« Yeah, no s**t | Main | Will Jim Webb do the right thing? »

Credit where credit is due

I've busted Michael Moore's chops a lot in this space over the years, so it's only fair that I give him props when he does something like this. Check out Moore's response to questions about people pirating his new movie, "Sicko."


His response makes sense, doesn't it? Imagine trying to track down people who pass movies or books along? There's a whole website around passing books along. Maybe the copyright police will demand their member list?

Michael Moore is a very cool guy. If you watch him carefully you will realize that he makes sense most of the time.

I can't figure out why anyone would WANT to pirate any of his movies. The title of his latest describes both him and the pirates in this case.

Well BW, fat people who rail about health issues are NEVER "cool," in fact they're somewhat hypocritical.

Obesity is the #1 health risk in America and in that regard, Richard Simmons is "cool and makes sense most of the time," while Moore's girth sets a hideous example...

....hmmmm, scratch that, Michael Moore actually sets a wonderful example for Liberals everywhere. They should all become as super-sized as he and Al Gore....because everyone knows, "Nothin says lovin like a 350 pound Liberal who can't make it up a single flight of stairs." Now that would be good for America!

Wow, what a collection of bitter conservative haters -- it's almost like an episode of cro-magnon Hannity. I once clocked Hannity lying at better than 100 times a minute. If Hannity has money, why doesn't he go buy himself a forehead, eh?

Moore might be fat. He might even lie. But where are all these conservatives on that big fat liar Limbaugh, who is all that PLUS a felon pill-popping oxycontin addict who should be IN PRISON. Come on, ol' fathead Rush pilled himself deaf. Good thing he lives under the protection of Jeb Bush.

Well, Moore didn't turn out to be a hypocrite -- to bad you conservatives FAILED ... again.

What conservatives fail to understand is a very simple and obvious concept. Liberals have moral superiority. Especially if they are rich like Michael Moore is.

There is no question that Moore means well. Many of his opponents do not.

"Menaing well," counts for NOTHING.

Some of the worst atrocities in human history were created out of "good intentions" - Stalin's "Worker's Paradise," Mao's agrarian communism, even Hitler's planned 1000 year reign, were all inspired by, well intentioned "collectivist ideals" imposed by a ruthless totalitarian state.

All such ideals MUST be imposed by a tyrannical regime because free and decent people always and everywhere, put personal interest and gain over communal values, like "caring & sharing."

Are you comparing Michael Moore to Hitler, Stalin and Mao now? Wow. Take it easy man.

I'm merely proving by historical context that GOOD INTENTIONS count for nothing, BW.

In fact, MOST of the world's worst atrocities were spurred by so-called "do-gooders," motivated by "the best of intentions."

It takes far more than good intentions to solve people's problems!

It takes intelligence - the intelligence of the independent businessman and the investor, motivated by profit and fueled by new-found consumer demand.

There's a reason why radical Lefties like Moore, Sheehan, Soros, Belafonte, Gore etc., all express such a deep and abiding affection for the likes of tryannical, totalitarian thugs like Castro and Chavez, just as earlier versions of the same ilk (ie. Walter Duranty) expressed a deep and abiding affection for the likes of Stalin and Mao; (1) they're not as bright as your average businessman and (2) they revile the "base natures" of free people, who insist on putting self-interest and personal gain over so-called "communal virtues," or as they like to put it, "Putting profits before people."

I admire Milton Friedman (economic genius), Moore, Soros & Co. admire Chavez and Castro (tyrannical thugs who preside over economic basketcases)...enough said about that....and about the value of "good intentions."


I thought you also admired Pinochet who, as you say, put Milton Friedman's theories into practice in Chile. Was that a "good intention" issue, or do you believe Pinochet was a "good" dictator?

I never imferred what you've implied.

The USA more or less forced Friedman on Pinochet, regardless, Friedman's free market policies turned Chile (yes, even under Pinochet) into the "Jewel of South America."

Friedman's policies helped prove that free market/Capitalist policies CAN work, while socialist policies CANNOT. Afterall, they transformed an economic basketcase (Allende's socialist economy) almost overnight into a roaring Capitalistic success.

What's troubling to me is how many on the Left (Moore, Soros, Sheehan, Belafonte and many others) openly admire ruthless, tyrannical, totalitarian dictators, from Duranty's open and abiding admiration of Joe Stalin, to today's American Left's open admiration of the likes of Chavez & Castro.

Again, it's inconsistent with supporting freedom, and it's because such people have a huge problem with free people, who insist on putting self-interest and personal gain over so-called "communal virtues,"

Freedom DOES often tend toward selfishness and self-interest, but opposing that is NEVER a "good intention."

