What does Michael Moore have in Common with the Tea Party?

Over the weekend, I watched Michael Moore's documentary "Capitalism: A Love Affair". It was the first Moore film I've ever watched and you're probably saying "Why is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative like Randy even watching such a film?" Well it wasn't as bad (or as good) as I'd been told about his films and it was interesting to hear his opinions first hand, rather than through someone else's filter.

As expected, the film was very anti-Bush, but also took some shots at several Clinton and current presidential appointees. One had to listen carefully to catch them, but they were there. Senators Dodd and Frank (both with a "D" after their name) were shown in a bad light, so both parties were skewered. There were several anti-Obama ads played that talked about Socialism. To me, the tie-in was weak, but the attempt was to show that Obama is not a socialist.

There were some random, seemingly unconnected portions of the movie, it focused on GM shutdowns, foreclosures, a group called the Low Income Families Fighting Together (see here) and a sit-down strike at Republic Windows and Doors (see here). Moore also had a segment on the low pay for pilots. To me, the main (only?) tie in these stories was that unions were shown in a positive light in each case, standing up for the little man against the big-bad company.

There was a segment on dead-peasant policies. To be honest, this puzzled me. Dead-peasant policies exist when a company, (Wal-Mart was highlighted) takes out a life insurance policy on their workers with the company as a beneficiary. Then if the employee dies, the company makes money. I'm trying to figure out why I should care. Assuming of course, the company doesn't do something to hasten the final event. In my case, I'd like the challenge to show the company that they would lose money on the insurance, I'd outlive their interest.

This makes me wonder about the business model of the life insurance company. Surely they have the actuarial numbers to show that over a large number of people, Wal-Mart can't make money in this game. Otherwise, the insurance companies are charging too little for this policy.


There was praise for FDR and his attempt to pass a 2nd Bill of Rights. The film said that Germany, Italy and Japan have these in their constitution. Frankly for me, that doesn't speak well. I for one, am not interested in emulating any of those countries. (As a side note, the film ends with Moore making the dramatic statement that he's not leaving the US, I'm guessing he's heard the people suggest he move to whatever country he thinks is better).

The movie ended saying that Capitalism is evil and should be replaced by democracy. It showed some companies that are run purely democratically. One was a small engineering firm, the other a bakery. It would be interesting to read more about these companies (sorry, I didn't get their name), to see how they got started, how did they manage their funds. How do they pay their CEO and how do they recruit given their democratic approach. I don't recall the companies names, so that research won't get done by me.

One of the questions I kept asking was about protection of property. Suppose I own a house and decide to sell it to you. After you've been in it for a few years, you find you can't make the payment. Shouldn't I have the right to foreclose? If you can't pay me what you owe me, can't I at least get my property back? Moore's film kept showing reasons that the big banks shouldn't be allowed to foreclose (and some were legitimate), but what happens to the bank's property rights? Do we stomp all over those? That question was never answered.

Oh and lest I close without answering the title question - what DO Michael Moore and the Tea Party have in common? Both are solidly opposed to TARP and think the whole fiasco was created by the Treasury Secretary and Wall Street. I wonder, will Moore show up at the next Tea Party Rally?

Jet Packs for LA Police

At dinner Friday night, one of my friends told me this story. Seems the LA Police has ordered jet packs for their police to a tune of about $1BILLION. Seems a little strange, but hey, this is talking about California, land of fruits and nuts. The left coast.

We thought of a lot of problems, those things don't last that long, what happens if you go up for 30 seconds and then run out of jet fuel, the criminals are all on the ground, what good does it do to be up in the air, they can't afford to pay teachers, yet they spend this kind of money (when you live with a teacher, every subject turns to education) etc.

I looked for information about the story this morning and found this item. Seems the story is FALSE. First reported by the Weekly World News (we all know that's a reliable source), then picked up by Fox News. The Fox anchors said they doubted the story, to which I have a question - WHY DID YOU REPORT IT? This doesn't help your credibility at all. Oh, sure, you said it was questionable, but a lot of the folks watching didn't hear that part.

Fox knows the audience and knows that conservatives love stories like this. It's a great chance to make fun of those from "the other side". But this just makes Fox look just as bad as the other networks. I thought Fox wanted to try for a higher standard? I guess I was mistaken.

