Michael Moore is a Hypocrite? Good for Him!

Conservative news site Talon News reports on Michael Moore's latest hypocrisy: the champion of keeping jobs in America outsources his Web site design to Canadians.

One often wonders the advantage some people are seeking by pointing out hypocrisy in one's political oppenents. After all, is Moore wrong to seek out the company of his choice to do business with, regardless of its national location? Of course not. And it's not like you are going to embarass him into changing his public ideology to match his actual behavior.

With devotees of many pernicious ideologies, from radical environmentalism to the autarkism that is once again raising its head in America in the context of the outsourcing debate, their hypocrisy is the best thing about them.

[Link via Rational Review]

Comments

[Brennan Stout]

Michael Moore is rich...Biaaatch!(channeling Dave Chapelle)

Like Paul O'neill, Moore's wealth is large enough where he doesn't have to change his stripes. He could come out as the spokesman for childporn and still get away with it.

Oops, child porn and libertarians. Don't bite too hard please.

[garym]

When people who advocate an unsound idea are found not to practice it, that can lead other people to look at it more critically. Moore may not get it, but others will.

[Fatmouse]

Remember kiddies - it's impossible to be a hypocrite if you're a Lefty, because *everything* you do is correct, no matter how inconsistent it seems.

You see, us right-wing nazis are just not *nuanced* enough to see the logic in Moore's behavior...

[joe]

Isn't there a teeny bit of difference between hiring Canadians to do your website and subbing out manufacturing to a subsidiary of the Chinese People's Liberation Army?

I don't see the hypocricy. The arguments that Moore makes about outsourcing simply don't apply to Canadian webmeisters.

[Dan]

One often wonders the advantage some people are seeking by pointing out hypocrisy in one's political oppenents.

Because most political arguments end up as arguments between two opposing positions. Call them "X" and "not X".

Person X says "X is good", and Person Y says "X is bad, so 'not X' is good". They try to convince the public to either support or oppose X.

But then it turns out that, hey, wait a minute -- Person Y actually does "X" himself!

So now the situation's different. Now you have one person saying X is good, and a known liar saying X is bad but doing it anyway.

Politically, X wins.

And that is why people bring up the hypocrisy of their political opponents.

[shorterjoe]

Isn't it time we stopped attacking Michael Moore because his views on labor don't fit on a bumper sticker?

[fyodor]

I don't know what Moore has said specifically about outsourcing myself, but if he makes a distinction between outsourcing to various countries based on their labor practices, then Joe's right and Moore's not a hypocrite, whether that's what y'all wanna hear or not.

[Evan Williams]

Ugh, here we go. I'm going to market a bumper sticker that says "my views on this particular matter don't fit on a bumper sti..."

I'm tired of that term already, people. There's a big difference between not being able to fit your views on a bumper sticker, and being an out and out hypocrite. In fact, very few of us, if any, would choose advertise our views on a bumper sticker instead of on paper or in person, where view can be adequately explained and debated.

But these days, it's as if, whenever someone has views that can't be explained in a short phrase, people shove the ol' "bumper sticker" quip in your face. OK, yeah, sure, but Mike Moore is a hypocrite, whether he puts his view on a bumper sticker, or he puts his views into a 2000-word essay.

Whether or not one can fit their views on a bumper sticker has absolutely no bearing on whether said views are valid, logical, etc. I'm sure that a great many valid, "correct", views CAN fit on bumper stickers. Conversely, I'm also sure that a great many invalid, useles, hypocritical views DON'T fit on a bumper sticker.

Let's leave that stupid quip at home, ok folks? Let's address the views themselves, not whether they can fit on a bumper sticker.

[Don]

"I don't see the hypocricy. The arguments that Moore makes about outsourcing simply don't apply to Canadian webmeisters."

As long as you are not outsourcing to brown people, right Joe?

[Evan Williams]

Oh, ok, so who gets to define "fair labor practices"? The UN? Hmmm...given that Libya was chair of the Human Rights Commission, maybe they can put China in charge of the Fair Labor Commission.

Silliness. "Fair labor" is a relative term. By MY standards, the US is far from "fair" labor. So I guess I wouldn't trade with myself.

[Jesse Walker]

What if they can fit on my tin foil hat?

[joe]

Yes, Evan, everyone's comments should be as substantive as yours. Congratulations on not commenting on the bumper sticker issue, and thoughtfully explaining that Moore's position is...uhhhhhhhhhhhh. Hmmmm.

[Lowdog]

joe, one reason that I would say it makes Moore look like a hypocrite is because a lot of lefties in Hollywood (specifically the screenactor's guild) are complaining about films being shot in Canada. Now I don't know what Moore has said about outsourcing, but taking jobs "away" from Americans to give them to any foreigners because they can do the job more cheaply is pretty much the very definition of outsourcing, is it not? I'm sure that no one can say that the Canadian web designers are being "exploited", but Americans lost their jobs, and that's always bad, isn't it?

