Sure, Sean Penn's a great actor, but when it comes to other issues, he's about as dense as granite (that means "very" if Sean Penn happens to be reading this). He's going around the country as we speak talking about the wonders of biofuels.

Biofuels are nothing to write home about. At the stage they're currently in, they're not very energy efficient and they have a tendency to drive up the costs of other food-based products. Is there potential? Absolutely. In fact, with the right funding, biodiesel can become a true competitive commodity. But not right now. Right now, biodiesel is not a good option.

What Sean Penn should be doing is going around the country and highlighting all of the clean energy technology we already have available that's already efficient enough to be put into use. In addition to a number of cars running on hybrid batteries and offering superior fuel efficiency, there's plenty of options available that can be implemented immediately and will have no effect on the cost of food.

Still, the cost of food is going to rise. When you have an entire farming industry running on gasoline and diesel fuel, and the prices of both have tripled since 2001, everyone is going to suffer. Except the wealthiest one percent, of course. Because they have plenty of tax breaks.

Yours,

Ken Brosky 

Given it's Earth Day/Week (depending on who you talk to), I thought I'd pick out a few of the best articles I've found on Climate Progress that might be of interest.

 

NY Times Magazine -- ... is full of junk. Don't bother reading it, and by the way those little articles about global warming you see occasionally? Try to avoid those, too. What relatively little journalism remains at this point is focused entirely on Obama's "bitter" comments. This is a good article for those who believe everything they read.

Future Cars -- One new car gets up to 300 miles per gallon, and guess what? It's already a hot commodity in California, where it's raked up 1,400+ pre-orders. Also, the article looks at a Nova story with more information about newer cars.

Carbon-Saving Ideas -- I particularly enjoyed this piece, because it shows just how much a few small, bright ideas can add up when it comes to cutting Co2. California has a lot on its plate, attempting to reduce carbon emissions by 30 percent, but it's finding that the easiest way to do it is to rely on a variety of smaller initiatives that aren't costly and easy to implement. Good to think about, given Wisconsin will probably have something like this soon (only it'll be 10 percent, most likely). 

 

Patriotism is not blindly following leaders. Patriotism means finding the truth and always questioning, no matter what. What's happening in Iraq belongs to the Bush administration. No presidential administration will ever come close to this one, but that won't stop neoconservative historians from whitewashing history. I strongly encourage you to watch Bush's War on Frontline. Know the truth behind this war, and understand that the Bush administration will not fix this problem. The Bush administration will pass this trillion-dollar quagmire onto the next president, and there will be no easy solution.

Try to count how many laws were broken. Count how many lies were told, how little planning went into the post-invasion, how little intelligence there was. Learn from this. 

 

Click here to watch Bush's War on Frontline. 

 

John McCain's vote against Martin Luther King Day was no mistake, and you need to understand this because race plays a BIG role in the modern conservative movement. It plays a big role because the modern conservatives first began in the late 50's to play on the racism of white Americans in order to turn what was once a very tiny sliver of the Republican Party into what we now know as the GOP.

There was a time, in the mid-fifties, where white voters in the south were just as likely to vote Democrat or Republican. The reason they did so was because, from the late 30's through the 50's, Republicans had generally accepted the successful policies of the New Deal. Republicans HAD to accept these policies because they, along with pro-labor, pro-union reform, America had reached what economist Paul Krugman refers to as "The Great Compression," a society where financial inequality was at its lowest in our nation's history. Everyone was beginning to benefit, thanks in no small part to the large union movement (helped by the government's pro-labor reform), which helped guarantee fair wages for union members and had the effect of positively affecting wages in competing non-union jobs.

But there was always a small minority dedicated to eliminating the New Deal policies, including cutting taxes for the rich and eliminating the government's pro-labor reforms. This movement--Modern Conservatism--saw its chance in the late fifties when Democrats were pushing for civil rights reforms. In 1957, The National Review published an editorial arguing that whites could suppress African-Americans because whites were the superior race:

"The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizen, born Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race ... sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalance of its will worth the terrible price of violence." 

 Not only did the National Review make a point of noting our Constitution as "merely ... a catalog", it made a point of affirming that whites had the right to commit violence in order to retain their superiority, a right many racist whites agreed upon late in the fifties and during the sixties. When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights act into law, the entire South became lost to the Democratic Party and continues to this day to be almost impenetrable (although the racial barrier is collapsing in recent years).

