Some are rightly complaining about the avalanche of secret money in political campaigns since the odious Citizens United decision. Still the best broadcast news outlet in America, NPR has a great series about it that will probably disgust you. I believe that if elected officials are going to be bought and paid for, the public has a right to know who owns them. Lack of transparency is the foundation of corruption, something the United States doesn't do nearly as well at as it should.
But while the conventional wisdom is that the secret money is helping the corporate Republicans, the corporate Democrats are doing just fine, outspending the GOP by nearly 50 percent in key races.
The New York Times reports that Democratic candidates have outraised their opponents over all by more than 30 percent in the 109 House races The New York Times has identified as in play. And Democratic candidates have significantly outspent their Republican counterparts over the last few months in those contests, $119 million to $79 million.
And where's the money coming from?
The excellent non-profit, non-partisan journalism organization Pro Publica did an excellent story entitled 'The New Democrats: The Coalition Pharma and Wall Street Love.'
It portrayed a Democratic Party completely under the influence of, among others, banks, big pharmaceutical interests and insurance companies.
(And that's the national Democratic Party. The New York state Democrats have their own myriad of corruption scandals, of which the Aqueduct racino mess is only the latest of many)
The influence of the banks was illustrated by the Wall St. bailout that was approved by a Democratic Congress. The influence of insurance companies was illustrated by the great giveaway misnamed as health care 'reform.'
Now, I read that the UK congolomerate GlaxoSmithKline is in trouble for having sold contaminated baby ointment and an ineffective antidepressant, according to the NYT, despite warnings from employees.
Last year, Glaxo gave 63 percent of its political 'contributions' (legal bribes) to Democrats.
Note: the Green Party, both nationally and in New York State, does not accept contributions from (as per the GPUS website): corporations, labor organizations, national banks, government contractors or foreign nationals. Green candidate for NY governor Howie Hawkins does not accept corporate contributions either.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Non-shock of the week: Iraq invasion helped terrorists
Documents reveal that al-Qaeda gained influence in Iraq only AFTER the US invasion.
Yes... the same US invasion that was justified by the fradulent claim that it was designed to expel al-Qaeda from Iraq.
That the aggression against Iraq helped increase terrorism exponentially is not a new revelation.
But it's a reminder that the people who conjured up the invasion should not be enjoying a peaceful retirement. In fact, they should not be enjoying freedom at all.
Yes... the same US invasion that was justified by the fradulent claim that it was designed to expel al-Qaeda from Iraq.
That the aggression against Iraq helped increase terrorism exponentially is not a new revelation.
But it's a reminder that the people who conjured up the invasion should not be enjoying a peaceful retirement. In fact, they should not be enjoying freedom at all.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
The Death of the Liberal Class
"Democracy is one man, one vote. Corporatism is one dollar, one vote." -Chris Hedges
Unfortunately, I missed the great Chris Hedges speak in (sort of) nearby Troy at the Sanctuary for Independent Media, though I was told by friends he was fantastic. Hedges spoke about his new book The Death of the Liberal Class. It’s definitely a book I will have to pick up. The publisher’s description of the book is quite revealing itself.
The Death of the Liberal Class examines the failure of the liberal class to confront the rise of the corporate state and the consequences of a liberalism that has become profoundly bankrupted. Hedges argues there are five pillars of the liberal establishment – the press, liberal religious institutions, labor unions, universities and the Democratic Party— and that each of these institutions, more concerned with status and privilege than justice and progress, sold out the constituents they represented. In doing so, the liberal class has become irrelevant to society at large and ultimately the corporate power elite they once served.
Unfortunately, I missed the great Chris Hedges speak in (sort of) nearby Troy at the Sanctuary for Independent Media, though I was told by friends he was fantastic. Hedges spoke about his new book The Death of the Liberal Class. It’s definitely a book I will have to pick up. The publisher’s description of the book is quite revealing itself.
