Michael Moore

[Phil Elmore]

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

 

[khadaji]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The Xerox PARC situation is much more complicated than it appears. I recommend Go To 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]

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]

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:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Fair enough, Kirk. Have a good one.

 

[MartialArtist]

Sad thing though... Even the Hollywood liberals boo him.

Michael Moore - Idiot IMO

http://www.cornelldailysun.com/articles/5173/ - even this young writer gets it right :rofl:

 

[moromoro]

who is he is he related to mandy moore? shes hot