And slowly, Modern Conservatism grew, despite its interest in appealing primarily to the richest one percent of Americans. Slowly, the fringe group became the Republican Majority, and the Republican Party began its attempts to tear down the New Deal policies while cutting taxes for the rich despite having no evidence at all to suggest it would help the economy (there were, in fact, no economists at all in the early days of "supply-side theory," confessed Irving Kristol.). "Liberal Premissiveness," according to Richard Nixon, were at the heart of America's problems.

Modern Conservatism leaped into the fray with Ronald Reagan, who announced his bid for president in 1980 in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the same town where three civil rights activists were killed in 1964. His speech centered on "states' rights," and there was no denying what the underlying tones were. They were present in another famous speech, one in which he described a so-called "Welfare Queen"--and story that was elaborate fiction to begin with--that never mentioned race, and yet everyone knew what color this woman's skin was. It continued, spreading even into the most libertarian gospels, like those found in Ron Paul's own self-published newsletters.

Through it all, there was always an I'll-scratch-your-back mentality, which was necessary for Modern Conservatism to survive. Loyalty was rewarded above all else, and once Modern Conservatism dominated the Republican Party, Republicans were almost forced to go along with the policies (especially once Karl Rove jumped into the mix and proved himself capable of gutting the Republican Party of anyone who supported New Deal policies). Cronyism was always rewarded with new jobs, and the Bush administration is a clear example at every single level. Even John McCain is learning this now, going out of his way to flip-flop on every single ideology that once made him a "Maverick." Now he'll cut taxes for the rich. Now he'll cozy up to the religious right. Now he'll sell himself out to lobbyists.

Through it all, Modern Conservatism has remained true to its roots in helping only the richest one percent of Americans, and yet the Republican Party has continued to garner strength. While topics like national security and religion and abortion rights have always had a minor role in that popularity, only race has has stood the test of time. John McCain knew the rules back in the day, and he knows them now. 

Now he'll apologize for voting against MLK Day. But you know what? He knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he voted against it. He was following Modern Conservatism in order to reap the rewards of its growing power. Had he not, he would be nothing but a footnote in history by this point.

The good news is that racism is losing its popularity even in the deepest heart of the south, and tolerance has grown by leaps and bounds. It's only a matter of time before a significant majority of Americans realize that our country has spent the last 35 years helping only the richest one percent. Once that time comes, Modern Conservatism will desperately clutch at straws before finally disappearing (and indeed already does, preying on our various fears), taking John McCain with it. 

 For those of you interested in learning more, I heartily suggest "The Conscience of a Liberal," by award-winning economist Paul Krugman. The information detailed here represents a fraction of information you'll find in his book.

Yours,

Ken Brosky
 

It's nice out, so spend some time outside. But it's going to rain this weekend, too, and before you turn on your TV set and kill a few more brain cells, catch up on these particular treats (I even included a video to help you cope with all the words!)

House passes FISA legislation -- And not only that, it DOES NOT include immunity for the Telecom Companies. Immunity was almost a guarantee until people started getting active and making phone calls and sending out emails. If you were a part of this, then pat yourself on the back. It's a good start.

Climate Protections killed -- by President Bush, of course. Because he believes that a FREE MARKET can regulate pollution on its own without government standards.

No, the Free Market Can't -- An article by Greg Palast about Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who argues that free markets CANNOT regulate their own pollution and are INEFFECTIVE in producing research.

Thom Hartmann -- He's in Darfur following the genocide in progress. He's a liberal talk radio host, but of course Milwaukee doesn't have a liberal talk radio station. We're stuck with Mark Belling the Racist and Charlie Sykes the God-Knows-What. You can listen to Thom Hartmann LIVE for free on airamerica.com 

Once you're done with those articles, please enjoy a short video compilation:

 

 Have a great weekend,

Ken Brosky 

 

What's the connection between the two, you ask? Well, for starters, they're both extremely incompetent. Make no mistake about it, Osama bin Laden is an egomaniac with relatively low intelligence when it comes to terrorism (he was NOT the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. He funded them and gave his "blessing," and little else). To learn more about just how fallible al-Qaeda truly is, I suggest you pick up a copy of The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright. The book outlines al-Qaeda's history and the history of modern Islamic extremism as well as the tactics that have been used by multiple intelligence agencies in attempting to track it and/or put a stop to it. A great book, to be sure.