The Death of the Liberal Class examines the failure of the liberal class to confront the rise of the corporate state and the consequences of a liberalism that has become profoundly bankrupted. Hedges argues there are five pillars of the liberal establishment – the press, liberal religious institutions, labor unions, universities and the Democratic Party— and that each of these institutions, more concerned with status and privilege than justice and progress, sold out the constituents they represented. In doing so, the liberal class has become irrelevant to society at large and ultimately the corporate power elite they once served.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Meet the Green Party candidate for governor this Saturday in Glens Falls
Press release
Local progressive and Green Party activist Matt Funiciello, announced today that Green Party candidate for New York State Governor, Howie Hawkins, will be the guest of honor at a “Meet and Greet” fundraiser to be held at 6:00 p.m., October 23, 2010, at Rock Hill Cafe in Glens Falls. The event is sponsored by the Upstate Greens, a group of enrolled Greens and citizen activists. Refreshments will be served. Space is limited, so advance tickets are suggested and will be available at Rock Hill beginning Tuesday morning (suggested donation $25).
This election cycle will include an all-inclusive debate at which Hawkins will face all six candidates in this Governor’s race. The debate will be held October 18th at 7:00 p.m. at Hofstra University (Long Island) and is scheduled to air on select stations that same evening. “Hawkins represents the best and brightest of the Green Party,” said Funiciello, a former member of the Green Party's National Committee, “We’re extremely proud to have our candidate face the two millionaires, Cuomo and Paladino. But we’re also extremely pleased that all the candidates on the ballot have been invited and will attend. I think every New Yorker is sick and tired of corporate candidates who only represent the wealthy elite who pave their way into office. It’s long overdue that an actual worker like Howie, someone with a clear agenda and some very enlightened ideas on how to fix our economic and social woes, be allowed to share those views with the electorate.”
Howie Hawkins has been active in movements for peace, justice, the environment, and independent progressive politics since the late 1960s. A former Marine, he helped organize opposition to the Vietnam War and was a co-founder of the anti-nuclear Clamshell Alliance in 1976. He was a co-founder of the Green Party in the United States in 1984 and currently serves on the Green National Committee.
After attending Dartmouth College in the early 1970s, Howie worked as a carpenter in New England and helped start up a construction workers cooperative that specialized in solar and wind energy installations. Howie moved to Syracuse in 1991 to be Director of CommonWorks, a federation of cooperatives working for an economy that is cooperatively owned, democratically controlled, and ecologically sustainable. A member of Teamsters Local 317 and active in the national Teamster rank-and-file reform caucus, Teamsters for a Democratic Union, Howie presently works unloading trucks and rail cars at UPS.
Howie's articles on social theory, cooperative economics, and independent politics have appeared in many publications, including Against the Current, Green Politics, International Socialist Review, New Politics, Peace and Democracy News, Peaceworks, Resist, Society and Nature, and Z Magazine . He is the editor of Independent Politics: The Green Party Strategy Debate (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2006).
Upstate Greens is a group of local Independents, along with members of the Green, Libertarian, Constitution, Democratic and Republican parties interested in fostering a local dialogue on today’s most important issues.
For more information, contact Matt Funiciello at (518) 361-6278 or mattfuniciello @ earthlink.net
To contact the campaign directly,
2010 @ howiehawkins.com or http://howiehawkins.com/2010
Local progressive and Green Party activist Matt Funiciello, announced today that Green Party candidate for New York State Governor, Howie Hawkins, will be the guest of honor at a “Meet and Greet” fundraiser to be held at 6:00 p.m., October 23, 2010, at Rock Hill Cafe in Glens Falls. The event is sponsored by the Upstate Greens, a group of enrolled Greens and citizen activists. Refreshments will be served. Space is limited, so advance tickets are suggested and will be available at Rock Hill beginning Tuesday morning (suggested donation $25).
This election cycle will include an all-inclusive debate at which Hawkins will face all six candidates in this Governor’s race. The debate will be held October 18th at 7:00 p.m. at Hofstra University (Long Island) and is scheduled to air on select stations that same evening. “Hawkins represents the best and brightest of the Green Party,” said Funiciello, a former member of the Green Party's National Committee, “We’re extremely proud to have our candidate face the two millionaires, Cuomo and Paladino. But we’re also extremely pleased that all the candidates on the ballot have been invited and will attend. I think every New Yorker is sick and tired of corporate candidates who only represent the wealthy elite who pave their way into office. It’s long overdue that an actual worker like Howie, someone with a clear agenda and some very enlightened ideas on how to fix our economic and social woes, be allowed to share those views with the electorate.”
Howie Hawkins has been active in movements for peace, justice, the environment, and independent progressive politics since the late 1960s. A former Marine, he helped organize opposition to the Vietnam War and was a co-founder of the anti-nuclear Clamshell Alliance in 1976. He was a co-founder of the Green Party in the United States in 1984 and currently serves on the Green National Committee.
