WatchFox claims that the new Muppet movie is class warfare.
Full article with complete video
Now I understand what Fox is saying. They villain's name is Tex Richman and he's an oil tycoon. Of course, big oil executives aren't really good guys in real life. BP through criminal negligence murdered several of its employees during the Gulf Oil Disaster. That's not even considering all the lives they harmed by destroying an ecosystem.
Still, it is completely unfair to say that being wealthy makes you a bad person. The thing is, the Muppet movie isn't saying that. Fox jumps to the conclusion that the message is "wealth and hard work are bad" when in fact that is never the message. The message is "greed is bad".
What Fox doesn't get, but their liberal guest (a professor of politics) did say, is that being rich isn't evil, it's all about how you got rich. Did you get rich by making the world a better place or by exploiting others.
The Fox commentator says, "That's the American dream: to work hard and be successful.". Unfortunately, that's not the American dream. Every person on this planet is for the idea of "if you work hard, you will be successful". Nobody has ever said that's a bad idea. But it is not reality, and it is not the American dream.
The real American dream is to not have to work at all and still be rich. The wet dream of every capitalist is to do the least amount of work possible and to get the most wealth. And the means to accomplishing this dream is to get other people to work hard for you and to take the wealth they produce.
The capitalist squeezes his employees, his customers, and the tax payers for every bit of wealth they have. That is why the middle class is shrinking, and that is why the villain's name is Tex Richman.
[Side note: The Fox commentator did say something profound, though. "You got to indoctrinate kids at the youngest age." Yes, and this is something I have found to always be true for religion. Perhaps it would be best if children were not exposed to religion, and they could decide to start practicing one once they hit 21, the drinking age. Because if you can't handle a beer, you can't handle a bible. But that's another story.]
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,565 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Fox = contemporary Republicans.
They deserve each other.
Follow
Befriend (1)
117 threads
971 comments
Best read is from dKos:
"Here's my question. How the hell do conservatives find time in their day to get outraged about all the things they insist they need to be outraged about? The War on Christmas, fine, whatever. Oh, and Spongebob might be gay. Also Teletubbies. And the Muppets are godless damn communists, and all of this is an elaborate Hollywood and/or gay and/or atheist and/or communist plot to "indoctrinate" your children. Every. Damn. Time.
Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you all that the Muppets aren't anti-corporate leftists and/or communists. They probably are. Or not, I don't care. I think everybody knows that if you write a script with an oil industry executive as the bad guy, you probably hate America because everybody, everywhere, loves rich asshole oilmen.
..."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/06/1042609/-Fox-Business-launches-war-on-anti-corporate-Muppets?detail=hide&via=blog_1
Follow
Befriend
12 threads
495 comments
Did anyone of you see this movie? Thought it was fun - kids loved it, songs were catchy, typical Muppet mayhem and cheesiness. I guess you can read anything you want into Tex Richman. A far more blatant example of bias can be found in Captain Planet and the Planeteers though it is pretty amusing watching Sly Sludge dumping toxic waste into the environment for no apparent reason.
Follow
Befriend (16)
764 threads
7,710 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Given how greedy oil executives are, and how much death and destruction they cause by getting governments to go to war while they spill oil all over the ocean and never clean it up, I have no problem with them being made out to be villains.
Yes, there are more pertinent careers that are villainous, but how do you explain the "mortgage-back security derivative broker" to kids? Cookie monster?
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
55 comments
I would love for someone to explain how a capitalist squeezes his employees, customers, and taxpayers and manages to stay in business?
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
94 comments
"Perhaps it would be best if children were not exposed to religion, and they could decide to start practicing one once they hit 21"
That would definitely result in far fewer believers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_children#Religious_indoctrination_of_children
Follow
Befriend (5)
7 threads
228 comments
Belgium, WI
Premium
While the class warfare meme is interesting, I often remind people that the rich get richer BECAUSE WE BUY THEIR STUFF AND WORK FOR THEM. Great comments! Thanks.
Yes, I did see the movie, it was muppety. My wife loved it, I liked the song and dance, and Animal got some face time, which is always good.
Damn longhair terrorist drummer communist Animal. Who'd a thunk?
Me nom a nah
Follow
Befriend (1)
1 threads
387 comments
Buffalo, NY
Dan8267 says
From my perspective, this isn't the problem. What you're describing is capitalism. However, capitalism is an economic system. Amercian capitalism used to be a duel system democracy + captialism. Capital pushed for more exploitation of workers and centralized control of wealth, while democracy gave the worker, and the public at large, the ability to regulate these would-be tyrants through elected government. It's this half of the equation that has been eviscerated. Asking the top of the 1% to change their agenda isn't the answer. What we need to do is build a governmental structure that can wrangle their overabundance of power down to appropriate levels and counterbalance the will of capital going foreward. That is the challenge.
