Yeah, not so much.
I haven't done a Liberal Media Watch in awhile though Lord knows I've had the opportunity. A few months back they had a piece enshrining the glory that is Dick Armey. I thought of just dave's vehement assertions that the Times never glorifies people on the right. They've also done a number of pieces on a variety of conservative economists regarding our enormous deficit. But this one really gave me pause.
The next time someone throws the "GOP is all about big business" meme, show them this article. The CBC gets lavish amounts of money from donors like Wal Mart, Coke, and AT & T. It might be nice to think that this money is doing the work for the people.
The bulk of the money has been spent on elaborate conventions that have become a high point of the Washington social season, as well as the headquarters building, golf outings by members of Congress and an annual visit to a Mississippi casino resort.
First of all...golf outings? WTF???!!!! So basically, groups like the CBC spend years ripping the old white man party of the GOP for playing golf and not paying attention to our country's needs only to FUCKING PLAY GOLF THEMSELVES!!!!
Most of you who know me personally have heard me, ad nauseaum, complain about the sport of golf. To put it simply, I loathe it. As Mark Twain once said, "Golf is a good walk spoiled." The fact that President Obama plays it now as well...instead of basketball...makes me fucking sick to my stomach. In fact, I'm going to go on record and say that for this reason alone he has lost a good deal of my respect.
Golf is a sport that wannabe short fat men with floppy boobs wearing dorky visors play...ignoring their three kids and hot wife's needs...so they can have time to pretend to be athletes whilst sexting their dim witted and mildly disgusting mistresses. I guess it should come as no surprise that this lifestyle has now become culturally diverse.
Equally as shocking as this sickening embrace of golf is this hypocrisy
“We’re unbossed and unbought,” said Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the caucus. “Historically, we’ve been known as the conscience of the Congress, and we’re the ones bringing up issues that often go unnoticed or just aren’t on the table.”
Bull fucking shit.
The board of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation includes executives and lobbyists from Boeing, Wal-Mart, Dell, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, Verizon, Heineken, Anheuser-Busch and the drug makers Amgen and GlaxoSmithKline. All are hefty donors to the caucus.
Some of the biggest donors also have seats on the second caucus nonprofit organization — one that can help their businesses. This group, the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute, drafts positions on issues before Congress.
This also proves another one of my long standing arguments...corporations at virtually every level via every political slant...run our country. That's where the power is, folks. And see how clever they have been in incorporating progressivism?
I recommend reading the whole article. It's a little long but the details paint quite a picture. With SCOTUS ruling that corporations have the same rights as an individual regarding campaign donations, even the ghost of Paul Wellstone is being brought to you by Nike.
11 comments:
Golly, mentioned by name in 2 of the last 3 posts…I think you love me.
I don’t recall my exact words, but I’m generally pretty careful not to make blanket, all-or-nothing generalities like that which you suggest. However, when news is so egregious, even the NYT’s can ill afford to ignore it lest they lose their pretense of objectivity…and even greater market share.
Though large corporations certainly wield power & influence in any culture, they are still the one’s lobbying our government, not vice versa, last I checked. (Seems to me we’ve been down that road…)
I concur with your assessment of golf (…’course that may be because my average game’s in the low 100's!!), though not with your anger. I’m not much for cricket either but if someone else enjoys it, it’s no skin off my nose. (Can’t really bring myself to call golfers athletes, though.) I rather like that Obama plays basketball. It would make an interesting game of one-on-one, though I bet I’d take him.
The Times these days is interested in selling papers and there is a big audience that wants to hear about Dick Armey and the corruption in the Black Congressional Caucus. There isn't a conspiracy around every corner regarding the media as many righties would have all of us believe.
With the fall off of print sales why would they be so fucking stupid as to appeal to only a liberal demographic? Expect Sarah Palin as a columnist soon.
Setting aside the whole "liberal media" discussion, which I think is basically pointless, and forgetting about the obviously ludicrous statement by Rep. Lee, I am left wondering what you see to be the appropriate level of involvement of corporations within the political process.
I am having a hard time wrapping my arms around a model that is anything other than basically unlimited rights of a corporation to influence politics. Here's why...
