From: Olga Bourlin (fauxever@sprynet.com)
Date: Sat Jul 26 2003 - 18:41:39 MDT
From: "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1@mindspring.com>
> Best analysis yet. This is a remarkably unattractive personality.
###*He's* an unattractive personality? (More unattractive than the average
politician or ... who?) I'm no fan of Moore - but let's face it, if indeed
he does exaggerate for the effect (and I'm not condoning this), is it any
less egregious than how much our own administration lies and exaggerates to
us? Is Moore's personality any less attractive than Bush's? I realize you
did not mention Bush or our present administration, but when I read the
article imputing how much Moore lies - the comparisons just started to
"click, click, click ...," you know?
###The article stated:
"Restructuring, aided by waves of computerization, meant wiping out entire
layers of management, a process that was bloody and sometimes deeply unjust:
Moore is right that CEOs often compensated themselves royally, while their
downsized ex-employees worried about buying shoes for their kids. But the
fact is that *many* [my italics] industries emerged from the carnage more
competitive and better equipped to avoid layoffs in future recessions."
###"Many" industries, hmmm (I wonder what is meant by "many"?).
###ITOH, I've read things like:
"'Executive Excess 2001'" documents a virtual explosion in executive pay
over the past decade, which jumped a phenomenal 571 percent between 1990 and
2000. This dramatic increase in CEO compensation dwarfed the increase in
workers' pay during the same period, which grew by only 37 percent, barely
surpassing the 32 percent rise in the cost of living due to inflation. CEO
pay now stands at 531 times the pay of the average US worker. According to
the study, if the average pay for production workers had grown at the same
rate since 1990 as it has for CEOs, workers' 2000 annual average earnings
would have been $120,491, instead of the present $24,668 average.
As executive salaries soared during the economic boom of the 1990s, millions
of workers and their families saw their standard of living deteriorate. Over
the past decade, social programs have been gutted and millions of poor
people have been thrown off the welfare rolls. According to the Economic
Policy Institute, 29 percent of working families do not earn a living wage.
Of these families, 70 percent experience real hardships, such as skipping
meals or forgoing needed medical care....
Furthermore, the unchecked greed of these top executives endangers the
livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of workers employed by these
corporations. These workers and their families depend on company paychecks,
retirement packages, medical and other benefits, which are jeopardized by a
reckless policy on the part of management that subordinates their economic
security to the self-aggrandizement of these CEOs. From every
standpoint-moral, social and economic-this practice is criminal. It
represents a level of corruption and plundering of resources unparalleled in
the history of corporate America."
###The City-Journal article also stated:
"So does that mean that Moore's career as the pied piper of union workers is
also a lie? The best that can be said is . . . not entirely. Moore *appears*
[italics mine] to give a good deal of money to unions and charities."
###Remember, the author did not hesitate to say that "CEOs often compensated
themselves royally while their downsized ex-employees worried about buying
shoes for their kids" (even with her biases, she knew better than to write
something along the lines of "CEOS *appeared* to compensate themselves
royally). Yet, when the "greed" card did not come up as (perhaps) the
author expected or hoped with Moore, she wrote that Moore "appear[ed] to
give a good deal of money to unions and charities" (i.e., the author's not
certain Moore really gave money to charities, just that he "appeared" to do
this - and, well, you know how much the guy lies ... tsk, tsk, tsk).
Then the author immediately followed that with: "But on the road he *often*
[italics mine] stays at the Ritz or Four Seasons, like other movie
millionaires."
There she goes again. "Often," hmmm (I wonder what -*if anything*- is meant
by "often"?) Maybe the author is imputing that Moore is really no different
than Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers, and Dennis Koslowski, the Rigases, Sam Waksal,
etc.?
IMHO, this is a far cry from being the "Best analysis yet" on Moore. If
integrity were as important to the author as she seemingly expects from the
subjects about whom she writes, it's not even very good journalism.
> < http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_3_michael_moore.html >
> [complete lengthy article]
Olga
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 26 2003 - 18:49:48 MDT