As for the Muppet Movie, I haven't seen it yet, but Miss Piggy has been my spiritual leader since I was 5, so I will. Btw, how can they call the muppets socialists? Miss Piggy is dripping with designer gear. She's all about her own advancement, but has her power checked by Kermit and the rest. And Kermit's main goal is to be a successful producer of a hit variety show, in short an entrepreneur and business owner. No way those lovable characters are socialists. They are the embodiment of true American capitalism, capitalism mixed with democracy.
Follow
Befriend
38 comments
"Fox jumps to the conclusion that the message is "wealth and hard work are bad" when in fact that is never the message. The message is "greed is bad"."
But, that just raises the question: Is greed bad?
From Dictionary.com we have the definition of greed:
"excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions."
What is excessive, and who decides the level of excess possessions? The Commissar? The Pope? God? Should other individuals, or society in general, dictate how much each person ought to have? Or should each individual be allowed to keep what is fairly given to them in exchange for their decisions and efforts?
I think there is a big difference between that which is earned and gains that are ill-gotten. For instance, outright theft or fraud, crony capitalism, use of investor funds for personal gain, high frequency trading, or congressman buying stocks based on prospective legislation can be thought of as ill-gotten. Starting your own business, and providing a valuable good or service to customers, while also pulling in new jobs from the ether, is undeniably good.
First access to money by banks from the Fed at nearly zero interest and re-lending back to the US Treasury at 3% interest, and at the same time paying savers 0% interest is also, in my opinion, corruption. The problem isn't with rich vs poor, it's with how some of the rich are getting rich.
But is greed bad? Since it serves as motivation to work hard, wanting more than what others have isn't necessarily a bad thing. This desire to surpass your peers fosters good a work ethic, thrift, prudent borrowing and fiscal management.
Over time, wealth can be accrued, reinvested, and thereby provide financial security to one's family and heirs. Capital accumulation, when prudently invested, can also provide start up funds for new businesses, which provides jobs. These are proper principles to live by.
The problem is that people don't accept the fact that: a) the value of their work, measured in quantity and quality, may be less than other people's; b) that they may have made poor economic decisions; and, c) that their skills are not that marketable and they may need to change careers. As Aristotle said, A is A. The value of one's services are the value of one's services.
To expect that an individual pay more for someone's services than their intrinsic value, or for society to subsidize their value, is to say that black is white. Spreading the wealth through government action by taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots is indistinguishable from slavery. The products of one's labor, i.e. money, cannot be taken without forcing one to work more hours to replace that money. While not physically chained to the oar, the financial bond is just as strong, and will keep millions rowing long past their prime.
To say that desire for financial security is bad just because it is somehow excessive, without defining what that excessive level is, is stupid. And who can say how much wealth is enough given the Federal Reserves ability to print money and inflate away savings? A million dollars was a fortune 100 years ago. A hundred years from now, a billion dollars may not buy you a house in Orange County.
Contrary to what the Catholic Nuns might tell you, greed isn't necessarily bad. It's the actions you take that define you.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,565 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
country_stroll says
The government decides. Have you ever played a game of Monopoly? What happens when one person owns all the assets in a particular industry? The game is over.
It is immoral and dangerous to allow people to receive an unlimited amount of "what is fairly given to them". It leads to economic depression and eventually armed revolt. Therefore it is beneficial to society, beneficial to the government, and even beneficial to the aristocrats who often find their severed heads on the point of a stick to limit the amount of wealth acquisition.
country_stroll says
False. What you don't accept is that it's a zero sum game. Increasing the pool of wealth at the top DECREASES the pool of wealth held by consumers. Changing careers might help an individual, but only at the expense of another individual. Aristotle was wrong. The value of one's services are arbitrary and often decided by corruption and cronyism. How many times is a CEO going to take a corporation bankrupt AND receive a multi-million dollar golden parachute before you understand this?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,565 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Cloud says
You're confused. I'd be happy with United States "socialism". The kind we had from 1946 until 1980. I think you should be honest with yourself and admit the country you hate the most is this one, although in a different era.
These multiple childish posts are getting dangerously close to marking you as just another right-wing troll. (as if we had a shortage) Maybe you should start talking about actual issues.
Follow
Befriend
53 threads
658 comments
They need to dump the frog and pig, and just make a moving picture with the two wise gentlemen who sit up in the private box seats. Who could imagine clothe puppets could be so brilliant?
Follow
Befriend (16)
764 threads
7,710 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
housingcasino4865 says
I would love for someone to explain how a capitalist today can stay in business without squeezing his employees, customers, and the taxpayers.