I would argue that a corporation has some right to have some influence in the political process. It hopefully should be obvious that a business would prefer certain tax models over others. It hopefully should be obvious that a business would prefer certain regulatory environments over others. Understanding that the word "right" is going to be unnecessarily torn apart by some of you, and not wanting to get hung up on semantics, let me change "right" to "privilege", and let me further stipulate that the privilege is secured by the corporation's tax paying status. If they pay all of the taxes that are required of them by federal and state governments, I don't see a valid argument for completely stripping them of influence in the political process.
Assuming for a second that you would so stipulate, it is abundantly clear that you oppose unlimited influence of corporations within the political process. By deduction we can conclude you see a line somewhere between no influence and complete influence. Where is that line for you? Who set(s) that line? What critera were used to establish that line?
My belief is that because you can never truly achieve a world where money does not carry political influence that the idea of preventing corporations from participating in the political process is simply a pipe dream. It's a snipe hunt for those who cannot comprehend that their own political beliefs are not more widely held. It's a waste of time.
They have no idea where the line is pl. It's kind of like asking them how much education money is "enough"...there will never be enough, therefore their struggle will continue for infinity. Perhaps they will find a jackalope or two on their snipe hunt.
Right, and actually the real problem with education has nothing to do with funding at all.
Thinking about the line...
pl: 30
Mark: Love/Huh?
"I don't see a valid argument for completely stripping them of influence in the political process."
Let's use an example. Suppose George Soros starts a corporation. He might say that it makes widgets but in reality what it does is act as a massive collection house for like minded individuals who want to spend as much money as they want to make certain that Sarah Palin never gets elected to dog catcher. Much as I agree with the idea that she should not be running anything, it's still wrong.
The funding power of a corporation differs from the funding power of an individual. To put it simply, there's a lot more money. With this money they can do a lot more (ad time, media influences, organizing) than an average person.
Think about this quote...
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.
This was Ayn Rand. Quite ironic when you consider that the corporations she fought to protect from the abusive power of government are now the abusive power. With this ruling, corporations aren't technically denying individual rights but they are crushing them into a sea of irrelevancy.
At the end of the day, however, my point of view is moot. The SCOTUS ruling was the final nail in the coffin. Corporations already ruled the day when it came to elections and government. Now, they can do so much more openly and with even more power. As blk said in another thread, bring on the Corporate Wars.
So legitimate companies are supposed to be punished because someone might create a company to engage in money laundering?!?
Money laundering is ILLEGAL! If a company engages in it, then the people responsible for the money laundering should be punished. You don't punish everyone who works for a company just because someone who works for a company (and not even the same company) might launder money.
Then again, why am I bothering? You don't seem to understand that Money Laundering and Not(Money Laundering) are contradictions. After all, you're still having trouble grasping the Law of Non-Contradiction over at TSM.
[corporations] are now the abusive power
You keep saying that, but I do not think it means what you think.
And gawd knows you certainly couldn't prove it if your life depended on it.
Soros has DONE exactly what you suggest, and it was all perfectly legal - even before the latest SC decision. So does AARP (a corporation), the NRA (a corporation), the AMA, etc. etc. etc.
Allow me to quote to you one of the sages of the California Democratic Party, the late Jess Unruh: money is the mother's milk of politics. The irony of you and all the other non-religious leftists hewing to that old Christian notion that money is the root of all evil.
"And gawd knows you certainly couldn't prove it if your life depended on it."
Just wait for my update on CenterPoint Energy:)
Juris,
Here's the actual quote:
"But those who want to be rich fall into temptation, a trap, and many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and by craving it, some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains."
(1 Timothy 6:9–10 HCSB)
Note that it's not the root, it's a root. Also note that it's not all evil, it's all kinds (as in "many kinds") of evil. (The NIV translates it as "all sorts".) Finally, here's the full definition of the word translated as "evil":
"to harm, mistreat, cause evil to, oppress, to make angry, embitter"
In other words, the love of money prompts people to do many different kinds of bad things. (Extortion, murder, theft, cons, wasting money on "gimmicks", even making people vote for someone who will take money from one person and give it to them, etc.) Does this actual passage from the Bible strike you as inaccurate?
Post a Comment