"To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing,
if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803

Does Michael Moore [i]Need[/i]…

by Lee

I received a piece of hate mail earlier tonight from some left-wing asshat who had been reading MOOREWATCH.  I get tons of hate mail, but this one so singularly captures the sheer, unabashed ignorance of the average leftie that I’ve decided to fisk it.  (And I use the word “ignorance” not in its pejorative sense, but in the literal “knows nothing” sense.)

Dude ,

There is no way to reach the weakness you display in the cause of this website.  It doesn’t take a genius to see that corporations are choking the life out of us. This is not a self centered thought, look at the life of this planet, Scientist are now proving that dangerous pollutants are ravaging the life force of life itself. Practically every living organism is being polluted by the capitalist drive and the disregard to the true balance of nature.

Dude, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  By any objective standard the environments of the capitalist areas of the planet are getting cleaner.  There are countless sources of information to back up this assertion, but I will cite here Bjorn Lomborg, whose work has been scrutinized and villified by the environmentalist lunatic lobby and stood its ground.

There’s no question that for 40 years, eco-activists have been claiming the environment around us is doomed because people are raising too many babies and living too well. The activists have predicted massive famines, energy shortages, the destruction of the world’s forests, unprecedented soil erosion, and a global warming that will fry the world’s crops and wildlife even as it melts the Arctic ice cap and floods port cities like New York and Calcutta. None of these dire predictions are coming true.

The eco-activists are abetted by such “science activists” as Paul Ehrlich (who predicted America would starve in the 1970s) and Stephen Schneider, a climate scientist who first predicted a new Ice Age, then reversed himself to support the global warming scare.

In the Scientific American critique, John Bongaarts of the Population Council admits, “Environmentalists who predicted widespread famine and blamed rapid population growth for many of the world’s environmental, economic and social problems overstated their cases.” But Bongaarts then claims: “The historically unprecedented population expansion in the poorest parts of the world continues largely unabated.”

Lomborg notes that births per woman in the Third World have dropped from 6.16 in 1950 to 2.8 today. That means the poor countries have come four-fifths of the way to population stability (2.1 births). Is that Bongaarts’ definition of “largely unabated”?

Bongaart continues: “Lomborg correctly notes that poverty is the main cause of hunger and malnutrition, but he neglects the contribution of population growth to poverty.” Bongaarts ignores the reality that the poor areas of the world today were poor before modern medicine created their population surge. Moreover, such formerly poor countries as China and India are now getting affluent despite hugely increased populations.

John P. Holdren of Harvard and Berkeley agree with Lomborg: “the world’s energy resources—coal, oil shale, nuclear fuels and renewable energy—are immense.” Holdren believes, however, that using these fuels is creating dreadful air pollution, acid rain, water pollution, and global warming. Lomborg finds the First World’s air is clean and getting cleaner, acid rain is a minor problem for a few tree species in limited areas, the sea is clean, First World coastal waters are rapidly getting cleaner, and the nitrogen fertilizer which sometimes overfertilizes our streams has saved at least 25 percent of the world’s forests from being plowed for food.

On global warming, Scientific American offers us Stephen Schneider himself complaining about Lomborg’s assessment that the warming will be less than the world experienced in 1200 AD, during the Medieval Climate Optimum. Lomborg says it will have minimal effects on food production, sea level, storms and malaria. He recommends we adapt to warming instead of strangling the world’s economy with high-priced energy.

So, the capitalist West is cleaner, more productive, and provides for its citizens, while the Third World is filthy, polluting, and provides a significantly low quality of life.  Yet the average leftie—hell, the average citizen—believes the exact opposite, that the world is getting more and more polluted.  It’s just completely, utterly wrong.

The whole point of business is to make money, this is true even if means to kill off other species.  This denial will eventually catch up to us, thus creating an irreversable mess for our future generation to clean up, that is if , we don’t blow ourselves up beforehand.

As Lomborg has pointed out, there have been no mass extinctions.  The capitalist West has the highest levels of environmental species protection in the world, for no other reason than we, as a society, have enough resources to legislate this sort of protection.  Trust me. Unlike most lefties I have seen most of the world.  Go to China sometime.  Go to Thailand.  Go anywhere in Southeast Asia.  It is beyond filthy.  The filthiest western cities look like operating rooms after you spend a little time in Bangkok or Shanghai.  In these countries you can still buy and sell ivory.  I visited the official government department store in Shanghai and they had an entire floor of ivory products.  It was the most ghastly thing I’ve ever seen.  You would never, ever see this in any western country.  So this drivel you hear from the left about how evil capitalist countries are wiping species off the planet is just asinine beyond belief.  It’s pure emotional fearmongering, akin to the fearmongering the Nazi party used in the 1930s to alert the German people to the menace the Jews represented.