[fyodor]

Evan Williams,

Re: "Oh, ok, so who gets to define 'fair labor practices'?"

Good question, and not one easily answered. But in case that was aimed at me, please note that I'm not defending Moore's position or rhetoric (especially since, as I've already stated, I don't know what they are) but only pointing out that Moore's not necessarily a hypocrite on the issue depending on what precisely he's said about it.

And for the record, allow me to make clear that I consider Moore to be an annoying, devious and sanctimonious blowhard who's wrong about most everything. But I'd prefer to judge things on available facts rather than on expectations.

[joe]

Yes Don. The difference between Canadian labor practices and Chinese labor practices is that Chinese people have darker skin. Look out De Soto, there's new Nobel contender on the block.

"I'm sure that no one can say that the Canadian web designers are being "exploited", but Americans lost their jobs, and that's always bad, isn't it?" I don't like people who get drunk and beat their kids. Does it make me a hypocrite when I finish a bottle of Aussie shiraz by myself after kissing my little one goodnight?

[Evan Williams]

What is there to explain? Moore is opposed to outsourcing, yet he himself outsourced. Look up "hypocrisy" in the dictionary, and you'll see such an example.

As for the supposed issue of only outsourcing to countries that have "fair labor practices", I already commented on that (see post above). I'd like to add, though, that the major problem that people have with outsourcing is that it supposedly causes jobs to be lost in the US. If that were the case, then it wouldn't matter how fair or unfair the labor practices in said outsourcing target country are---because, fair or not, Americans are "losing jobs". Now, I disagree with that argument on principle, but just assuming for a second that it were true, then Moore's supposedly argument that fair labor countries are alright to do business with is inconsequential.

Now, if that is, in fact, his view, and he is not concerned at all with Americans losing jobs, and he's only concerned about the welfare of laborers in third world sweatshops, then, in his own twisted way, he's a little less of a hypocrite. But a hypocrite, nonetheless.

[fyodor]

Gentlemen!! (To use the term loosely!!)

Unless one of you can find a link that substantiates Moore's words on the subject one way or another, you're just arguing past each other!!

[Lane]

If you guys are really so scared of those exotic Canadians, perhaps you'll feel better after watching them at work on Moore's site (and presumably many others). Turns out they're just like us - they play Freecell and Tetris at work same as us red-white-and-blue-blooded Americans.

[J]

I was already under the impression that Moore was a hypocrite because of his attempts to prevent his staff (from TV Nation, I think, and possibly in other cases) from unionizing, despite his rather vocal, aggressive, and broad support of unionization in The Big One and elsewhere.

[Gilbert Martin]

"What is there to explain? Moore is opposed to outsourcing, yet he himself outsourced. Look up "hypocrisy" in the dictionary, and you'll see such an example. "

Exactly.

That's all there is to it.

[garym]

fyodor: A wise request. Here's a link from a Google search:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/links/index.php?linkType=Research

Scroll about halfway down and you find:

(Quote)

Onshore Alternatives

Offshoring, also called offshore outsourcing, is
the practice of firing American workers and
exporting their jobs overseas.

We know that this is dangerous for our economy
today, and even worse for the future of our
children.

(End quote)

Canada isn't overseas, so by a literal reading, Moore is consistent. Why crossing salt water makes a difference still needs to be explained, though.

[fyodor]

And further it says,

"We believe consumers should have a choice between buying from companies who offshore and companies who value the Americans, workers and customers and stockholders, who made these companies what they are today."

Sounds like a blanket condemnation of extra-national hiring to me. Point to Moore bashers! A response from Joe?

[Major Napier]

"You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices," Finkle-McGraw said. "It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticise others-after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism?"

Finkle-McGraw paused, knowing that he had the full attention of his audience, and began to withdraw a calabash pipe and various related supplies and implements from his pockets. As he continued, he charged the calabash with a blend of leather-brown tobacco so redolent that it made Hackworth's mouth water. He was tempted to spoon some of it into his mouth.

"Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others' shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour-you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.

[JDM]

Hmmmmmm. Looks like joe is is ignoring Evan's actual arguments, then reparsing the debate, and calling Evan thoughtless...

Where have I seen this before?

[JDM]

Hmmmmmm. Looks like joe is is ignoring Evan's actual arguments, then reparsing the debate, and calling Evan thoughtless based on comments he didn't make in a debate that isn't actually occuring.

Where have I seen this before?

[joe]

JDM, perhaps you were lookin in the mirror?

Onshore Alternatives is an indepent group, that advocates a certain policty viewpoit. It is not run by Michael Moore. Does the Reason Institute endorse every policy position of every organization it links to from its website?

I may have overstated the sophistication of Moore's anti-outsourcing position, but nothing offered so far is definitive one way or the other. More research needed.

[joe]

fyodor, you don't believe consumers should have such a choice?

