"They're coming soon, the ski masks and Zarqawi,As Spock would say, "Fascinating." Or maybe he might instead say, "But Captain, that is illogical." Me on the other hand, I just think it's a way of not having to face the fact that it was US policies, including choosing to start a 'preventative war', and then not even heeding your own experts advice, those w/ actual experience in its conduct. [Speaking of logic, this is a fascinating phrase - What does a 'preventative war' prevent? Some would say it prevents an attack on our soil, but Iraq couldn't launch an attack on us. Sorry, back to TCS]
They've fixed the focus on the camera.
I'm glad they had to waste the first beheading
(They got the Moore film from the Hezbollah).
They caught us at the well -- the pump was broken --
Without our weapons, out near Baquba --
The village kids were thirsty, we were working
(They got the Moore film from the Hezbollah).
And Captain Stevens never begged or pleaded,
Just glared into the video retina;
They'd made us watch Fahrenheit 911,
They'd got the Moore film from the Hezbollah."
"The film goes beyond merely pointing out that corporations are responsible for polluting the environment, preying on unassuming consumers or exploiting workers -- it posits that these outrages and abuses are the direct result of the primary personality traits of the modern corporation. The film attempts to make the case that the modern corporation possesses all the personality traits of a "psychopath" intent on the pathological pursuit of profit and power. There's the "disregard for the well-being of others," of course, as well as "deceitfulness," and a host of other psychopathic traits. By reviewing, point-by-point, how the modern corporation possesses all the traits of a "psychopath," the film encourages the viewer to ask the logical question: what are we doing by letting these psychopaths run our country? The film ends, as might be expected, with a call-to-arms by Michael Moore.Let's see. Maybe if the author had read Adam Smith, he'd realize that a few lines out of context and with complete disregard for the caveats that Smith includes in "Wealth of Nations: Library of Economics and Liberty", does not help his argument.
The film, of course, overlooks the obvious: modern capitalism (and, by extrapolation, the modern corporation) is actually responsible for the greatest creation of wealth and the fastest rise in living standards in the history of the world. The 'invisible hand of the market,' as first postulated by Adam Smith, is still at work today. Tiny transactions, repeated billions of times each day, help to create a more prosperous society:'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest... By directing that industry in such a manner as it produce what may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention... Promoting the interests of the society more effectively than when he really intends to promote it.'While the film focuses on the 'negative externalities' (unintended consequences for third parties) created by the corporation -- illness, pollution, habitat destruction -- the film overlooks all the 'positive externalities' created by the corporation -- open markets, higher living standards and more concern for personal freedoms in Third World nations. Moreover, the film ignores the fact that many corporations now have social responsibility and corporate sustainability programs that are meant to mitigate many of their supposed evils and increase the number of 'stakeholders' that they serve. However, the film explains away these social responsibility programs as nothing more than PR spin or as attempts to co-opt the political agenda of the Left."
In preparation for this next wave of propaganda attacks, the Bush Administration must be able to make the case, clearly and succinctly, of how its pro-business policies will lead to an improvement in living conditions for the average U.S. citizen. It will also need to show what steps it has taken to correct the corporate governance abuses of the past few years as well as outline how free trade policies and open markets lead to economic prosperity. If the Bush Administration is able to do so, then it will quickly become evident that the anti-business propagandists -- not corporations -- are the real "psychopaths."For those now confused by the definition of Psychopath, let's consult Dr Menlo over at American Samizdat for some guidance in identifying 'sociopaths'. The terms seem to meld, now the nom du jour is Antisocial personality disorder. Perhaps the term 'psychopath' had taken on such negative connotations, that it was thought insensitive to continue to refer to them as psychopaths. You know how sensitive they can be. The point is, that Dr Menlo provides some examples to help you better understand the term.