But what does this have to do with Secretary of State Condi Rice? Turns out quite a lot. Because when Rice was the national security adviser, it was her job to brief the president on emails like "Bin Laden Determined to Strike  in U.S." According to a new book coming out by New York Times Reporter Philip Shenon, Rice was more interested in playing the role of supportive wife to President Bush rather than actually attempt to do her job in a responsible manner. If this sounds slightly malicious, you're right--when our national security adviser receives DAILY reports of al-Qaeda's attempts to carry out a terrorist strike against U.S. civilian targets, it should at the VERY least be taken moderately seriously.

Here are a few other emails Rice received that were subsequently ignored, according to Shenon. Read through them and ask yourself whether you would take this threat seriously.

“Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack” (May 3)

“Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot” (May 23)

“Bin Ladin’s Networks’ Plans Advancing” (May 26)

“Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent” (June 23)

“Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” (June 25)

“Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks” (June 30)

“Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays” (July 2)

 Is that enough for you? Click here to read the full article.

The reason I'm posting this is because there are a lot of right-wing fantasies running around regarding Condi Rice and a run for the presidency. Not only was Rice a completely incompetent national security adviser, she is currently an extremely incompetent Secretary of State, incompetent to the point that journalists have absolutely no interest in following her around the world.

Our own diplomats think she's doing an awful job.

David Kay, former weapons inspector in Iraq, says she was the worst national security adviser in U.S. history. 

Now let's get to something related but much more important: the 9/11 Commission. Exactly how incompetent was this Republican-led investigation? Quite incompetent, it turns out. And that shouldn't come as any surprise, given that the Republican Party has argued since Reagan that government just doesn't work, which is why Republicans seem to go so far out of their way to prove it. Not only were Repubilcans defending Rice and others in the Bush administration, there is evidence now that they were attempting to discredit Richard Clarke. From ThinkProgress:

"But 9/11 Commission staff director Philip Zelikow was not interested in pursuing criticisms against Rice. Zelikow — who had worked closely with Rice on the Bush transition team in 2000 and 2001 — “made it clear to the team’s investigators that Clarke should not be believed, that his testimony would be suspect.” "

I think one of the reasons there are so many 9/11 conspiracy theories is primarily because the 9/11 commission simply didn't answer enough questions. There are so, so many questions still unanswered, and as long as our government doesn't pursue the truth, those questions will be answered by the fringe theorists and outrage will continue to grow. But make no mistake: the incompetencies of the Bush administration--especially those of Condi Rice--helped ensure 9/11 happened.

Yours,

Ken Brosky
 

Telecommunications companies do NOT deserve retroactive immunity for breaking the law just because the Bush Administration needed to spy on us illegally. Let me tell you something flat out: Telecom companies have PLATOONS of lawyers whose sole job is to determine what is legal and what is illegal. FISA was set up to provide Telecom Companies with a legal way of cooperating with the government. If the Telecom companies STILL need retroactive immunity even with all of these aspects already implemented, then there is NO DOUBT they broke the law with the help of the Bush Administration.

Click here to contact Gwen Moore.
 

For those of you who think this environmental disaster was old news, guess what -- Exxon is still fighting to keep every penny out of the hands of people and communities damaged by its incompetence. Remember when Exxon went in front of the cameras and promised to compensate everyone and everything was going to be okay and *insert-typical-corporation-speech-here*? Well, that hasn't panned out, exactly.

So what happened on that fateful night, anyway? I'm sure you remember, as I do, that some captain was drunk and hit a reef, right? I mean, that's what I picked up from the news reports and stored in my memory. But what if I told you that the ship's radar system--a radar specifically used to locate underwater reefs--was turned off that night? What if I told you that, in order to cut costs, Exxon stopped maintaining and using their radar system? Would that be enough to outrage you? What if I told you that Exxon wasn't even supposed to  have a ship in the water that night? According to investigative journalist Greg Palast:

"On the night of March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez was not even supposed to leave harbor. Here’s why. Tankers are not allowed to sail unless unless a spill containment barge is operating nearby. That night, the barge was in dry-dock, locked under ice. Exxon kept that fact hidden, concealing the truth even after the tanker grounded. An Exxon official radioed the emergency crew, “Barge is on its way.” It wasn’t.
Had the barge been in operation, it would have surrounded the leaking ship with rubber skirts - and Paul’s home, and Alaska’s coast, would have been saved. But Exxon couldn’t wait for its oil."

Click here to read Greg Palast's entire article about the TRUTH regarding the Exxon-Valdez oil spill, and the connections to John McCain. 