We now have the ability to make cars run on water, where are they!  At the disregard of nature , we continue to drive gas powered. We deserve the gift of the watered propelled engine.  Through the evil eye of business ethics, they say we can’t AFFORD to have water powered cars.  That very idea is an insult to our species and all living things.

This is undoubtedly my favorite logical fallacy—and there are many—in the leftist argument arsenal.  On the one hand, as shown in the previous paragraph, the leftist states correctly that corporations are willing to do anything to make a profit.  This is exactly how capitalism and free markets promote efficiency, leading to higher quality, higher production levels, and lower cost to the consumer.  Corporations are whores.  However, when the leftist needs to explain why a particular product is not available to the public—cars that run on water, solar powered cities, power generators that run on moonbeams, what have you—then it’s all part of the grand corporate conspiracy.

Let’s say that General Motors has a division that has secretly developed a car that runs on tap water.  Can you even begin to imagine the profits that they could make by selling this vehicle?  Who wouldn’t buy a car that runs on water?  You can pay $2.00 a gallon for gasoline, or you can stick your garden hose in your tank.  Gee, that’s a tough choice!  The market for this vehicle would be global.  They could license the technology to their competitors and corner the entire tap water car market.  The profit potential would be in the trillions of dollars. 

So, why aren’t these cars that run on water available for sale?  It’s because the automobile manufacturers, in top-secret collusion with the oil companies, have buried the technology.  It’s all part of the evil corporate cabal that is conspiring to keep people poor and the Earth filthy and polluted.  These corporations, who will kill off countless species in their quest for the almighty dollar, have turned their back on trillions of dollars in profit simply to appease their fellow corporations.

It’s absurd.  It’s fucking asinine, and lefties make this ridiculous argument all the time.  “The internal combustion engine has been obsolete for 50 years, but the auto corporations have kept it a secret so that the oil companies can still force us to buy their gasoline.” What crap!  What kind of an igonramus actually believes this horse shit?

The more we want things we don’t need, commercial and political forces will continue to make us feel unworthy.  Thus creating a demand for drugging ourselves with false hopes. The fact that we make and buy everything, creates more garbage, thus driving the planet to choke itself.  We need governments of the world to come together and find a way to stop the abuse that we bestow upon ourselves.

We want all sorts of things we don’t need.  Technically we don’t need painless dentistry.  A pair of pliers and a quick hand will do the job.  We don’t need nice clothes.  An old piece of burlap and some rope will keep you warm.  We don’t need to go on vacations.  We don’t need to smoke marijuana.  We don’t need to drink coffee.  We don’t need to eat anything other that lentils, wheatgrass, bread, and water.  There are countless things that we don’t need but that we want.  That’s the essence of the free market capitalist system, giving people what they want.  Socialism is alll about giving people what someone else thinks they need.  “No comrade, you do not need a bigger apartment.  You have two rooms, and only five children.  However, I will put your name on the list, so that when there is a vacancy in nine or ten years you may qualify.” I don’t like anyone deciding for me what I need, I’ll make those choices myself.

MICHEAL MOORE ‘s views are there to release the stranglehold pressure between the rich and the poor.  We must not stand divided at such a distance.  WHOLE THINKING

Micheal [sic] Moore is the very essence of capitalism.  He identified a need in the market, produced products to meet that need, and has made himself a pile of money doing so.  Good for him. 

I have a few questions for the lefties reading this.  Tell me, does Michael Moore need to charge $38,000 to give a speech at a college?  Does Michael Moore need to make more than $750 a night for doing a one-man show in London?  Does Michael Moore need to require Evian bottled water instead of tap water, or another kind of bottled water?  Does Michael Moore need to travel to his speaking engagements in a private jet, or be chauffered to these engagements in a huge SUV?  Does Michael Moore need to live in a multi-million dollar apartment in the Upper West Side, or send his daughter to a swanky private school?

Nope.  He does so because he wants to.  It’s the very essence of the capitalist system.  Yet Moore’s drooling sycophantic fans are willing to look past all his blatant hypocrisy to criticize the very system that has made him filthy stinking rich.

God I love capitalism.  Moore does too, he just doesn’t have the balls to admit it.

Comments

<< Back to main