In this corner..M. Moore and in the other..Hannity!

[Lurker]

Anyone catch the Hannity/Michael Moore debate? I'd be interested in finding a transcript or summary from someone. I missed it due to familial responsibilities (which were vastly more interesting anyway). I did find this snippet:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/michael-moore-and-sean-ha_n_311936.html

One of the most entertaining moments came early in the interview when the two men were discussing capitalism and religion, and Hannity declared that he attends Catholic Mass every Sunday. Moore asked him if he went this past Sunday, and Hannity affirmed that he did -- but he couldn't tell Moore what the sermon was about. Hannity knew he was caught but tried to cover his tracks with some jokes. Moore eventually looked at Hannity incredulously and noted, "It was just two days ago!"

Gotcha journalism type question there and one I don't consider to have any substance but it is definitely the sort of behavior that Sean engages in so it is a bit humorous to see him hoisted by his own petard.

 

[Marc39]

I saw it. I was neither impressed with Hannity, who's an intellectual dwarf, nor Moore, who is a corpulent hypocrite.

 

[Lurker]

I saw it. I was neither impressed with Hannity, who's an intellectual dwarf, nor Moore, who is a corpulent hypocrite.

To be honest, I am not all that familiar with Moore's work. Why do you consider him a hypocrite?

 

[Marc39]

To be honest, I am not all that familiar with Moore's work. Why do you consider him a hypocrite?

The man is an overly well-fed capitalist raking in millions while denouncing... capitalism.

In another venue, while bemoaning the greed of others, he was asked about his charitable interests, quite evidently caught off-guard, and was unable to point to any substantive philanthropy on his part.

 

[Lurker]

The man is an overly well-fed capitalist raking in millions while denouncing... capitalism.

One must be lithe to be a communist, dictator, socialist, syndacalist, or monarchist? That's a new one.

In another venue, while bemoaning the greed of others, he was asked about his charitable interests, quite evidently caught off-guard, and was unable to point to any substantive philanthropy on his part.

That has the whiff of hypocrisy although I would question the source and context of this anecdote. Not that I disbelieve, but I have learned to question unsupported statements like this.

 

[Meadmaker]

To be honest, I am not all that familiar with Moore's work. Why do you consider him a hypocrite?

My personal opinion of his work is that it is not sufficiently coherent to be hypocritical. I've seen a couple of his movies and, on some level, enjoyed them, but there's no real substance. He just strings together emotional moments with a common theme.

 

[Marc39]

That has the whiff of hypocrisy although I would question the source and context of this anecdote. Not that I disbelieve, but I have learned to question unsupported statements like this.

I viewed the interview.

 

[Lurker]

http://bruisefalling.blogspot.com/2007/06/michael-moore-guardian-angel.html

Jim Kenefick runs one of the most popular anti-Moore websites, Moorewatch.com. Last year Mr Kenefick's wife was taken ill with a neurological disorder but with no medical insurance, he was struggling to pay for her health care.

...

Mr Kenefick received a cheque from an anonymous individual for a lump sum of $12,000, equivalent to a year's medical fees for his wife.
It was enough to ease the crisis and ensure the continuation of the website, so Mr Kenefick banked the cheque and put up a thank you note to the person he called his "guardian angel".
You can guess what's coming can't you.
After some digging to find out the identity of the altruistic donor it was revealed as the man he had dedicated years to bad mouthing. Confirmation came from Moore himself, who left a message on Mr Kenefick's answer machine confirming that he was the donor, adding: "I wish you my best."

 

[DC]

http://bruisefalling.blogspot.com/2007/06/michael-moore-guardian-angel.html

lol.

 

[Praktik]

The man is an overly well-fed capitalist raking in millions while denouncing... capitalism.

This I have always found to be one of the weakest criticisms of progressives. People on the right will say “well you made X dollars last year, how could you be critical of capitalism – hypocrite?”

If we took this to its logical end it would mean the only people that could critique capitalism without having this charge levied against them would be paupers and missionaries – but then how would they ever get the resources necessary to advocate for their position in a way that reaches the critical number of people to actually create movement on an issue? How could you develop a movie or promote a book that explains your position without dealing with distributors, production houses, publishers, broadcasters and other multi-million dollar entities?

If we actually accepted these arguments it would also mean that – in effect – there could be no true critique of capitalism from within a capitalist system since to live in a capitalist system you have to participate in it. Does this make any sense?

No, it doesn’t. And I think individuals are perfectly capable of amassing wealth and having the intellectual capacity to recognize that the system that allowed for their generation of wealth also engendered a lot of negative outcomes. There is no hypocrisy there. Besides, if Moore wants to be able to continue getting his point across than amassing the resources to continue to do so will require full involvement in the capitalist system.

 

[Cleon]

http://bruisefalling.blogspot.com/2007/06/michael-moore-guardian-angel.html

Props to Moore.