The "Jewel of South America" (Chile those days) was a horrific fascist dictatorship that resulted in thousands of deaths of innocent civilians who preferred democracy to fascism. Noone from the left likes criminals and mass murderers like Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao, but you apparently find as "ok" someone very similar to them, Pinochet. Pincohet was not that different than Pol Pot or Stalin (similar methods, just less victims).

I think JMK needs to come to terms with the fact that he is, quite simply, a fascist.

"Noone from the left likes criminals and mass murderers like Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao..." (BW)

Sadly BW, Sheehan, Moore, Soros, Belafonte have all embraced tyrannical thugs (Castro & Chavez)...so that statment is unture on its face.

Walter Duranty (the first NY Times reporter to write "news accounts from his apartment," unlike Jayson Blair, he got a Pulitzer for his tales of Stalin's "Worker's Paradise") did indeed, like many of his contemporary American Libs adore Stalin and Mao.

"Pincohet was not that different than Pol Pot or Stalin (similar methods, just less victims)." (BW)

No, that's FAR FEWER VICTIMS and that's because there are few, very few people who WANT what socialism offers - "a world without the drudgery of work and all goods and services provided free of charge by a beneficent government."

Oh wait a minute, that actually sounds pretty goo-...oh yeah, except for the delivery, that's right, there is never a delivery of that "paradise" as government, in and of itself, produces nothing.

Bottom-line Milton Friedman grand Chilean experiment proved that free market/Capitalist policies WORK, just as Allende's basketcase socialist economy proved that socialist policies never work under any circumstances.

Socialsim is NOT a form of government, it's a type of economy, just as Fascism is NOT a form of government, but a type of economy (also called Corporatism - a highly government regulated economy, which preserves private ownership and incenives for productivity, etc).

The reason brutal thug-like dictators like Pinochet and Sukarno could have excellent economies is because they accepted economic liberty, or at least a Corporatist version of that.

The reason every Left-wing thuggish dictator from Allende to Mao, to Pol Pot, to Stalin presided over basketcase economies is because, well, because socialism just DOESN'T work.

Pinochet may have been as much a tyrant as Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, or Chavez, but he embraced a different ECONOMY...and that made all the differnece - the people of Chile had better lives thanks to the prosperity brought by Friedman's Capitalist/free market policies.

Thank God for Pinochet!

Hey, who does this remind you of?

Pinochet's regime has been accused of systematic and widespread human rights violations both in Chile and abroad, including mass-murder, torture, kidnapping, illegal detention, and press censorship. He also was criticized for using his position to enrich himself and his family. On October 17, 1998, while visiting the United Kingdom for medical treatment, Pinochet was arrested on a Spanish provisional warrant for the murder in Chile of Spanish citizens while he was president.[15] Five days later, Pinochet was served with a second provisional arrest warrant from judge Baltasar Garzón of Spain charging him with systematic torture, murder, illegal detention, and "disappearances".

Pinochet was placed under house arrest in Britain while appealing the legal authority of the Spanish and British courts to try him, but eventually released on medical grounds by the then Home Secretary Jack Straw without facing trial. He returned to Chile, where judge Juan Guzmán initiated a procedure against him, requesting three days after his return to Chile the suspension of his parliamentary immunity. Pinochet's legal team was headed by Pablo Rodríguez, the former leader of the far-right paramilitary group Fatherland and Liberty (Patria y Libertad).

Pinochet resigned his senatorial seat in 2002, after a Supreme Court ruling that he suffered from "vascular dementia" and therefore could not stand trial for human rights abuses—allegations of abuses had been made numerous times before his arrest, but never acted upon. In May 2004, Chile's supreme court ruled that he was capable of standing trial, and he was charged with several crimes in December of that year.

In 2004, a United States Senate money laundering investigation led by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Norm Coleman (R-MN) uncovered a network of over 125 securities and bank accounts at Riggs Bank and other U.S. financial institutions used by Pinochet and his associates for twenty-five years to secretly move millions of dollars.[16] Though the subcommittee was charged only with investigating compliance of financial institutions under the USA PATRIOT Act, and not the Pinochet regime, Sen. Coleman noted: “This is a sad, sordid tale of money laundering involving Pinochet accounts at multiple financial institutions using alias names, offshore accounts, and close associates. As a former General and President of Chile, Pinochet was a well-known human rights violator and violent dictator.”[17]

