j_b

The only superior news show I listen to is Democracy Now, heard locally on KBCS between 8-9 a.m. and 3-4 pm. (or anytime on Democracy Now or KBCS websites) All news programs use extensively government sources as could be seen throughout Bush's 8 years when all corporate media uncritically regurgitated what the Bush admin told them. The dispshit locals are representatives of communities, associations, unions, etc ..

Man Charged With Stockpiling Weapons Was Tea Partier, Palin Fan The Massachusetts man charged this week with stockpiling weapons after saying he feared an imminent "Armageddon" appears to have been active in the Tea Party movement, and saw Sarah Palin, who he said is on a "righteous 'Mission from God,'" as the only figure capable of averting the destruction of society. As we reported yesterday, Gregory Girard, a Manchester technology consultant, was found with a stash of military grade weapons, explosive devices including tear gas and pepper ball canisters, camouflage clothing, knives, handcuffs, bulletproof vests and helmets, and night vision goggles, say police. They believe Girard, who pleaded not guilty at his arraignment, was "preparing for domestic and political turmoil," and feared martial law would soon be imposed. Girard's wife said her husband had recently told her: "Don't talk to people, shoot them instead," and "it's fine to shoot people in the head because traitors deserve it." http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/man_charged_for_stockpiling_weapons_was_tea_partie.php?ref=tn

ha! the private sector is so much more efficient ... , which has been the mantra to justify privatization of everything over the last 30+ years. I am still waiting for the closet reaganites to discuss $900 hammers or whatever they cost to the taxpayer these days.

Good one. FOX news uses a similar technique all the time to smear opponents: "Some people say _____ " (insert smear). Then, the rest of the corporate media can pick it up as it were news. Let's see if it can go viral: "Some people say Republicans are less popular than the clap"

Can't be. When the left organizes protests that are typically much better attended than tea parties, leftists are then reviled as angry, yelling terrorists of some kind.

Could it be that they are afraid of genuine populism (i.e. the kind that actually benefits common folks) and would much rather promote the "small government anti-tax" types who suddenly rediscovered deficits and spending now that the borrow and spend republicans they blindly supported are out of power?

Republicans Less Popular Than Venezuela by: Chris Bowers As part of my irregular series documenting unpopular stuff that is more popular than Republicans, (see Legalizing Marijuana more popular than Republicans, and Republicans less popular than China), new polling from CNN indicates that anti-American, oil-cartel, socialist block forming Venezuela is now viewed more favorably than the Republican Party. http://www.openleft.com/diary/12937/republicans-less-popular-than-venezuela

18 articles last week on the tea party just in the NYT and WAPost ... (probably was 24hr/day coverage on Faux News). In the meantime: "How Popular is the Tea Party Movement? Des Moines register reports: “A third of Iowans from across the political spectrum say they support the ‘tea party’ movement, sounding a loud chorus of dissatisfaction with government, according to The Des Moines Register’s new Iowa Poll.” But how loud a chorus is this, really? 55 percent of Americans say they’re personally protected by a guardian angel. 38 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Cuba and 36 percent are favorably disposed toward socialism, but I don’t see anyone writing newspaper articles about how a populist wave of socialism is sweeping the country. The number of Iowans who like the tea party movement is smaller than the number of Americans who want marijuana legalized or the number of Americans who believe the government has had secret contact with extra-terrestrials. Polls register largish minorities of the population as saying all kinds of things. It’s very hard to know what to make of any of those polls as snapshots without some kind of context and duration over time. Do people even know what the “tea party” movement is? Do the people showing up to the tea parties? I’ve previously discussed my encounter with a tea partier who likes freedom so much that she waves a flag endorsing chattel slavery. I take it that’s not the main thrust of the movement, but obviously there’s a mish-mash of sentiments represented by the attendees. " http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/02/how-popular-is-the-tea-party-movement.php Why is the corporate media pushing the "populist" tea party?

