10/22/2008, 9:44 pm
Today I got in my mailbox a plea to subscribe to <i>The Washington Spectator</i>, which is hard-hitting exposé of the corruption in Washington. In fact, on the envelope was the trite but true charge that the Bush administration is a criminal administration. There was a drawing of W strangling a kitten, tearing up a Pell grant, taking food from the mouth of a third-world child, locking up a prisoner in Gitmo, and pushing a granny in a wheelchair over a cliff, all at the same time. He looked like the god Vishnu but I'm sure that Bush had to grow extra arms for his evil. We surely know that the nutrition is not going to his brain. We know he doesn't have one because Oliver Stone, that fearless cultural warrior (<i>Sound and Vision</i> magazine) told us so.
The introductory letter is from Bill Moyers. Bill Moyers, that soft-spoken man of PBS fame, the man behind the LBJ atomic-bomb ad against Barry Goldwater. Moyers, whose PBS work was distributed by an organization run by his wife and son. The evil Andrew Ferguson called it money laundering. I call it getting the cash while you can, which is always a good thing.
Moyers <i>knows</i> that the press is controlled by right-wing fanatics and they prevent the truth from getting out. How many times have I wished that Helen Thomas would ask a penetrating question of a Republican? In a tone that one could hear, that is.
<i>The Washington Spectator</i> is a magazine of impeccable progressive credentials although at times I do wonder if they are sufficiently moved to be active enough to bring around the Progressive World of Next Tuesday before Next Tuesday five years from now. It is published by the Public Concern Foundation.
This set me thinking. How can we comrades, as pressed for time as we are, networking with Hollywood stars of striking intellect like Rosie O'Donnell and Johnny Depp, insuring that our jets are ready for the next emergency mission to save the world to Bali, waxing our skis for Jackson Hole, or just doing the dreary old routine of beating our serfs, know the value of an organization if we don't have the time to research it?
~
I have a clue. Look at the title.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest informed us that Chinese food was not slimming and in fact usually started with oil in a wok. And all that time I had no idea what the chef was pouring into the wok that he was cooking those ingredients in. And they told us that fettuccine Alfredo was a heart attack on a plate. I had no idea that a recipe with a pound of butter and a pound of cheese might be harmful. I am meeting with them next week to suggest that Rocky Road ice cream might be fattening, because I don't think they realize it has sugar in it. But the funding. And the exposure.
The Environmental Defense Fund is another worthy organization. They steadfastly refuse to accept scientists' lies that the earth's temperature has something to do with sunspots because they know that they can't do a damned thing about the sun. They soldier on for a coercive national environmental policy which, because it cannot control the sun, will be very expensive and futile, and very coercive. That's the operative word. Oh, and they've trashed lots of peer-reviewed scientific research too, on climate change. We should always destroy science which disagrees with us because it's by definition not science. It's not the Current Truth.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. One of my favorites. How I admire dedicated animal rights' advocates who throw paint on a woman wearing a fur. Such dedication of course cuts into their time for actually taking care of the animals; in 2007 PETA killed 90% of the animals in its care. But the rage. Feel the rage! They're nearly as good as Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, who use terrorist threats to close down a company. They have been known to threaten the wives and children of the vice presidents of banks who used to handle a Huntingdon Life Sciences account.
A tactic which is used by The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. As we know, the Chosen One, as a community organizer, was recruited by Madeline Talbot, the president of the Chicago chapter of ACORN to train her troops. Who then pressured savings and loans to make loans to underprivileged people, by breaking into private offices and threatening, again, the families of bankers. And then who got Fannie Mae to buy up those loans, aided and abetted by Christopher Dodd and Bonny Fwank. Such a masterstroke, to deal such a body blow to capitalism by insisting that actions don't have consequences. I know, I know, that's what we all say, but they <i>did</i> it.
So many worthy organizations, so little time. How do we choose which are good?