After attending Dartmouth College in the early 1970s, Howie worked as a carpenter in New England and helped start up a construction workers cooperative that specialized in solar and wind energy installations. Howie moved to Syracuse in 1991 to be Director of CommonWorks, a federation of cooperatives working for an economy that is cooperatively owned, democratically controlled, and ecologically sustainable. A member of Teamsters Local 317 and active in the national Teamster rank-and-file reform caucus, Teamsters for a Democratic Union, Howie presently works unloading trucks and rail cars at UPS.
Howie's articles on social theory, cooperative economics, and independent politics have appeared in many publications, including Against the Current, Green Politics, International Socialist Review, New Politics, Peace and Democracy News, Peaceworks, Resist, Society and Nature, and Z Magazine . He is the editor of Independent Politics: The Green Party Strategy Debate (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2006).
Upstate Greens is a group of local Independents, along with members of the Green, Libertarian, Constitution, Democratic and Republican parties interested in fostering a local dialogue on today’s most important issues.
For more information, contact Matt Funiciello at (518) 361-6278 or mattfuniciello @ earthlink.net
To contact the campaign directly,
2010 @ howiehawkins.com or http://howiehawkins.com/2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Homophobia today, homophobia tomorrow, homophobia forever!
"Heresy is just another word for freedom of thought." -Graham Greene
For a long time, I used to be fairly tolerant of people who were 'uncomfortable' with homosexuality or gay rights, so long as they weren't overtly hateful or malicious. I'm finding I'm less and less tolerant of that.
I had a 'Eureka' moment in that regard thanks to a family friend.
Recently, there have been a spate of highly publicized suicides by gay teens who were mercilessly bullied. There were other incidents such as repeated anti-gay comments by New York's GOP gubenatorial candidate as well as a savage hate crime in New York City against two people suspected of being gay.
Someone posted a column on Facebook in which a reader wrote to Dan Savage, politely explaining that he didn't hate gays, he just felt that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straights. Savage gave him an appropriately angry and dismissive response.
I reposted it on my Facebook saying something like, "Bigotry, politely expressed, is still bigotry."
A family friend wrote back claiming that it wasn't bigotry and then went to explain that the guy's objections probably had something to do with his religious beliefs. And that's it. Nothing else.
And that was my "Eureka" moment. There really is no 'reason' for homophobia, except 'religious beliefs.' In other words, there is no rational reason.
It wasn't new observation but I guess it just hit me in a different way.
At its best, religion is a guide for how to treat one another. Much good has been done in the world due to the impetus of religious people. The black civil rights' movement in the US, being one of many examples.
But at its worst, religion is an excuse to forfeit independent thought. There are countless examples, both historical and contemporary, of this as well.
People who oppose homosexuality or gay rights do not have a rational, thoughtful reason for doing so. At least, I've never heard one. They simply hide behind the 'religious beliefs' argument as though it's a protective cloak that exempts them from having to come up with a real argument and exempts them from criticism. Being gay is not a choice. Being a bigot is.
Some people are under the mistaken impression that you are not a bigot if you aren't hateful or malicious or wish death up them. Some think that as long as you don't take the route of Fred Phelps or Bull Conner or the people who assassinated Matthew Shephard.
This is simply wrong.
In the old south, some lynched black people and launched hateful invective at them. Other people supported segregation but tried to be nice (within the context of society) toward blacks.
Yes, the latter group were a bit less violent and nasty about it, but they were still bigots because they supported a bigoted system and held bigoted beliefs. In fact, these 'nice' bigots were instrumental in upholding Jim Crow. They were the 'respectable' face of segregation. They weren't keen on violence, so long as blacks kept 'their place.'
Both of these groups of people were racists and bigots for one simple fundamental belief: that being black was inferior to being white and that the law should reflect that.
Similarly, even people who express their anti-gay or anti-gay rights position in a 'polite' way are still homophobes and bigots. Many of these people can tolerate the existence of gay people so long as they aren't gay in public, so long as they keep 'their place.' They think this is being generous. But no matter how they rationalize it, they fundamentally believe that being gay is inferior to being straight and that the secular law should reflect this.
