The Blindness of Trudeau

Gary Trudeau demonstrates the nuance of partisan thinking (which is to say, none) in today's Doonesbury (27 Sept 2009). Among the most eggregious of howlers was the line "The Nazis ... were the most evil force in history." Sure, if you overlook the Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist factions that predated and outlived Hitler.

Speaking of, apparently the former communists get it.

I have studied Hitler at length. I can tell you that Obama is no Hitler. I think the point many are making when they make the comparison is the growing totalitarianism. And they would make the comparison with, say, Stalin, but on one hand I'm not sure anyone remembers him anymore (except possibly as "one of the guys who defeated Hitler") and on the other hand, the people you want to wake up to this looming problem are people who think Hitler was 100x worse than Stalin. We need to wake up the people who are opposed to the police state when it is in Republican hands, but who help defend and expand the police state when it is in their own hands. People like Gary Trudeau. But they think an all powerful state is okay in the hands of the Right Correct party.

Sweatshops vs. factories

I just can't stop shaking my head over this problem:

• People criticize factory work. It's cold, dehumanizing, back-breaking, horrible work that nobody would ever do unless they were stupid, crazy, or desperate.
• People decry the loss in this country of manufacturing jobs, or sometimes more specifically union manufacturing jobs.

When those two sets of people are from opposite ends of the political spectrum, I can understand that. I don't necessarily agree with it, though. Many of the former are ignorant of first-hand experience with manufacturing jobs. They think of it as their experience in a McDonalds, times 10. Many of the latter are populists, either conservative (leave out the union reference and you have Pat Buchanan) or Progessive (include the union reference and you have Ted Kennedy).

What I don't understand is people who are in both camps at once. I guess those jobs are great as long as neither you nor your friends, relatives, or anyone else up to distant acquaintances actually have to do them. I bring this up because my wife told me that she stood listening to a woman complaining that clothing isn't made anymore in this country, it's all China, dirka-dirka-dirka, until she finally said, "Actually, I am in the apparel trade here in the US." The woman's response? One word, delivered with a sneer:

Sweatshop.

What do you say to people like this?

[UPDATE]: Funny, we must have been on the same wavelength because Kathleen recounted it in the same day's post:

It's common for people to describe production work as degrading and mind numbing but that's a value judgment. I know plenty of people who enjoy it, self included. Maybe more people would be attracted to manufacturing if it weren't so maligned.

Thank God for Camille Paglia

Just as I was becoming convinced that left wing public intellectuals had all lined up behind The Party, Camille Paglia throws this one out (destined, I'm afraid, to be ignored because the Right doesn't read her and the Left doesn't tolerate dissent with The Goal so close at hand):

Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.
...
But affluent middle-class Democrats now seem to be complacently servile toward authority and automatically believe everything party leaders tell them. Why? Is it because the new professional class is a glossy product of generically institutionalized learning? Independent thought and logical analysis of argument are no longer taught.

Do read it: it is target rich but not dense.

Capitalist pigs

The problem with capitalism is capitalists. The problem with socialism is socialism.
-- Willy Brandt (?)
The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.
-- V.I. Lenin

Does that count if the capitalist doesn't consider himself to be a capitalist because he is -- by his own definition -- "working class"? Let's begin with a definition: a capitalist is someone who makes a living by renting capital, in other words, off the interest earned on money.

So here is Michael Moore admitting to being a capitalist:

But Moore is determined to get around the problem [of capitalists no longer providing him with the capital to make anti-capitalist movies] by saving up profits from all of his previous films so he can continue making documentaries in the future.

He adds, "I have been saving up my money from Sicko (2007 film) to get to this day. I will always make my own movies, now I have the money to make them."

The guy is oddly very paranoid. He thinks that his funding will dry up:

He says, "Why would these companies give money to me, a guy who is diametrically opposed to everything they stand for? One of the beautiful flaws of capitalism is they will use the rope you give them to hang themselves, if you can make a buck.

The problem with this theory is that they don't give him money to make a buck, they give him money because they have an ideological axe to grind and/or they are Bootleggers in need of a Baptist. He could consult Schumpeter on the former and Kolko on the latter.

The paranoia is not new, if you believe what is written about Moore in this piece from The Guardian:

But during the same series of dates in London, he complained about the lack of security so vehemently that the Roundhouse staff threatened to boycott the show. I got a taste of the air of paranoia surrounding Moore when, because I was without a suitable pass, a friendly PR snuck me into the main press conference alongside his entourage. Suddenly, one of his assistants turned to me and demanded to know who I was. The PR explained that I was with her.

'And who are you with?' asked the assistant.

'You,' replied the perplexed PR. 'I'm working with you.'

'I've never seen you before in my life,' announced the assistant and a security guard duly intervened to bar both of us. It was only when the PR persuaded the assistant that in fact they had been working together all day that the guard relented. On stage, Moore was asked why it was that he was flanked by three security men, who stood with their feet apart, hands clasped at their crotches, in an intimidating military stance. The director did as he always does when asked this question, and claimed that they were his fitness trainer, pilates teacher and masseur, then turned the idea that he needed protection into an elaborate joke.

I think it has become obvious to all but the True Believers that Michael Moore is a huckster, a showman who has found his shtick and is playing it like Hendrix played a Strat. He, like Ralph Nader, only cares about the content of his message to the extent that it draws more attention to his money-making ventures.