I propose that any organization with any of the following words is a progressive one: CITIZENS, PUBLIC, FEDERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, CONCERNED, UNION, ETHICAL, or DEFENSE may be worthy of our support. Because how could anyone quibble about any of those words? Which lets the people running them get on with the important business of threats, intimidation, misdirection of others' money, money laundering, and good, old-fashioned two-fisted lying. Pardon this old socialist as I wipe a tear from my rheumy eye.
Do the comrades have any other suggestions?
The introductory letter is from Bill Moyers. Bill Moyers, that soft-spoken man of PBS fame, the man behind the LBJ atomic-bomb ad against Barry Goldwater. Moyers, whose PBS work was distributed by an organization run by his wife and son. The evil Andrew Ferguson called it money laundering. I call it getting the cash while you can, which is always a good thing.
Moyers <i>knows</i> that the press is controlled by right-wing fanatics and they prevent the truth from getting out. How many times have I wished that Helen Thomas would ask a penetrating question of a Republican? In a tone that one could hear, that is.
<i>The Washington Spectator</i> is a magazine of impeccable progressive credentials although at times I do wonder if they are sufficiently moved to be active enough to bring around the Progressive World of Next Tuesday before Next Tuesday five years from now. It is published by the Public Concern Foundation.
This set me thinking. How can we comrades, as pressed for time as we are, networking with Hollywood stars of striking intellect like Rosie O'Donnell and Johnny Depp, insuring that our jets are ready for the next emergency mission to save the world to Bali, waxing our skis for Jackson Hole, or just doing the dreary old routine of beating our serfs, know the value of an organization if we don't have the time to research it?
~
I have a clue. Look at the title.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest informed us that Chinese food was not slimming and in fact usually started with oil in a wok. And all that time I had no idea what the chef was pouring into the wok that he was cooking those ingredients in. And they told us that fettuccine Alfredo was a heart attack on a plate. I had no idea that a recipe with a pound of butter and a pound of cheese might be harmful. I am meeting with them next week to suggest that Rocky Road ice cream might be fattening, because I don't think they realize it has sugar in it. But the funding. And the exposure.
The Environmental Defense Fund is another worthy organization. They steadfastly refuse to accept scientists' lies that the earth's temperature has something to do with sunspots because they know that they can't do a damned thing about the sun. They soldier on for a coercive national environmental policy which, because it cannot control the sun, will be very expensive and futile, and very coercive. That's the operative word. Oh, and they've trashed lots of peer-reviewed scientific research too, on climate change. We should always destroy science which disagrees with us because it's by definition not science. It's not the Current Truth.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. One of my favorites. How I admire dedicated animal rights' advocates who throw paint on a woman wearing a fur. Such dedication of course cuts into their time for actually taking care of the animals; in 2007 PETA killed 90% of the animals in its care. But the rage. Feel the rage! They're nearly as good as Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, who use terrorist threats to close down a company. They have been known to threaten the wives and children of the vice presidents of banks who used to handle a Huntingdon Life Sciences account.
A tactic which is used by The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. As we know, the Chosen One, as a community organizer, was recruited by Madeline Talbot, the president of the Chicago chapter of ACORN to train her troops. Who then pressured savings and loans to make loans to underprivileged people, by breaking into private offices and threatening, again, the families of bankers. And then who got Fannie Mae to buy up those loans, aided and abetted by Christopher Dodd and Bonny Fwank. Such a masterstroke, to deal such a body blow to capitalism by insisting that actions don't have consequences. I know, I know, that's what we all say, but they <i>did</i> it.
So many worthy organizations, so little time. How do we choose which are good?
I propose that any organization with any of the following words is a progressive one: CITIZENS, PUBLIC, FEDERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, CONCERNED, UNION, ETHICAL, or DEFENSE may be worthy of our support. Because how could anyone quibble about any of those words? Which lets the people running them get on with the important business of threats, intimidation, misdirection of others' money, money laundering, and good, old-fashioned two-fisted lying. Pardon this old socialist as I wipe a tear from my rheumy eye.
Do the comrades have any other suggestions?