Martha Stewart and the Tall Poppies

Jul 20, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

There is a notorious saying in Australia: "You have to cut down the tall poppies." In other words, anyone who dares to poke his head above the crowd must be attacked, denigrated, and brought down to the common level. I don't know whether this "Tall Poppy Syndrome," as it is called, is really typical of Australian culture, but it is a widespread trend in American culture -- and Martha Stewart has long been one of its favorite targets. [...] Stewart's lawyers suggest she is being targeted because she is a successful woman in a "man's world." But ask Bill Gates what kind of welcome a successful man can expect today. In fact, both are the target of a deeper hatred.

The basis for this hatred is not mere envy, but a moral code that makes that ugly emotion seem legitimate: the morality of altruism. We have been told for centuries that the weak, the incompetent, the most down-and-out bums on the street are the most worthy objects of our moral concern—while the highest achievers are at best the bum's servants, at worst his exploiters. The result is an upside-down morality, a code in which the better you are, the worse you are. The more you achieve, the more you are hated.

This hatred of the good is not merely ugly; it is destructive. A culture that attacks its highest achievers will mow down its tall poppies -- and end up with nothing but weeds.

If the average person has little knowledge of how a business works -- of how it is run, what it does, and what is required to run it successfully -- then it is easy for the left to smear business leaders as "parasites" who get rich by exploiting the "little guy." How are people to know any better, if they know nothing of the history of great business leaders; if they know nothing of the structure of a corporation; if they know nothing of the innovation, unwavering focus, and long-range thinking necessary to create and maintain a successful enterprise? The result is that people act as if they can ignore the history and origins of a great American corporation, like Microsoft or Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, and treat it as if it just bloomed into existence as a fluke. And thus, the effort and virtue needed to create such a business seems, to them, just as vague and substanceless as the claims that insider trading is a terrible crime. The two ideas are equally devoid of substance and thus hold equal weight in people's minds.

Martha Stewart was investigated for the "crime" of insider trading and later convicted of obstructing justice for lying to authorities during the investigation. But the questions no one is asking are: Should Martha even have been the subject of a criminal investigation in the first place? Should anyone be investigated for insider trading? Is insider trading objectively a crime?[...] Contrary to the egalitarian premise giving rise to opposition to insider trading, individuals have no more right to information they have not earned than to wealth they have not earned. Should a talented analyst, for example, be forced to make his research publicly available if it would otherwise give him a competitive edge on the market? The mere fact of participating in the financial markets does not confer upon one a right to the hard-won knowledge of others.

In a free market, corporate policy on insider trading would be knowledge available to the public. If a potential investor held that the practice involved too much risk to the value of a stock, he could refuse to purchase the stock of companies permitting the practice. And companies desiring to prohibit the practice among their employees would be free do so by contractual agreement. They would have the moral and legal right to bring civil charges against an executive who violated his contractual obligations.

The Left’s Propagandist: Michael Moore and the Intellectual State of Today’s Left

Jul 16, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

This gives a doubly ironic meaning to a tag-line used at the top of some posters for Moore's film: "Controversy--What Controversy?" What controversy, indeed? Nearly everyone tasked by the mainstream media to review this film is an acolyte of Moore's far-left views. But what is disturbing about the reaction to this film is not this near-universal agreement with Moore's un-intellectual vaporings. The most important common theme of the reviews is not an uncritical acceptance of Moore's slanted facts and weak reasoning: it is an openly expressed contempt for facts and reasoning as such... ...Behind all of these reviews is un-admitted Marxist premise--the root idea that is necessary to justify propaganda. In the ideology of materialist Marxist totalitarianism, it was widely accepted that ideas are just a "superstructure," a "legitimating ideology" whose sole purpose is to advance the power of one group or class over another. The seizure of political power, in this view, is the only truly important goal--and the marshalling of ideas and arguments is to be judged only by how it serves raw power politics... [TIA]

For and Against

Jul 16, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

Saddam and the O.J. Effect

Jul 15, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

I don't agree with many of Alan Dershowitz' points in this op-ed about Saddam's trial (e.g., that America should accept even the possibility of an imperfect verdict or that "international law" should prevent us from doing as we please with Saddam), but Dershowitz does make a safe prediction:

Saddam's family has retained a small army of lawyers, which includes a nightmare team of anti-American advocates from around the Arab world and Western Europe, and features the daughter of Libya's dictator, Moammar Gadhafi. The stage is thus set for a highly politicized trial in which Saddam will try to turn the tables on his accusers by pointing fingers at "the occupying forces" and their puppet court.

Charles Johnson is keeping track of one of Saddam's lawyers, an American who gives us an idea of just how politicized the trial could become:

"I ardently oppose American and more broadly western neo-imperialism which is being imposed through the exploitation of the majority of the people of the world and the economic and military dominance of the United States. I believe that all people have a right and a duty to take all necessary measures to end the United States' inhumane dominance of the lives of billions of people."

This lawyer, Curtis F.J. Doebbler, made news today for seeking Supreme Court action on Saddam's behalf.

Doebbler, the lone American on Saddam's legal team, wants the high court to declare the detention of the ousted Iraqi president unconstitutional.

He even has more to say about the America military:

"The world's most powerful army is an army of cowards. They are soldiers who are willing to risk the lives of innocent civilians to protect their own. I don't know about my fellow Americans, but I don't feel very much protected by such cowards."

Right. I guess that makes Saddam the "hero" for surrendering to "cowards" before being dragged like a rat out of his filthy spider hole.

