To Have a Heart, Be Pro-Tyranny!

The Minority Report ^ | 11 July 2007 | .cnI redruM

[.cnI redruM]

One of John McCain’s last moments as a legitimate Republican came when he described Michael Moore as a “disingenuous filmmaker.” The insult was perfect. It was accurate, it wasn’t unmerited, and it put the man so completely in his place that I actually spent the next hour or so thinking McCain still had decent guy potential.

Despite both the accuracy and the beauty of McCain’s caricature, there are aspects of Michael Moore that are genuine. He is genuine in his pursuit of leftist politics, he is genuine in his desire to increase the size of the Federal Government, and he genuinely believes that individual freedom is a cruel ideal. The man truly stands in favor of tyranny.

He doesn’t actually say anything stupid like “Mugabe Rocks!” and won’t be doing any interviews with media wearing a spiffy “Ahmadinejad-Chavez 08!” button, however, he clearly doesn’t think its particularly fair that you, I and the people next door should have the onerous burden of making our own choices in life. When interviewed by John Stossel for “20-20”, Michael Moore showed us all why John McCain thinks that Moore is such a winner as a human being.

"I gotta believe that, even though I know you're very much for the individual determining his own destiny, you also have a heart."

I guess that sets Stossel apart from all us freedom lovers who kick the beggars to the curb and pee on the homeless people. I’m relieved that John Stossel isn’t one of THOSE believers in individual freedom. It removes more of my competition, and leaves my monopoly on being a heartless capitalist tool safely intact.

Michael Moore could approach this pathetic approval he voices for absolute tyranny from two points of entry. He could either believe that the only decent society is one that guarantees all individuals a happy outcome, or he could believe that giving individuals the right to make their own decisions amplifies inequalities. In either case, the man is an idiot, rather than a humanitarian.

Government-compelled charity stands as the great oxymoron of the 20th Century. By Moore’s definition, The Soviet Union and Communist China were truly the most benevolent and decent countries to ever exist on the face of the planet. They provided their citizens with everything they needed, including their thoughts, emotions and points of view. The only thing these people didn’t have was a life.

How could Michael Moore argue with Hugo Chavez or Robert Mugabe? Just get rid of individual initiative and, according to Michael Moore, any country in question should turn into paradise. As long as Iraqi kids had gubbermint health care and kites to fly, Michael Moore could smile his beatific smile, while Saddam Hussein fed the independent journalists and free marketers through the plastic-shredding machine.

This leads me to believe that Michael Moore fundamentally detests true diversity. No, I don’t mean the government-manufactured faux-diversity of forced busing and gerrymandered congressional districts. Moore probably doesn’t think our government quotes enough quotas to really be fair.

I’m talking about the diversity of thought and belief that allows people to blossom into something too unique and original to have ever rolled off an assembly line in Flint, Michigan. I’m talking about people that act like human beings, set their goals, lead their lives and march to the beat of their own drummer.

If somebody wants diversity, they should want inequalities. We are not manufacturing machines that have to function within some strict ideological tolerance. Inequalities result from choices. I made one set of choices, Donald Trump made another. Ergo, he and I have divergent paychecks.

All joking aside, The Donald’s is slightly larger than mine. However, I break from Michael Moore, because I could truly care less whether this is fair or not. I don’t even think The Donald is particularly smart or likeable. He needs to call that guy who does John Edwards’ $400 glamour cut.

Donald-bashing is fun, but it misses an important fact. Donald took responsibility for Donald’s life. He made hard choices and he worked his butt off. You, I and the guy next door all had pretty much the same set of opportunities. He chose to risk everything on the real estate market and did what he had to do to make it come right. I don’t have to particularly like the man to give him just due.

If Michael Moore really wants to be fair about it, he should recognize this and stop caring that The Donald has more than the average descendant of a share cropper in lower Alabama. That’s diversity, which good liberals like Michael Moore are supposed to celebrate. That’s also the consequence of all of us making our choices in life, which Michael Moore needs to grow up and except that we all have a right and a duty to make to the best of our abilities.

[.cnI redruM]

Michael Moore - Depotism's cheerleader.

[.cnI redruM]

Double Post, please delete this copy.

Thank you.