In the civil rights struggle, Alabama governor George Wallace became a star of bigots by declaring, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" Later in life, Wallace recanted his racist views. We can only hope that, 25 years from now, large numbers of people will similarly recant their homophobia.
For a long time, I used to be fairly tolerant of people who were 'uncomfortable' with homosexuality or gay rights, so long as they weren't overtly hateful or malicious. I'm finding I'm less and less tolerant of that.
I had a 'Eureka' moment in that regard thanks to a family friend.
Recently, there have been a spate of highly publicized suicides by gay teens who were mercilessly bullied. There were other incidents such as repeated anti-gay comments by New York's GOP gubenatorial candidate as well as a savage hate crime in New York City against two people suspected of being gay.
Someone posted a column on Facebook in which a reader wrote to Dan Savage, politely explaining that he didn't hate gays, he just felt that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straights. Savage gave him an appropriately angry and dismissive response.
I reposted it on my Facebook saying something like, "Bigotry, politely expressed, is still bigotry."
A family friend wrote back claiming that it wasn't bigotry and then went to explain that the guy's objections probably had something to do with his religious beliefs. And that's it. Nothing else.
And that was my "Eureka" moment. There really is no 'reason' for homophobia, except 'religious beliefs.' In other words, there is no rational reason.
It wasn't new observation but I guess it just hit me in a different way.
At its best, religion is a guide for how to treat one another. Much good has been done in the world due to the impetus of religious people. The black civil rights' movement in the US, being one of many examples.
But at its worst, religion is an excuse to forfeit independent thought. There are countless examples, both historical and contemporary, of this as well.
People who oppose homosexuality or gay rights do not have a rational, thoughtful reason for doing so. At least, I've never heard one. They simply hide behind the 'religious beliefs' argument as though it's a protective cloak that exempts them from having to come up with a real argument and exempts them from criticism. Being gay is not a choice. Being a bigot is.
Some people are under the mistaken impression that you are not a bigot if you aren't hateful or malicious or wish death up them. Some think that as long as you don't take the route of Fred Phelps or Bull Conner or the people who assassinated Matthew Shephard.
This is simply wrong.
In the old south, some lynched black people and launched hateful invective at them. Other people supported segregation but tried to be nice (within the context of society) toward blacks.
Yes, the latter group were a bit less violent and nasty about it, but they were still bigots because they supported a bigoted system and held bigoted beliefs. In fact, these 'nice' bigots were instrumental in upholding Jim Crow. They were the 'respectable' face of segregation. They weren't keen on violence, so long as blacks kept 'their place.'
Both of these groups of people were racists and bigots for one simple fundamental belief: that being black was inferior to being white and that the law should reflect that.
Similarly, even people who express their anti-gay or anti-gay rights position in a 'polite' way are still homophobes and bigots. Many of these people can tolerate the existence of gay people so long as they aren't gay in public, so long as they keep 'their place.' They think this is being generous. But no matter how they rationalize it, they fundamentally believe that being gay is inferior to being straight and that the secular law should reflect this.
In the civil rights struggle, Alabama governor George Wallace became a star of bigots by declaring, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" Later in life, Wallace recanted his racist views. We can only hope that, 25 years from now, large numbers of people will similarly recant their homophobia.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Media deceit, smaller party candidates and good business sense
When challenged about their blacklisting of smaller party/independent candidates, the Post-Star and other corporate outlets usually offer the rationalization that they don't have 'space' or 'resources' to waste on candidates they decree 'no one is interested in'... despite evidence to the contrary.
The lack of resources argument is a common theme. In this blog piece, Post-Star managing editor Ken Tingley began: "I’m often surprised when a reader suggests that we should get one of our investigative reporters on a story," before going on to explain how expensive journalism was. Though readers can rest assured that they will always find resources to do dubious pieces on anything related to the Adirondack Park Agency or green groups.
Still, Tingley's admission is rather startling. If I ran a newspaper, I wouldn't be surprised when readers suggested investigating a story. I'd be flattered.
One reader of this blog emailed me with these comments on the blog piece (posted with his permission): He states that the P-S has eight news reporters and five sports reporters. The staff email directory lists nine news reporters and six sports reporters (not counting stringers). Unless this is his way of announcing another round of staffing cuts, Mr. Tingley should really consider getting someone to check his arithmetic as well as his grammar and spelling.
