Notes on Capitalism: A Love Story

While M. Moore makes entertaining films, he looks at things from a very bias view. Of course that is his right in this freedom-loving country. He opens up with sad stories of people losing their homes. A telling statement is the difference between "the people who have nothing and the people who have it all." My question, why didn't M. Moore, a very rich person, loan these people money? He says that is "Capitalism", a system of taking of giving. No - it is not "Capitalism". What was shown were people who didn't pay their bills. That could of happen in any economic system. "Free enterprise" is not capitalism. Consumerism is not capitalism.

The story of Judge Ciavarella has nothing to do with "capitalism". It was an abuse of the judicial system that could have happen under any economic system. Moore acts as if prison abuse occurs only in "for-profit" institutions.

The story about pilot salaries is just another example of how people make stupid decisions. If there were less pilots, the salaries would increase. Because people want to fly, they are willing to accept less money. You could set a minimum salary for pilots, but that would just leave more unemployed pilots.

The story of the company taking out insurance on an employee is not an example of capitalism. Would Moore want to prevent companies getting insurance? Is he saying these companies are trying to kill it's employees? If so, than that itself is a crime. Again, nothing do to with capitalism.

Capitalism is not Christianity and has never meant to be. Capitalism is not "fairness" of outcome.

The bailout was not capitalism. At least Moore did not hide the fact the Democrats in Congress were responsible with the Bush administration for the bailout bill.

In the end M. Moore shows the socialist he wants others to be, but how come he doesn't give away all of his money? In the end he is just a hypocrite.

The Echo Chamber of the Chris Mattews Show

The last two weeks have shown how far left the show and panelists are. They accuse Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck of sedition. They try to link the "birth-ers" with Glenn Beck, et. al., though he and O'Reilly, etc., have shown the "birth-ers" to be wrong. They claim the right is calling the Obama government illegitimate, which is untrue, but where we they when the left was calling Bush illegitimate because of the supreme court decision? I've even heard the old argument that Gore had more votes, though that doesn't matter constitutionally. Sarah Palin's comment to "reload" is neither seditious or calling for violence. Get a clue left.

To pretend that Andrew Sullivan represents conservatives is a joke.