Hypocrisy of Michael Moore thickens

Hypocrisy of Michael Moore thickens

Jerry Zandstra
The Detroit News
March 25, 2011

What would you say to someone who made $50 million in an industry in which 90 percent of his fellow union members made less than $5,000 per year?

How about someone whose last project grossed over $220 million but who hired nonunion workers to save money? Unions should be up in arms. People across the country should be protesting outside this guy's house. Commentators like Rachel Maddow should be raining condemnation on his head in disgust over the growing gap between the wealthy and the poor in America.

He should be the left's poster boy for all that is wrong with our country. But what if the person who does such things is Michigan's own Michael Moore?

Moore has made himself infamous by making outrageous documentaries and ridiculous statements. In his latest tirades, he told GritTV that the wealthy's income should be nationalized. All property, income and wealth should be thought of as belonging to "the people," he said, rather than any one person.

Moore's budget analysis

The state of Wisconsin, for example, isn't broke, Moore says. The wealth is just congealed in the hands of a few and the state needs to take it from them on behalf of the people.

Of course, this is nothing new. Karl Marx believed the same and so have other purveyors of communism for decades.

What's new about Moore is the sheer hypocrisy of his statements.

Having just completed renovations on a multimillion-dollar vacation home in Torch Lake, Moore showed up in Wisconsin telling union workers he stands in solidarity with them. He then appeared on Maddow's show spewing trumped-up anger against rich people, saying that they need to be handcuffed and taken to jail. He even brought handcuffs as a prop, in case we weren't getting the message.

He has now put the crosshairs on Michigan and its reform-minded Gov. Rick Snyder.

We could argue the economics and constitutionality of his demands if not for this simple fact: Moore's personal wealth puts him at the top of the heap in the United States. What's worse is that he has made his $50 million by taking advantage of tragedies. In his 1989 documentary, "Roger and Me," he describes the economic pain felt by 30,000 General Motors employees who lost their jobs, positioning himself as the champion of the little guy. In theatrical box office alone, the film earned $7.7 million, with millions more from DVD and other sales. Not a blockbuster, but a decent enough start.

In his 2002 documentary, "Bowling for Columbine," Moore focused on the devastating violence unleashed in a Colorado school in 1999 as a means of examining violence in general in the United States. It brought him international attention and won numerous awards. His star began to rise, as did the balance in his checkbook. "Bowling for Columbine" made $58 million in theaters and tens of millions more in ancillary sales.

Moore's ship really came in with the terrorist attacks on 9/11. His 2004 film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," took a critical look at the presidency of George W. Bush and the war on terrorism. It turns out that rich people were behind it all. Big surprise. The movie became the highest-grossing documentary of all time, earning more than $220 million.

Phony solidarity?

Moore will receive an income for the rest of his life from ongoing sales of his documentaries that will be manifold greater than that of any union worker with whom he is in solidarity.

Certainly the lion's share of the wealth he created for himself with his films would be taken from him and given to those whose lives were permanently changed. Let's start the negotiation at 90 percent.

If I were a betting man, I would put money on Moore's next documentary focusing on unions and the battle in Wisconsin. It may be that he isn't expressing moral outrage at the loss of union collective bargaining. It is more likely that he is merely doing promotion for his next project. I'm sure he will again make millions telling the story of people who have lost what they believe to be their rights.

I wonder if any of them will collectively bargain with him in advance for a portion of the money he will make telling their stories?

Amen! Moore is one person I truly despise. His so-called "documentaries" are nothing more than history as fiction. They are shot through with misrepresentations of the facts and sometimes outright lies and manufactured "evidence." He is first order fraud and as he rails against capitalism he gladly reaps its rewards for himself.