Incidentally, Mr. Tingley's latest tweet—beside the explanation of how difficult it is to assign investigative pieces—is a comment to the effect that with baseball playoffs coming it will be tough getting to work for the next few weeks. Priorities, Ken.
The Post-Star, like most corporate media outlets, has chosen not to cover any of the five smaller party candidates on the ballot for governor of New York.
(To its credit, the Long Island paper Newsday is co-sponsoring a debate on October 18 involving ALL the gubenatorial candidates.)
Despite its blacklist against candidates it decrees 'not serious,' The Post-Star managed to find precious resources and space to run a story on some guy running a write-in campaign, one who admits to consciously "not taking many positions, hardly any at all."
However, the 'lesser known candidates' on the ballot mentioned in a side graphic to the article (but nowhere else) are on the ballot precisely because they gained thousands of signatures to put them there.
The paper claims not to have space or resources to cover these serious candidates (who take actual positions!) who've done the hard work of generating interest but they find resources and *front page* space to cover this Green Tea guy (to say nothing of all the empty personality politics and polls analysis articles about the major party candidates).
In response to past criticisms of the same nature, Tingley has emailed me to complain, angrily asking me to tell him when his paper has been unfair. In his mind, they give about equal coverage to both the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate, hence it's fair.
Or to put in a way the former sports editor might understand. In his eyes, an umpire can be biased against the other 28 Major League Baseball teams but as long as he treats the Red Sox the same as the Yankees, then he's 'fair.'
In the corporate media's eyes, fairness means ignoring the overwhelming majority of the candidates or given them only the occasional token mention while running hundreds of empty articles on polls or the personal lives of the major party candidates. Fairness means ignoring smaller party candidates in a nation where the majority of people want more than two parties. All we need now is the self-appointed advocates for the public to report on those that already exist. Who knows? Maybe if newspapers gave their audience what it wanted, it might prevent that audience from shrinking even more.
The lack of resources argument is a common theme. In this blog piece, Post-Star managing editor Ken Tingley began: "I’m often surprised when a reader suggests that we should get one of our investigative reporters on a story," before going on to explain how expensive journalism was. Though readers can rest assured that they will always find resources to do dubious pieces on anything related to the Adirondack Park Agency or green groups.
Still, Tingley's admission is rather startling. If I ran a newspaper, I wouldn't be surprised when readers suggested investigating a story. I'd be flattered.
One reader of this blog emailed me with these comments on the blog piece (posted with his permission): He states that the P-S has eight news reporters and five sports reporters. The staff email directory lists nine news reporters and six sports reporters (not counting stringers). Unless this is his way of announcing another round of staffing cuts, Mr. Tingley should really consider getting someone to check his arithmetic as well as his grammar and spelling.
Incidentally, Mr. Tingley's latest tweet—beside the explanation of how difficult it is to assign investigative pieces—is a comment to the effect that with baseball playoffs coming it will be tough getting to work for the next few weeks. Priorities, Ken.
The Post-Star, like most corporate media outlets, has chosen not to cover any of the five smaller party candidates on the ballot for governor of New York.
(To its credit, the Long Island paper Newsday is co-sponsoring a debate on October 18 involving ALL the gubenatorial candidates.)
Despite its blacklist against candidates it decrees 'not serious,' The Post-Star managed to find precious resources and space to run a story on some guy running a write-in campaign, one who admits to consciously "not taking many positions, hardly any at all."
However, the 'lesser known candidates' on the ballot mentioned in a side graphic to the article (but nowhere else) are on the ballot precisely because they gained thousands of signatures to put them there.
The paper claims not to have space or resources to cover these serious candidates (who take actual positions!) who've done the hard work of generating interest but they find resources and *front page* space to cover this Green Tea guy (to say nothing of all the empty personality politics and polls analysis articles about the major party candidates).
In response to past criticisms of the same nature, Tingley has emailed me to complain, angrily asking me to tell him when his paper has been unfair. In his mind, they give about equal coverage to both the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate, hence it's fair.
Or to put in a way the former sports editor might understand. In his eyes, an umpire can be biased against the other 28 Major League Baseball teams but as long as he treats the Red Sox the same as the Yankees, then he's 'fair.'
