and city tax rate. I proudly contributed nearly 1 million dollars for the privilege of being a citizen of this great country.

2. Of the remaining $2 million, I decided to divide it up the way I once heard the folksinger/activist Harry Chapin tell me how he lived: "One for me, one for the other guy." So I took half the money -- $1 million -- and established a foundation to give it all away.

3. The remaining million went like this: I paid off all my debts, paid off the debts of some friends and family members, bought my parents a new refrigerator, set up college funds for our nieces and nephews, helped rebuild a black church that had been burned down in Flint, gave out a thousand turkeys at Thanksgiving, bought filmmaking equipment to send to the Vietnamese (my own personal reparations for a country we had ravaged), annually bought 10,000 toys to give to Toys for Tots at Christmas, got myself a new American-made Honda, and took out a mortgage on an apartment above a Baby Gap in New York City.

4. What remained went into a simple, low-interest savings account. I made the decision that I would never buy a share of stock (I didn't understand the casino known as the New York Stock Exchange and I did not believe in investing in a system I did not agree with).

5. Finally, I believed the concept of making money off your money had created a greedy, lazy class who didn't produce any product, just misery and fear among the populace. They invented ways to buy out companies and then shut them down. They dreamed up schemes to play with people's pension funds as if it were their own money. They demanded companies keep posting record profits (which was accomplished by firing thousands and eliminating health benefits for those who remained). I made the decision that if I was going to earn a living, it would be done from my own sweat and ideas and creativity. I would produce something tangible, something others could own or be entertained by or learn from. My work would create employment for others, good employment with middle class wages and full health benefits.

I went on to make more movies, produce TV series and write books. I never started a project with the thought, "I wonder how much money I can make at this?" And by never letting money be the motivating force for anything, I simply did exactly what I wanted to do. That attitude kept the work honest and unflinching -- and that, in turn I believe, resulted in millions of people buying tickets to these films, tuning in to my TV shows, and buying my books.

Which is exactly what has driven the Right crazy when it comes to me. How did someone from the left get such a wide mainstream audience?! This just isn't supposed to happen (Noam Chomsky, sadly, will not be booked on The View today, and Howard Zinn, shockingly, didn't make the New York Times bestseller list until after he died). That's how the media machine is rigged -- you are not supposed to hear from those who would completely change the system to something much better. Only wimpy liberals who urge caution and compromise and mild reforms get to have their say on the op-ed pages or Sunday morning chat shows.

Somehow, I found a crack through the wall and made it through. I feel very blessed that I have this life -- and I take none of it for granted. I believe in the lessons I was taught back in Catholic school -- that if you end up doing well, you have an even greater responsibility to those who don't fare the same. "The last shall be first and the first shall be last." Kinda commie, I know, but the idea was that the human family was supposed to divide up the earth's riches in a fair manner so that all of God's children would have a life with less suffering.

I do very well -- and for a documentary filmmaker, I do extremely well. That, too, drives conservatives bonkers. "You're rich because of capitalism!" they scream at me. Um, no. Didn't you take Econ 101? Capitalism is a system, a pyramid scheme of sorts, that exploits the vast majority so that the few at the top can enrich themselves more. I make my money the old school, honest way by making things. Some years I earn a boatload of cash. Other years, like last year, I don't have a job (no movie, no book) and so I make a lot less. "How can you claim to be for the poor when you are the opposite of poor?!" It's like asking: "You've never had sex with another man -- how can you be for gay marriage?!" I guess the same way that an all-male Congress voted to give women the vote, or scores of white people marched with Martin Luther Ling, Jr. (I can hear these righties yelling back through history: "Hey! You're not black! You're not being lynched! Why are you with the blacks?!"). It is precisely this disconnect that prevents Republicans from understanding why anyone would give of their time or money to help out those less fortunate. It is simply something their brain cannot process. "Kanye West makes millions! What's he doing at Occupy Wall Street?!" Exactly -- he's down there demanding that his taxes be raised. That, to a right-winger, is the definition of insanity. To everyone else, we are grateful that people like him stand up, even if and especially because it is against his own personal financial interest. It is specifically what that Bible those conservatives wave around demands of those who are well off.

Back on that November day in 1989 when I sold my first film, a good friend of mine said this to me: "They have made a huge mistake giving someone like you a big check. This will make you a very dangerous man. And it proves that old saying right: 'The capitalist will sell you the rope to hang himself with if he thinks he can make a buck off it.'"

Yours,

Michael Moore

Good find

[sandorski]

Hypocrisy not found, Fail article found.

Must be a day for over reaching and desperation.

[xerxes]

Another typical article from the National Compost.

Like someone mentioned already, we see this kind of gotcha calls of hypocrisy all the time. Apparently you can only advocate for the poor if you live in a cardboard box, you can advocate for the environment only if you live in a cave and shit in the woods. And so on.

It's a non-argument. Just because you live in a nice house doesn't mean you can't speak out about inequality.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

What utter bullshit.

You like saying this, don't you?

[Gunnair]

xerxes xerxes:

Another typical article from the National Compost.

Like someone mentioned already, we see this kind of gotcha calls of hypocrisy all the time. Apparently you can only advocate for the poor if you live in a cardboard box, you can advocate for the environment only if you live in a cave and shit in the woods. And so on.

It's a non-argument. Just because you live in a nice house doesn't mean you can't speak out about inequality.

Well, I s'pose it depends upon which of the OWS flavours he is supporting. If he's supporting the taking of corporate crooks to task, then he's alright. If it's the supporting of progressive taxation that doesn't protect the wealthy, then he's probably okay too. If he's supporting wealth distribution, then maybe not so much. Frankly, what may get in some craws is that he is somehow trying to set himself apart as someone special in that 1% without actually acknowledging that there may be a lot of the 1% that is doing exactly the same as him.

For the record, I don't really care if he has a mega house, but I do note that that mega house is a super massive second mega house, so that when he argues for the poor, it's from a mighty tall ivory tower.

[sandorski]

The "1%" are a metaphor, not a literal group.