Moore Debunking

Jul 14, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

For a thorough, must-read debunking of the deceptions and outright lies presented in Fahrenheit 9/11, including responses from Michael Moore, see: Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 by Dave Kopel. For an examination of Moore's irrational methods (e.g., conspiracy theories, ad-hominem attacks, maudlin appeals to emotions) and why the left embraces such tactics, see: The Left's Propagandist: Michael Moore and the Intellectual State of Today's Left by Robert W. Tracinski of TIA Daily. For a look at why Moore is willing to show graphic images of casualties in Iraq (from dead babies to dead American soldiers) yet not willing to show graphic images of 9/11 or Saddam's atrocities, see: The Cowardice of Michael Moore by Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs.

And for other critiques of Fahrenheit 9/11, see:

More Distortions From Michael Moore by Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball of Newsweek;
The importance of being Michael Moore by Mark Steyn at London Telegraph; and
Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore by Christopher Hitchens at Slate.com.

I recently watched Fahrenheit 9/11. Some parts were downright offensive, such as Moore's depiction of the Iraqi dictatorship as a "sovereign nation" with kite-flying kids frolicking around Baghdad like it was a socialist utopia, and (as mentioned before) Moore's refusal to depict the 9/11 attacks or Saddam's atrocities in the same manner he depicts the casualties of the Iraq war. But because of such blatant editorializing and a general lack of objectivity, Moore's "documentary" is intellectually impotent, even as propaganda. Sure, some people will buy and eagerly swallow Moore's snake oil, but such people are probably lost causes anyway.

Despite whatever valid points could have been made in Fahrenheit 9/11 (e.g., that our government may be too closely tied to the Saudi regime or that homeland security is insufficient), all is lost in the incessant smearing of President Bush and his administration with innuendoes and personal attacks.

One example stands out. As part of a montage, Moore shows Condoleezza Rice saying: "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11." Frankly, I was shocked to hear this, because I have never heard the Bush Administration try to directly connect Iraq to 9/11. In fact, because of 9/11 Commission findings, there has been a recent round of reaffirmations by the Administration that an Iraq-9/11 connection did not exist and was not cited as a justification for the invasion. Had a prominent member of the Bush Administration slipped up, as Moore indicated? Well, no. As I learned from the Kopel article cited above, Rice was referring to a connection in relation to terrorism in general. Moore chops Rice's quote so that we don't get the full context, which is as follows:

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It's not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East...." [Emphasis added]

By "a tie" Rice meant "a kind of tie." By editing out her elaboration, Moore wants the viewer to get the false impression that Rice stated there was a direct tie between Iraq and 9/11.

Such underhandedness by Moore reminded me of a scene in another movie, Timeline. (Warning: A spoiler follows.) A group of modern-day time-travelers find themselves in the middle of a feudal war in 14th-century France. They are taken as bound prisoners before an English lord who is to decide their fate. One of the time-travelers happens to be French, and the English lord accuses him of being a spy. The Frenchman protests, truthfully, that he is merely an innocent translator. As an apparent test, the Englishman asks him to translate a French phrase. The translator is reluctant, but fearing for his life he gradually translates the phrase: "I am a spy." The Englishman smiles, draws his sword and runs the Frenchman through, killing him.

If one could somehow confront the Englishman and condemn his gross injustice, it's not difficult to imagine that his justifications would be similar to Moore's: "It was a confession. You heard him yourself. That's exactly what he said. I didn't change his words." Such are the methods of a "documentary" character assassin.

By the end of the movie, Moore wants the viewer to believe that Bush is a Saudi-controlled dimwit who waged war in Iraq solely for maintaining America's "hierarchical society" in which the poor are used as cannon fodder for oil profits. No, I'm not kidding. Apparently Moore hates Bush for the fact that -- to whatever limited degree -- the President has acted militarily to protect capitalist America, Americans and our allies from foreign terrorists. In short, Moore is a socialist propagandist whose ends justify his means. "Baghdad Bob" would be proud.

We've already accused Moore of artistic fraud for selling his admittedly subjective opinion as documentary fact. We've already pointed out that Moore sided with the enemy when he stated that Iraqi terrorists and insurgents are Revolutionaries like America's Minutemen. Fahrenheit 9/11 merely demonstrates how much further Moore is willing to go to demonize America and whitewash the atrocities of our enemies.

Is it any wonder that the terrorist group Hezbollah has offered to help promote Moore's propaganda in the Middle East?

Canadian reader Chris R. Chapman informs us that Michael Moore could be in trouble for allegedly violating Canadian election laws. ChargeMoore.com is a Web site that's been established by Campus Conservatives to push the issue with a petition. They've posted a National Post article that explains what happened (I couldn't find a link for the original Post article [UPDATE: they are now linking to the original article, and our link has been updated], but here's another source with the same story, and here's a London Free Press article from today covering the story). Frankly, the Canadian law sounds like a violation of free speech to me. Kind of like America's "campaign finance reform" laws. Ironically, those laws worked in Moore's favor.

MooreWatch.com has the latest in other Moore news.

Sharon Withstands Security Breach

Jul 11, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on Sunday ordered construction continued on a barrier between Israel and the West Bank despite a nonbinding world court ruling that it was "contrary to international law." Sharon also ordered "that the struggle against the opinion of the [International Court of Justice] be continued by all diplomatic and legal means." Israel says the barrier serves to keep out terrorists, while Palestinians say it is an illegal land grab creating needless hardship for their people.