In the corporate media's eyes, fairness means ignoring the overwhelming majority of the candidates or given them only the occasional token mention while running hundreds of empty articles on polls or the personal lives of the major party candidates. Fairness means ignoring smaller party candidates in a nation where the majority of people want more than two parties. All we need now is the self-appointed advocates for the public to report on those that already exist. Who knows? Maybe if newspapers gave their audience what it wanted, it might prevent that audience from shrinking even more.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Brainwashing children into being civilized... or scumbags
I don’t particularly care what Carl Paladino thinks or says (and I use the word ‘think’ quite generously), even when he’s pandering to one of the most socially conservative groups in the country. Maybe if I swore a lot and insulted everyone I could think of, that might make me qualified to fix the world’s 16th largest economy.
Carl may think ultra-orthodox Jews should set the political agenda, but most of the rest of us believe in freedom and the Constitution. Though admittedly that group doesn’t include the Bronx gang that savagely and methodically brutalized and sodomized a 17 year old they suspected of being gay.
Carl and others seem to forget that while being gay is not a choice, being bigoted certainly is.
I don't want children to be brainwashed into thinking that being a hateful, anti-American scumbag is an equally valid or successful option compared to being a civilized human being.
Update: One of Paladino's opponents, Howie Hawkins, rightfully denounced Paladino's scapegoating and bigotry. Hawkins compared Paladino's comments and the general mood within the GOP to the old Know-Nothing Party of the 1840s and 1850s. Their politics of fear and division scapegoated Catholics and immigrants. Today’s Republicans target Muslims instead of Catholics and people of color, gays, and Latino immigrants instead of Irish and German immigrants.
Carl may think ultra-orthodox Jews should set the political agenda, but most of the rest of us believe in freedom and the Constitution. Though admittedly that group doesn’t include the Bronx gang that savagely and methodically brutalized and sodomized a 17 year old they suspected of being gay.
Carl and others seem to forget that while being gay is not a choice, being bigoted certainly is.
I don't want children to be brainwashed into thinking that being a hateful, anti-American scumbag is an equally valid or successful option compared to being a civilized human being.
Update: One of Paladino's opponents, Howie Hawkins, rightfully denounced Paladino's scapegoating and bigotry. Hawkins compared Paladino's comments and the general mood within the GOP to the old Know-Nothing Party of the 1840s and 1850s. Their politics of fear and division scapegoated Catholics and immigrants. Today’s Republicans target Muslims instead of Catholics and people of color, gays, and Latino immigrants instead of Irish and German immigrants.
Friday, October 01, 2010
An –ism is bankrupting this country, but it’s not socialism
The theory behind socialism is the redistribution of wealth to make society more economically equal. Even critics of socialism cite this as its main flaw (or at least the means required to achieve this goal). And yet income inequality, already high in this country, is surging even faster.
It just goes to show that people calling President Obama a ‘socialist’ haven’t the slightest clue what the term signifies and merely use it as a generic insult devoid of any meaning.
His policies and results are nothing like what socialists actually advocate. Did Marx ever advocate taking money from the working class and giving it to banks, as TARP did?
Let's get serious, please.
And speaking of cluelessness, let’s talk about the people who wave their arms hysterically and claim that things like foreign aid for poor countries is taking food out of the mouths of America’s poor. This graphic and its numbers intrigued me.
What it shows is that combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (not including the huge amounts of other military spending) cost 37.4% more than what is spent on arts funding, Amtrak, public housing, Head Start, the EPA, NASA, Pell Grants, foreign aid and national parks COMBINED.
People are right that an –ism is bankrupting this country, but they have the wrong one. It’s not socialism. It’s militarism.
It just goes to show that people calling President Obama a ‘socialist’ haven’t the slightest clue what the term signifies and merely use it as a generic insult devoid of any meaning.
His policies and results are nothing like what socialists actually advocate. Did Marx ever advocate taking money from the working class and giving it to banks, as TARP did?
Let's get serious, please.
And speaking of cluelessness, let’s talk about the people who wave their arms hysterically and claim that things like foreign aid for poor countries is taking food out of the mouths of America’s poor. This graphic and its numbers intrigued me.
What it shows is that combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (not including the huge amounts of other military spending) cost 37.4% more than what is spent on arts funding, Amtrak, public housing, Head Start, the EPA, NASA, Pell Grants, foreign aid and national parks COMBINED.
People are right that an –ism is bankrupting this country, but they have the wrong one. It’s not socialism. It’s militarism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)