So now Exxon is fighting all the way to Supreme Court, probably because it knows that the Supreme Court has been stacked with corporate cronies like John Roberts. Case in point: John Roberts is obviously dismayed that Exxon could be forced to actually pay for its incompetence, and he's made it absolutely clear that he's not going to vote in favor of the plantiffs suing Exxon-Mobil to clean up the mess and restore the ecosystem along the coastline. Here's an excerpt from an article by Dana Milbank from inside the Supreme Court:

"So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?" Roberts asked in court.

The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. "Well," he said, "it can hire fit and competent people."

The rare sound of laughter rippled through the august chamber. The chief justice did not look amused.

The plantiffs in this case--thousands of fishermen and natives of the area--have not received a dime yet in punitive damages. Exxon-Mobile's strategy is simple: fight it till they're all dead.

I hope this upsets you.
 

Congratulations, Wisconsin, on choosing Barack Obama. It's good to see that Hillary Clinton's recent populist rhetoric isn't sucking too many people in ...

Don't get me wrong, though. Clinton is definitely not a bad candidate, but her insistence that she's an economic populist is an entirely new thing, and it's beginning to show. No matter who wins, it'll be easy to support either candidate against John McCain. Speaking of which, why don't we take a look at some homework readings for the weekend?

John McCain's lobbyist connections -- In case you haven't noticed, there's a lot of brew-ha-ha regarding McCain's cozy connections with one very pretty lobbyist, as well as others. When even HIS aides are getting nervous, there's definitely some substance to the story. Don't be fooled by Fox News ... McCain's lobbyist connections have existed for a long, long time. Whether more evidence surfaces or not ... we'll see. Keep an open mind.

Rick Renzi (R-AZ) indicted --  Yes, he does have connections to John McCain. Muckraker has more.

"A Trade Transformation" by David Sirota -- Read about Hillary Clinton's history on NAFTA.

 Turkish Troops in Iraq -- Following Kurdish separatist rebels, and of course this is making things a little sketchy in northern Iraq.

Al-Sadr will extend his ceasefire -- Do you still honestly think the "Surge" quelled the violence in Baghdad? Or was it the fact that the leader of the largest militia in the country called for a ceasefire? He's now calling for an extension to the ceasefire, which will make the "Surge" look even more successful. By the way, for those of you who remember Bush saying there was going to be a troop drawdown, that's not happening anymore, either.
 

 

 

 

There were two separate committee hearings on Wednesday, February 13th. One was Roger Clemens testifying before a committee regarding whether he used steroids 10 years ago. A lot of media were there, if you didn't notice. A lot of cranky old Republicans, too, who have made this their pet project (and to a lesser extent, Democrats). This is probably what you heard about repeatedly throughout the day by the major media outlets. It's important, isn't it? Maybe, to a certain extent.

But there was another hearing that was much, much more important. Condoleeza Rice testified before an intelligence committee as well. Congressman Wexler asked Rice if she had ANY information prior to the war in Iraq that would have suggested that Iraq DID NOT have weapons of mass destruction.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qyKOkGjodhY&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qyKOkGjodhY&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> 

Rice said "NO."

She said "NO." Under oath. She lied. Under oath. Here's the proof.

Need more? Here's more proof.

She lied through her teeth to the intelligence committee.

Does this upset you? Is this ENOUGH to warrant further investigations into just how far the Bush administration has corrupted our country and crapped on our constitutional rights? HOW MUCH is enough?

Want to do something about it? Sign Wexler's petition for hearings.

Then contact your members of Congress.

 
More on this soon.
 

The Senate has now officially passed a bill for retroactive telecom immunity. Why do the telecommunication companies need immunity? Because they helped the Bush administration break the law. They broke the law by spying on the American people without a warrant. This is an impeachable offense for the president and vice president. For the telecoms, this is a clear example of corporations breaking the law and violating our Constitutional rights to privacy. This immunity was accomplished with the help of the Democratic Party, which is led by a man by the name of Harry Reid who seems to have the backbone of a one-celled organism.

Who fights for us? Apparently, the only two senators in Congress who actually care about our rights are Christ Dodd and Russ Feingold. They're the only ones who have gone out an actually attempted to stop this ridiculous deal for companies that have clearly violated the law. And where does it end? Exactly where are the other members of Congress willing to draw the line? How many laws MUST BE BROKEN BEFORE THIS CONGRESS DOES WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO? How many laws must be broken by the Bush Administration and its loyalists before something is actually done?

Retroactive immunity is an attempt to prevent President Bush from continuing using fear tactics to scare the American people, plain and simple. The problem is we are quickly becoming immune the very fear tactics that have destroyed this country over the past seven years. Congress is caving to pressure from the Bush administration because the Democrats are being led by a coward who is unable to stand up to fear mongers who are now shoving an authoritarian policy down our throats.