Follow
Befriend
38 comments
Iwog,
Not sure I understand your point of view on Zero Sum Game. Wealth is a product of man's capacity to think (I have a t-shirt that says so, so it must be true). Wealth is also a product of man's manual labor. Although the physical labor contribution of wealth creation is increasingly small as compared to the intellectual contribution (it's called the industrial revolution, happened about 150 years ago, perhaps you've heard of it).
The only fair system is a system which rewards individuals based on each person's contribution, not based on their needs. And besides, wealth is not a static amount, it changes from year to year based on how many people are working, how productive they are, etc. While it is true that the total global wealth creation in a given year is a certain amount, it doesn't follow that EVERY air-breathing human can rightfully claim to have contributed ANYTHING to its creation.
One person may work 80 hours a week at two jobs, and another may sit on the couch watching tv all day. Should they take equal shares? If I was the person working 80 hours a week, I would be, and in fact am, quite hopping mad about that line of thinking.
And what is this nonsense about the people at the top taking from the people at the bottom? What do you think happens to the wealth of the 1%? Do they take all the money, convert it to currency and then burn it?
They either spend it or save it. If they spend it, it creates jobs to manufacture the goods, or provides people jobs directly for services. If they save it, it is reinvested in companies, that, wait a second, employ people. The companies hopefully turn a profit and the investor gets some return in the form of dividends or capital appreciation. And don't forget, the wealthy also pay millions of dollars every year in taxes. These taxes are more than their fair share considering the amount of government services received. How about thanking the rich for paying so much in taxes to send your kids to school, keeping your streets safe, and providing legions of governmental workers with high-paying low-skilled jobs, with million dollar pensions.
And what about philanthropy? How many charities get their funding from the poor? Large medical research trusts come from people who have money. No money, no trust, no more research, and life expectancies stop increasing. And so, more money is poured down the healthcare hole to fund pharmaceutical companies that have no interest in curing disease, but have substantial interests in treating them.
I don't disagree that in some instances, CEOs have been paid more to fail then they have to succeed. As a shareholder, I would like to think that the board is setting compensation packages that are most likely to achieve dividend and equity growth. The problem is a matter of policing the boards. The boards of major corporations are composed primarily of executives of other corporations, or the same corporation. These people, along with investment funds are the major shareholders. If the individual corporation owners (shareholders) are unhappy, they can remove the board and replace them with someone else. Practically, this is very difficult to do.
Monopoly power is limited by the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, etc. DOJ has an antitrust division, I believe, so monopolies are dealt with on a regular basis by the government already. I'll assume you are just ignorant of the facts regarding HHI, etc.
But I digress, I find all this rhetoric about civil unrest to be quite disturbing. So, if I understand your position correctly, Iwog, the choice of the wealthy is either to have the government confiscate their wealth through taxes or have the mob take the wealth by physical force? Its reassuring to see that you aren't advocating such a stupid position. I take it that you would then agree with the proposition that it would be acceptable for rich people to hire mercenaries to clear out the slums? If force is the only principle you'll abide, I guess that force will be your teacher. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Try using your own for a change.
Follow
Befriend
21 threads
581 comments
South Pasadena, CA
wbblair3 says
Did you know, they tried it in Russia in late 50th early 60th. Children were physiaclly taken away from "religious" parents. As the result, most of the generation turn believers.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,565 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
country_stroll says
That's about as far away from the system that we have now as you can get. A CEO can destroy a company and murder thousands of jobs and easily get paid millions while doing it. Republicans want to make this EASIER TO ACCOMPLISH. That's what a free market does.
country_stroll says
Wealth creation as averaged out over the population grows at roughly the increase in population. Therefore for all practical purposes, wealth is static. If you create a new brand of shoe, you steal customers away from Nike. If you create a new fast food restaurant, you take customers away from McDonald's. While "limitless potential" sounds good as a talking point, it's worthless. In a mature economy such as ours, wealth creation approximates consumption and always will. Therefore to gain wealth, you can only do so by taking it from someone else. Period.
country_stroll says
All of them get their funding from the poor. The poor are the ones doing the work and running the machines. The rich are the ones taking wealth created by the poor and giving a small % of it to charity. ALL CHARITIES GET FUNDING FROM THE POOR AS REDISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE RICH.
country_stroll says
In theory yes, in practice you are totally wrong. Anti-trust laws have not been enforced since Clinton, and then only in very specific instances like Microsoft. (a failed anti-trust action) However my point about the game of Monopoly doesn't involve actual Monopolies rather the effect of the rest of the players once one person controls the board and has all the money. The game stops. This remains true if there's only one player, or the top .1% of the US population. Once wealth disparity reaches a certain level, there's no more money at the bottom to fuel consumption and the economy crashes. That's what happened in 1929. That's what has happened in Mexico and Brazil. That's what will happen to us if you get your way.
country_stroll says
How many examples in history do you need????? What's the third choice? Some sort of Orwellian nightmare where technology and money are used to contain the rebellion?