[fyodor]

Joe,

Oh c'mon, you (should) know consumer choice isn't the issue! The issue is what Moore thinks about extra-national hiring. Now if that quote on Moore's page is Onshore Alternatives' and not Moore's, that's a valid point. Point deducted from Moore bashers (based on an iffy technicality), and the score returns to love-love.

[shorterjoe]

Evan:

Apparently, I need to work on my satire regarding the whole "bumpersticker" thing. My name wasn't a dead giveaway?

[fyodor]

Joe,

I should point out that while you're absolutely correct to point out that Moore is not responsible for the views of organizations he links to, since the quote in question actually appears on Moore's website, there's greater reason to believe Moore is sympathetic to what it says than if one had to go to the linked site to see it. Still, it is not quite the same as the words being Moore's own. And while the Reason Foundation is all for consumer choice, one would be quite surprised if they linked to such a site since they would not consider such criteria significant and such rhetoric valid.

[fyodor]

I stand by all I said in my last post, although I didn't say it the most logical order. I should edit myself down till it can all fit on a bumpersticker!

[s.a.m.]

Sorry for my ignorance, but I don't follow Moore too closely. Did Moore actually fire a team of American webmasters and hire a bunch of Canadien webmasters to replace them? Or, did he just hire a Canadien firm to build him a website? With my limited info, it would seem he would not be a hypocrite if he simply did the latter. But it would seem contrary to his general views and rhetoric.

[Andrew Lynch]

kwais,

Is the idea that Bowling for Columbine is rife with artificial information now just an urban legend? I watched it, too, and thought, "Wow, if all this stuff is true, we're kind of fucked up. If some of it is false, I'm still enjoying it [the movie] immensely. If it is outright untrue or merely dishonest in the extreme, then at least it's well edited and really made me think about school systems, gun control, political priorities, ultra-local government, Canadian street culture, the power of celebrity, the venal PR function of large corporations, the immediate and palpable evidence of the thoughtlessness behind the much needed welfare reforms, plus the inability of Charlton Heston or Dick Clark to just tell it like it is."

...the ones that lose their jobs can look for better work elsewhere...

Such as?

[Andrew Lynch]

Why do you need someone to like to you to think about those things?

Your assumption, not mine. Since I spend most of my life, as Charles Murray would say, "making an honest living and minding his own business," I rather appreciate when people of extreme ideas -- be they right or wrong -- take advantage of a medium to present their ideas in ways I might not have thought of them. I'm not choosy, I test-drive everyone, from Jane Fonda to Bill O'Reilly. By your implied logic, I should come to every political or ideological event with fully formed and refined ideas about the way it is, and then judge the offered product based on what I already know. Sounds boring to me.

"looking for a better job elswhere"; such as a job in which they are worth the salary they make without the need to appeal to patriotism, or racism, or without needing the government to harm the rest of society by imposing trade restrictions or restrictive taxes.

Wow, that's terrible. You are revealed. When over thirty of my highly talented software-engineer friends were fired from jobs they hated, to be replaced by Indian analogs, not one of them appealed to patriotism, racism, or pleas to government to save their skins. They took their considerable skills and, after much searching, found precisely the same kinds of jobs they'd had before. I only took issue with your use of the creative destructionist's casual "better job." People who get fired don't necessarily find better jobs. Let's not be sloppy with our characterizations simply because they apply to other people and not ourselves.

[joe]

kwais comment ices it. You people couldn't play a credible race card if your life depended on it. That was just pathetic.

[Kevin Carson]

Canada isn't really a foreign country. It's just an parallel world version of the U.S.--as somebody said, it's like Minnesota seceded from the union.

At first glance, it looks pretty much like the U.S. Then you start noticing all sorts of little details are off: they've got yellow police cars, and a Parliament instead of Congress. Their money is in dollars and cents, but it all has a picture of some awful old woman on it. That's when you realize you're in the Twilight Zone.

[joe]

There's some awful old woman on my 1 dollar bills. Oh, wait.

[Dan]

At first glance, it looks pretty much like the U.S. Then you start noticing all sorts of little details are off

The there's only one real difference between Americans and Canadians -- which is that Canadians get really annoyed when you say there's only one difference between Americans and Canadians, and Americans don't.

The two countries are less culturally different from one another than New York is from Texas.

[MALAK]

joe, Canada has not had a $1 bill for over a decade, nor a $2 bill for six years. But thats okay, we STILL love you rubes up here. Especially since you're so quaint and all . . .

[Kevin Carson]

Good one, joe. I almost ruptured myself laughing. Ever see the Simpsons where Homer told a bewigged British judge, "Come on, you understand these things--you're a grandmother!"

Seriously, though: that's not George Washington--it's Adam Weisshaupt.

[kenn]

It was exactly what I was looking for!!

[Mike]

Wow, that's terrible. You are revealed.Sites Review