The FCC will not investigate because it's stacked with Bush loyalists. The telecoms refuse to comply because they know they broke the law. This should OUTRAGE you. 

Click here to watch Keith Olbermann's special comment.

Click here to visit CallCongress. Find your member of Congress and call them and tell them this is wrong. Or call Russ Feingold, and tell him to continue fighting on the side of law. 

 

While you're whittling away the day with your various chores, here's something to think about: How many tax cuts have been passed since the Reagan era?

The answer: None. Because cutting taxes on a budget deficit means the government is simply borrowing money to give back to us. Which means tax cuts are actually tax "Deferments." Every time Congress cuts taxes without balancing the budget, all that money piles onto the national deficit, which will eventually be paid by us at a later date or our children.

The same goes with the Iraq war. We can fight there as long as Bush wants, but the money will eventually come out of our pockets. He is the only president to have ever cut taxes during a time of war, skyrocketing the deficit further in order to deceive the public into believe our current economic system is still "OK." It's not. And when the security bubble pops (i.e. the military industrial complex), things are only going to get worse. And THEN while we're trying to figure out how to pay off our personal debts, the government is going to need help paying off the national debt.

And then what will it do? "Cut" taxes again to increase spending?
 

What's the point in having a Congress at all when President Bush makes signing statements on every single piece of legislation that crosses his desk? Let me explain in further detail for you with the help of Constitutional scholar John W. Dean:
 
"Suppose a new law requires the President to act in a certain manner - for instance, to report to Congress on how he is dealing with terrorism. Bush's signing statement will flat out reject the law, and state that he will construe the law "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."

The upshot? It is as if no law had been passed on the matter at all."

 This is especially troubling when it comes to torture, which you should definitely be upset about.

But most importantly, this has a giant impact on the occupation of Iraq. Bush's most recent signing statement suggests he might consider putting permanent bases inside Iraq in the future, suggesting he has absolutely NO INTEREST in bringing our troops home anytime soon, or ending this war. This is the same president who talked extensively about not "passing the buck" to the next president, and yet what we have now is an absolute quagmire and another state--Afghanistan--teetering on the brink, economic instability and a slew of other problems that the next president will have to tackle.

I say this with absolute confidence: The president is an authoritarian. He is a monarch. He does not care what laws Congress passes, because he will simply sidestep them when needed.

Click here to contact Gwen Moore, our representative. Tell her that she should focus on bringing this into the public light. Tell her this issue is important.

 
Want to learn more about Bush's many, many, many signing statements? Click here.

 

Yours,

 Ken Brosky

 

In honor of our local conservative radio hosts, I thought I would pass along this little story that I originally found on Media Matters. Read it, because I'll comment more below:

 "A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN"

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."
 

Obviously, it's a little one-sided. That's the point. But what interested me more were the responses by conservatives to this particular post. Some argued that, obviously, it was one-sided and typical liberal junk. Another person--much to the joy of the conservative bloggers--attempted to create a conservative-friendly version called "Joe Democrat." The problem is the story didn't work in the same way. Rather than show how Joe Democrat's life has been made better by Conservative-based "Free Market" policies, instead it's based almost entirely on myths and hearsay, the typical fodder that "Joe Republican" makes a point of using for satire. Phrases like "post-traumatic slavery disorder" and suggesting inner-city students are capable only when it comes to fitting on condoms.

Some of the arguments aren't even plausible! Besides outright inaccuracies applied to liberals that could just as easily be applied to conservative politicians, he suggest liberals are behind the classification of alcohol as a disease (they're actually called scientists, in this case). Rural electrification is considered evil in this case, since Joe Democrat's life was easier when he was "living off the land." A lot of this is based on the classic privileged white man's concept of freedom, and how much of it the big bad government takes. But how free, truly, we rural citizens when private power companies refused to provide them with electricity because it wasn't profitable? Something for another time, perhaps.

Almost all of the arguments are based on stereotypes, some proven entirely wrong, some barely credible even in this form. "Joe Democract" even manages to outright slander John Kerry's war record (Kerry served in the Navy for four years, hardly the type of behavior from a "draft dodger"). But the point is that this rebuttal offers relatively no examples of how conservative ideology has helped the average American. Because most of the time they don't. But the Republican Party can't say that, because then it would never win elections. So it relies on rallying its supporters with cries of "freedom!" and convincing regular Joe's that the government is evil.

 

Yours,

Ken Brosky