Over several months in 2005, Chilean judge Sergio Munoz indicted Augusto Pinochet's wife, Lucia Hiriart; four of his children --Marco Antonio, Jacqueline, Veronica and Lucia Pinochet; secretary Monica Ananias; and former aide Oscar Aitken on tax evasion and falsification charges stemming from the Riggs Bank investigation. In January 2006, daughter Lucia Pinochet was detained at Washington DC-Dulles airport and subsequently deported while attempting to evade the tax charges in Chile.[18] In January 2007, the Santiago Court of Appeals revoked most of the indictement from Judge Carlos Cerda against the Pinochet family. [3]

On November 22, 2005, Augusto Pinochet himself was indicted on tax evasion charges and placed under house arrest for an alleged $27 million hidden in secret accounts under false names. That figure was later reduced to $11 million.

On November 25, 2006, Pinochet marked his 91st birthday by issuing a statement for the first time taking full political responsibility for atrocities and abuses committed by his regime. Two days later, he was indicted and ordered to remain under house arrest for the kidnapping and murder of two bodyguards of former President Salvador Allende --Wagner Salinas and Francisco Lara-— who were arrested the day of the 1973 coup and executed by firing squad four weeks later.[19]


In April 1999, Margaret Thatcher[1] and George H. W. Bush[2] called upon the British government to release Augusto Pinochet. They urged that Pinochet be allowed to return to his homeland rather than be forced to go to Spain. Amnesty International[3] and the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture demanded his extradition to Spain. There were then questions about Pinochet's allegedly fragile health. After medical tests, the Home Secretary Jack Straw ruled, despite the protests of legal and medical experts from several countries, that he should not be extradited, and on 2 March 2000, he returned to Chile.

Hey! If I ever find someone lauding Augusto Pinochet, I'll be sure to lambaste them with that very same piece Barely.

Of course, the brutality of Pinochet's regime DOESN'T negate the genuius (that's actual genius Barely...in economics, no less) of Milton Friedman, does it?

If it does, then don't Hitler's, Stalin's and Mao's, to name but a far-Left few, negate socialism even more?

I must call BULLSHIT on all such non sequitors.

Yes, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot were all Left-wing (socialist) dictators, and Sukarno, Franco, Mussolinni and Pinochet were all Right-wing (fascist) dictators.

None of them were good men.

Still the people in Stalin's USSR and Mao's China, for instance, suffered far MORE than, say, those who lived under Sukarno, Mussolinni and Pinochet, as the latter all embraced a form of Corporatism (the government of the USA, France, Germany, Sweden, etc TODAY) while the former embraced the economic atrocity that was the command economy.

So while ALL those guys were brutal toward their enemies, the Left-wing dictators inflicted the cruelest kind of brutality upon all their people (even their "supporters") by embracing the command economy and turning those places into hideous economic basketcases.

You can understand that bit of basic reality, can't you, Barely?

While both Pinochet and say, Pol Pot were BOTH brutal toward their enemies, the Left-wing socialist Pol Pot inflicted as much brutality upon ALL the people of Cambodia (even his supporters) by embracing the command economy and delivering that country back to the economic stone-age, while Pinochet's economy, directed by the American, Libertarian Dr. Milton Friedman, turned Allende's basketcase into "the Jewel of South America," in short order.

I suppose the difference can be summed up this way, while ALL thuggish dictators are brutal toward their enemies, those Left-wing thugs, who embrace the command economy brutalize their entire country, supporters included, by inflicting an economic basketcase upon them.

I hope I'm not raising the bar too high here, but if you disagree with me on this, all I ask is that you try, as best you can, to make a coherent argument for your position, whatever that position may be.

Ooooops! I did it myself.

"Still the people in Stalin's USSR and Mao's China, for instance, suffered far MORE than, say, those who lived under Sukarno, Mussolinni and Pinochet, as the latter all embraced a form of Corporatism (the government of the USA, France, Germany, Sweden, etc TODAY) while the former embraced the economic atrocity that was the command economy."

Economies are NOT governments and vice versa.

Dictatorships, Monarchies and Constitutional Republics are all forms of government, while socialism, fascism/Corporatism and Free Market Capitalism are all types of economies.

So, the line "the government of the USA, France, Germany, Sweden, etc TODAY" SHOULD READ, "the economy of the USA, France, Germany, Sweden, etc TODAY," as all those nations have private ownership of property (including businesses) within a highly state regulated framework.

They're all also representative democracies within the framework of a Constitutional Republic, as well, but as Friedman noted, Sukarno and Pinochet both proved that "economic feedom/Liberty CAN exist without political freedom, although that's not optimal."

Post a comment