It's always amazing to me when people argue against the FACTS of history. The FACTS of history say when the aristocracy becomes so rich that living conditions of the poor reach a certain threshold, the rich are massacred and a communist revolution takes place. We're not there yet, but you're trying your hardest to get us there.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,565 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
country_stroll says
This is a favorite red herring of the right and little more than a fairy tale.
The majority of Americans work. The vast majority of unemployed want to work. The people who sit on the couch and watch TV all day could be paid off every year by a small fraction of the defense budget.
Should they take equal shares? Who the fuck cares because they are insignificant. I want people who work 60 hours a week at WalMart to get paid more than $24,000 a year while their corporate masters suck money out of their contribution to the company. Why do you think it's fair that the people who make a pair of Nike shoes get paid about $5 for it but the assholes that sit in air conditioned offices get $95? Because of the value they add to a pair of shoes? Really!!!
Your world is vile, hateful, polluted, and full of war and poverty yet you want more of it. I doubt you're a member of the 1%, but you carry their water and eventually you'll be thrown under the bus with everyone else.
Here's what the United States is going to look like in a few years if the Republicans gain control. I suggest you read it:
http://www.clrlabor.org/alerts/1997/nikey001.html
Follow
Befriend (16)
764 threads
7,710 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
country_stroll says
The problem with capitalism is that it does not reward production or contribution, if you prefer. Rather, capitalism rewards only one thing: bargaining power.
Image a group of people get stranded on an island. One of the group, Bob, plants a flag on the island and claims it is his property. Since he has the only gun, no one argues.
Bob says he will pay people to farm his land and sell them food. So he pays each of the other survivors 10 fubars a day to grow, tend, and reap crops for him. He then sells them 10 fubars worth of food, which coincidentally, is just enough to keep them alive, but hungry.
This continues for long after Bob's gun has rusted away, but the people are used to Bob owning the whole island.
One day, Joe finds a cave full of coal. He takes some of the coal and uses it to start a fire, providing warmth during the cold night. Bob finds out and calls Joe a thief. But being such a generous man, Bob decides that instead of throwing Joe in a cage, he'll let Joe and half the survivors mine coal for him. He's a job creator.
So Bob pays half the islanders to mine coal at 20 fubars a day. He makes things fair, by giving the other half a raise. He doubles their pay to 20 fubars a day! Bob is so generous. Meanwhile, he continues to sell everyone 10 fubars of food each day, and now 10 fubars of coal each day. That's a few apples and a few coals. They are still hungry, but a little bit warmer.
Of course, to make the finances work out, Bob has to work his farmers twice as hard and his coal miners just as hard as the farmers. And Bob, well, he gets to sun himself on the beach all day. After all, he works hard as the executive.
This is essentially the system we have today. The wealthiest rarely earn their wealth. And that is the problem with everything Fox News says. If the principle that working hard and producing goods and services of value is the path to wealth, then the wealth distribution graph would look like the following.
Note that the x-axis is actually in $1000s, but I'm to lazy to correct this picture.
Follow
Befriend (16)
764 threads
7,710 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
A reminder. The actual wealth distribution graph in our country is this.
Follow
Befriend
4 threads
2,099 comments
Dan, Are the numbers from the CBO? Don't forget to multiply by the square root of your household size to scale the graph. I'm not kidding. I think...
Follow
Befriend
40 threads
2,652 comments
I feel sorry for these people's children.
Follow
Befriend (1)
104 threads
2,851 comments
Cloud says
This is the same guy that got banned as Wormwood, then came back as Screwtape, and now calls himself Cloud. He shows up to argue with iwog.
Screwtape, Wormwood, and "the asphyxiating cloud" all come from "The Screwtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis.
http://www.mylibrarybook.com/books/676/C.S-Lewis/The-Screwtape-Letters-5.html
Follow
Befriend (16)
764 threads
7,710 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Nomograph says
That doesn't surprise me. He's a complete troll. He's the only person who's made it to my "ignore" list. So I am now blissfully unaware of his comments except when other people quote them.
The guy isn't even intelligent enough to create a new account and use it a while nicely before acting like a complete jackass. Even dumb trolls are smart enough to do that.
Follow
Befriend (16)
764 threads
7,710 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Kevin says
The people who take their kids to the muppet movie or the people who watch Fox news?
Follow
Befriend
40 threads
2,652 comments
Dan8267 says
The new muppets movie is the greatest thing to come to theaters this decade. The only good Fox news has ever done is to give comedians source material.