 

[Lurker]

This I have always found to be one of the weakest criticisms of progressives. People on the right will say “well you made X dollars last year, how could you be critical of capitalism – hypocrite?”

If we took this to its logical end it would mean the only people that could critique capitalism without having this charge levied against them would be paupers and missionaries – but then how would they ever get the resources necessary to advocate for their position in a way that reaches the critical number of people to actually create movement on an issue? How could you develop a movie or promote a book that explains your position without dealing with distributors, production houses, publishers, broadcasters and other multi-million dollar entities?

If we actually accepted these arguments it would also mean that – in effect – there could be no true critique of capitalism from within a capitalist system since to live in a capitalist system you have to participate in it. Does this make any sense?

No, it doesn’t. And I think individuals are perfectly capable of amassing wealth and having the intellectual capacity to recognize that the system that allowed for their generation of wealth also engendered a lot of negative outcomes. There is no hypocrisy there. Besides, if Moore wants to be able to continue getting his point across than amassing the resources to continue to do so will require full involvement in the capitalist system.

Megadittos!

 

[Oliver]

Mhmm, I found these two parts ... don't know if that's the whole interview:




Also:

 

[oldhat]

I saw it. I was neither impressed with Hannity, who's an intellectual dwarf, nor Moore, who is a corpulent hypocrite.

I agree, Michael Moore is definitely fat.

 

[DropGems]

Moore is a primitive pig. I can't believe people tolerate his antics here. To me, he's really no different than Dylan Avery. An abundance of dishonest cherry-picking, misrepresentations, and half-truths. I'm sure you've heard that a million times before and that's because he's been debunked a million times over.

Also, Moore doesn't need publishers or distributers. He could simply release his videos for free over the internet and write articles for free on his website instead of being a capitalist pig. He's actually limiting his message by releasing it in theaters against tough competition but that's just because he's a greedy capitalist.

 

[oldhat]

moore is a primitive pig. I can't believe people tolerate his antics here. To me, he's really no different than dylan avery. An abundance of dishonest cherry-picking, misrepresentations, and half-truths. I'm sure you've heard that a million times before and that's because he's been debunked a million times over.

Also, moore doesn't need publishers or distributers. He could simply release his videos for free over the internet and write articles for free on his website instead of being a capitalist pig. He's actually limiting his message by releasing it in theaters against tough competition but that's just because he's a greedy capitalist.

orly?

 

[DC]

Moore is a primitive pig. I can't believe people tolerate his antics here. To me, he's really no different than Dylan Avery. An abundance of dishonest cherry-picking, misrepresentations, and half-truths. I'm sure you've heard that a million times before and that's because he's been debunked a million times over.

Also, Moore doesn't need publishers or distributers. He could simply release his videos for free over the internet and write articles for free on his website instead of being a capitalist pig. He's actually limiting his message by releasing it in theaters against tough competition but that's just because he's a greedy capitalist.

and how can one survive in a cpitalist world without making money?

 

[Praktik]

Also, Moore doesn't need publishers or distributers. He could simply release his videos for free over the internet and write articles for free on his website instead of being a capitalist pig. He's actually limiting his message by releasing it in theaters against tough competition but that's just because he's a greedy capitalist.

Why would he need to release the stuff for free on the internet - is this to avoid the intellectually incoherent claims of hypocrisy from the small minded?

Why would he need to tailor his efforts to suit the bleating of such sheep?

My pet peeve was that the criticism was levelled at all on that score. Same thing was done to John Edwards and anyone else with a lot of money that talk about the unequal outcomes of capitalism.

Its a BS charge and I think I outlined above why I think its an incoherent one.

Surely, there's other areas where you can level criticism without relying on such an intellectually bankrupt approach.

 

[Praktik]

Why would he need to release the stuff for free on the internet - is this to avoid the intellectually incoherent claims of hypocrisy from the small minded?

Why would he need to tailor his efforts to suit the bleating of such sheep?

My pet peeve was that the criticism was levelled at all on that score. Same thing was done to John Edwards and anyone else with a lot of money that talk about the unequal outcomes of capitalism.

Its a BS charge and I think I outlined above why I think its an incoherent one.

Surely, there's other areas where you can level criticism without relying on such an intellectually bankrupt approach.

Developing this further: I think the big reason these kinds of "hypocrisy" charges get levelled at rich people that fight for the poor is because they are engaging in mind-reading of people like Moore and Edwards. They think that what they really want is a communist utopia where "everyone is equal". But I think thats off the mark in both cases. Do Moore and Edwards want communism? Or do they want a socially responsible Capitalism?

There's a big difference. I think that both of them would want a system where you could still have the incentive and the ability to make a lot of money - but that you would be taxed a bit more and the lower strata would be taken care of to a much greater degree than they are now.

But neither of them are communist absolutists - or even communists. The worst you could say is "socialist". And you can still make a lot of money in Sweden, or France.

So where's the hypocrisy?

 

[oldhat]

So where's the hypocrisy?

Need I remind you Michael Moore is fat?