A leg up vs. a hand out

I recently read the biography of blogger who is all for government assistance for people who need it. He said "you see, I believe in the power of the Federal Government to help people help themselves – as it helped me." (See his full post here.)

It struck me that this person and I are very similar in a lot of ways. You see, I received federal government assistance when I needed it. The Basic Education Opportunity Grant paid for a lot of my college for three years (my senior year, I made too much in my part time job to qualify). I've also received government help in other ways that I can't detail here.

But even though he and I have some similarities, we're still different in our approach? What then, is the difference?

My first thought is that I am always willing to give someone a leg up, but don't want to give them a hand-out. But then, the question remains, what's the difference between this other blogger and me?

Well, part of it may center on our definitions, but I'm not sure that's all that different either. I think both of us would want to help those who truly need it and I don't think either of us would want to help those who are just to lazy to work.

I guess the net of this post is that we truly aren't that different. We may have differences in the ways we wish to help, or we may have differences in our priorties. No, I'm not losing my conservative bent and no, I'm not rearranging my priorities. But I do believe we have to work together.

When is a library not a library?

When you can't check anything out! See the article here.

Seems the Bill Clinton Presidential Library has a limited selection of information available to the viewing public. In particular, a collection of emails and papers about Hillary is not available and won't be until long after the 2008 election. Is she trying to hide something? How long did it take for her to find Whitewater papers? She must've used that as a trial ground to work this angle.

The story I heard on the radio said that less than 1/2 of 1% of all of the material from the Clinton days is available. This after Hillary promised us the library would be open.

Several republicans are running on the platform that they are the one who can beat Hillary. I've never liked someone who runs on a platform like this. But she is one person who almost makes me change my mind...

P.S. There's also a fishy report I heard about Hillary receiving donations from the China connection. I haven't researched it yet, but will post an entry when I do.

Obama speaks at church - Updated

Last Thursday, I posted a blog showing that Sen. Obama intended to violate the constitutional [sic] requirement for a separation of church and state. Since I'm sure most of my readers don't read the local newspaper or listen to local newsradio, I thought I'd update here.

The article can be found here. Apparently, Sen Obama stuch to his faith-based message and didn't drift into politics. He reported that his late-blooming faith is "what keeps (his) eyes set on the greatest of heights."

A listener to the local Christian talk radio program phoned in with his view. He reported that Obama seemed shocked by what he saw at the racially diverse congregation and probably wondered what role the government might have (none) since this was already diverse. He said Obama was stunned and for 20 minutes didn't even realize the congregation was standing. This listener said he spoke to Obama after the service and told him that "God can not bless you until you drop your pro-abortion stance".

This last comment comes off sounding very negative. When the speaker reported it on the radio, it didn't come off that way. Rather it sounded like he was impressed with Obama and wanted to share his opinion. Reportedly Obama looked down and went to the next person. Again, this wasn't reported as negative, just factual. I did not get the impression that the speaker took it negative. If you infer that either side of this was negative, I did a poor job reporting.

My point here is that Obama did what many conservatives do, and that is to speak in front of the church. Let's not forget this when Bush speaks in a church and is accused of violating this constitutional edict.

Update -
Where is the equal time? Will Fred Thompson or Sen. McCain be allowed to speak? Also, if there is such a push to shut out Rush Limbaugh, why not shut out this church?

Proof that the right saves more gas than the left

With gas prices (back down for the moment), everyone wants to save gas. And some are concerned about global warming and all should be concerned about polutting less.

So if you knew a way to save gas (and $$) an pollute less that didn't cost you anything, would you listen?

Seem UPS has found that making right turns instead of left turns saves gas. Company reps say it decreases the amount of time idling, which will, in turn, make each vehicle more fuel-efficient. On an individual truck-by-truck basis, the difference in fuel efficiency is minimal, but on a fleet level, the increase in fuel economy becomes quite significant.

Additionally, making right turns leads to less accidents than making left turns, thereby increasing your life expectancy and reduces the need for goverment sponsored health care.

So, UPS has given us proof that the right is better than the left.

See the article here.