Centerfold or Stud farm (for a single pitch) at Index.

Killing under the pretense of discouraging killing sends a fairly ambiguous message.

You are the one pretending that "consumers make up their own mind" whereas in fact businesses spend huge amounts of money to blanket all media with advertising and convince consumers they need a particular product even when it is clearly contrary to their own best interest. I guess you'll have to revise your copy because it isn't consistent with reality. Tariffs may be needed to prevent dumping (social, environmental, monetary, ..). Subsidies may be needed to enable a development model over another like it has always been the case. Nothing should be excluded in the name of myth like free markets. Mega corporations get rarely displaced by competitors in this age of oligopolies (thank you free marketeers for justifying consolidations into monopolies under the disguise of "competition"). GM was displaced mostly because they didn't account for oil depletion and rising energy prices. When oil prices more than tripled in a couple of years GM had no capacity to push fuel efficient cars because they were still pushing gas guzzlers.

Terrible logic, in addition to blatant mischaracterization of what I stand for. Corporate tools like yourself should come up with better arguments in lieu of pretending trillions are spent in advertising to no effect.

But, hey, may be Paul is a commie too http://rawstory.com/2010/01/ron-paul-cia/

Ron Paul is a regular speaker at the annual convention for these people: [video:youtube]t9BEZ-yreR4

The corporate media is for sure giving a lot of air time to a few hundred right wingers that met in a room. If they had been left wingers, they wouldn't even get a mention. Let's face it, tea parties are corporate tools. Paul is wrong per usual: Democrats didn't wait for neocons to be hawks.

at least 1/5 of Americans with insurance do not follow through with needed care because of additional costs they can't afford. In case of major illness their coverage often becomes completely useless.

The existence of other influences (tradition, counter-culture, ..) doesn't invalidate the observation that trillions are spent in advertising just to mold consumer wants and needs.

I didn't say they had no influence. I said they didn't "buy influence in any appreciable way". Their influence on processes is much less than what should be expected from the contribution of the constituencies they represent. How does being subject to constant commercial propadanda (often misleading advertising) constitute "leaving it to consumers to make up their own mind"? I am not sure what fantasy you live in.

So much spin to hide the fact that 1/4 to 2/5 of Americans have no to inadequate health insurance coverage, which means everybody else pays in increased premiums when these folks can't put it off any longer and have to go to the emergency room (the right wing tax bogeyman to increase effective costs isn't needed here despite FW's affirmation). Too bad for the 45,000 Americans who die every year for lack of access to health care but regressives don't give a shit and they'll obstruct any reform they can by any means available. Can we say Massachusetts? more than 80% of Mass voters want Medicare extended to everybody, and Brown tried to stay as far away from the toxic GOP brand as he could (riding around in a pickup truck to pretend one is a populist won't fool the people for very long). Hardly the victory conservatives want us to think it is.

"Controlling political outcomes to enhance one's economic activity" covers quite a bit more than plain ole corporate welfare, kemosabe. Unless you add a few caveats that make allowances for ag subsides, protectionism in all of its guises, the aptly named "Davis-Bacon" Act, etc, etc, etc, Except in right wingers' very vivid imagination, trade unions and other citizens' associations do not buy political influence in any appreciable way. The influence yielded by non-corporate associations pales in comparison to the influence of corporate money in politics. I am not against subsidies per se. A mixed economy is the only sensible way to address the challenges of the future. Fair trade, which also accounts for social and environmental costs, isn't protectionism but the way to make sure local economies aren't destroyed by pillagers.

It's not so bad, Off. The WHO themselves state quite clearly that the rankings have much more to do with fairness than clinical efficacy. Which is a powerful argument toward showing the for-profit system cannot be salvaged.

I am not sure where you got these people got there by choice when they were pushed to consume these things at every corner, and it cost a pretty penny to the pushers too. who said the right thing to do wasn't the definition of a constitutional right?