Well, here we go! It's time for the weekend homework, and this week I'm going to provide you with a number of links to Web sites that you can use again and again. I'll try and do this again in the future, but for now, this will give you a great head start. Bookmark these.

Climate Progress -- Run by a scientist who's actually conducted empirical research on global climate change, this is a great resource. He's funny, intelligent and has no problem calling out Democrats or Republicans who are unwilling to accept scientific facts. Global warming is real, it's important, and we have technology available right now to begin combating the problem.

David Sirota -- One of my favorite columnists and author of Hostile Takeover. Sirota takes Republicans and conservative Democrats to task, focusing mainly on corruption related to lobbying issues and how bribery can affect a politician's decisions. In addition, he makes a point of showing the positive side of government and how grassroots organizations are making a real difference. Well worth subscribing to.

Paul Krugman -- A liberal economist, one of the best on this planet. Krugman's analyses on everything from the dangers of unregulated forces to universal health care to classic economics is always well researched and intelligent.

Enjoy these. The most recent posts are excellent.
 

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
 

 Let's have a little fun today. Today we're going to take a look at a conservative hit piece in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and we're going to dissect it. We're going to take it apart and examine it much in the same way you might examine a frog in Science class. Why do we examine frogs in science class? Why, to learn from them, of course! So it goes with this particular editorial. We're going to learn about it so we can more readily identify hit pieces in the future (and there are a LOT of hit pieces out there). This is going to be a great time.

First, read this editorial by Al Smith.

Fun, isn't it? Before we delve into things, we need to create our first rule. This is an important rule because it will distinguish Hit Pieces from other editorials.

Rule #1: Hit Pieces generally target positive groups, like environmentalism.

Next, we're going to take a look at the wording. This piece is filled with negative words, and they're all aimed at the environmentalism movement.Radicals, zealots, criminal selfishness ... all of these words have one goal in mind: to demonize environmentalism to the reader will not identify with it. The more Smith demonizes them, the less the reader is likely to say, "Hey! I'm an environmentalist!" No reader is going to say that if the environmentalists are radical zealots bent on shutting down all of our electricity, right? Well, few would, at least. But the goal, obviously, is to put the reader on Smith's side. The more he can negatiely portray the environmental movement, the more he's free to ridicule it, and the more he's free to ridicule it, the more readers will identify with his position. The environmental movement exists as "factions," and its attempts at creating awareness are little more than "spectacles" at best. You get the picture. So let's create another rule:

Rule #2: Hit Pieces rely on negative words to ensure readers do not identify with the target (in this case, environmentalism)

Now let's take a look at the imagery. The world according to Al Smith is a scary place, and the environmental movement is only making things worse. Images of empty cars and streets, the "Dark Ages," empty factories ... this piece has it all. If you're an environmentalist, says Smith, then you obviously want to destroy our very way of life. Powerful stuff, and these images are peppered throughout (and usually associated with the negative words we looked at before). Smith even goes so far as to quote a diplomat from World War I, and this is not unintentional. Smith is conjuring up powerful images without explicitly mentioning it. When we think of World War I, the words "Senseless" and "violence" have a tendency to come to mind, and it's no mistake that he's using this World War I quote. His goal is to ensure readers are relating the "senselessness" of the environmental movement with the senselessness of World War I, as well as all the violent imagery that goes along with it. Let's make another rule:

Rule #3: Hit Pieces use negative, scary and oftentimes violent imagery to demonize their target

 There is more at work here. In order to make his point more succinct, Smith attempts to group environmentalists together by suggesting NOTHING is good enough for them except complete abandonment of electricity in general. No solution works, only MORE government, MORE regulation. He also relies heavily on the old tirades of the conservatives, including the evils of government, the loss of "Freedom" and of course those pesky new light bulbs that are just too efficient. There's only one problem with this argument: the entire point of Earth Hour was to make a very specific statement:

Human beings are willing to regulate themselves.

That was the point, wasn't it? Smith even mentions this early on in his piece, that the idea was that human beings are not so indentured to technology that they can't turn out a light for an hour, the idea that human beings can make a BIG difference without government help. Sure, it would be nice if our government enforced basic environmental regulations, But under the Bush administration, that's not going to happen. They believe in market-based regulation, and while it's a noble ideal, it just isn't going to happen. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says, the free market is incapable of controlling pollution, so there HAS to be government involvement.

Events like Earth Hour frighten Smith because they show him that he's in an extreme minority. While others are attempting to solve the problems facing our generation and future generation, Smith is unwilling to offer solutions himself, relying instead on attacking everyone else. He's takes solace in knowing the Irish pubs and the Chinese are on his side (as if this is truly something to be bragging about: the Chinese government also sides with the Sudanese government, right?), and attempts to demonize environmentalists much in the same way conservatives have been doing so largely since Rush Limbaugh made his debut.

All right, enough ranting. I think you get the picture. Hopefully, by carefully examining this, you'll be able to spot these pieces in the future. Learn from them. As wrong as they may be, they're a powerful method being used by the modern conservative movement and deserve attention.

 
Yours,

Ken Brosky
 

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. 

 Here's the scariest part of the 2008 elections:

This young man could determine the Democratic presidential candidate.

That's right, Jason Rae's vote counts more than yours. In our democratic process, his vote--and the votes of other super delegates--has more sway over who gets elected than yours. It's all a part of complicated system designed by the Democratic party during the middle of the twentieth century in an attempt to make things a little more fair. The problem is, now these super delegates are the make-or-break votes in a close primary process. Barack Obama has more votes and  has won more states than Hillary, but she has more support from super delegates whose votes count more than the delegates that Obama is winning through the popular vote.

Is this fair? The worst part, in my opinion, is that a lot of super delegates have already pledge support for Hillary Clinton regardless of how the state votes. That means even in states where Barack Obama won a significant majority, there may be a handful of super delegates casting their votes for Clinton. This is not a representative democracy. What's the point in voting if there are others who carry more sway and can shift the entire election?

The governor of Maine has chosen a more democratic option: he will cast his vote for whoever wins the Maine caucuses (it ended up to be Obama). That's right--he actually plans on representing his citizens. But this isn't always the case.

For more information, read here at the Nation.

Contact your representative and tell them to vote democratically. 

 
Yours,

Ken Brosky
 

In the interest of attempting to contribute positively to my community, I'm offering you a list of reading materials to help you exercise your brain during the weekend. Rather than wasting your weekend injecting electric heroin into your brain, here are some articles that are relevant to your life and may even help you learn something (gasp!). Not only that, each article only takes about ten minutes to read. Go ahead. I know, it's scary at first, learning on the weekend ... but maybe that kind of mindset is exactly why we're in so much trouble in the first place ...

"Guns Beat Green," by Naomi Klein. Why the security bubble is gaining more investments than green initiatives.

"The Democrats' Class War," by David Sirota.

"The Cost of Toppling Saddam," by Robert Shapiro. Even in 2002, economists predicted a recession related to the war in Iraq and the rising cost of oil.

"You're **** right I would," Cheney says in answer to whether he would attack Iraq. Of course he would ... he's made a handsome profit for himself and his friends.

Cheers,

Ken Brosky
 

I just read an article by everyone favorite Free Market neoconservative, Patrick McIlheran, and was somewhat dismayed by his apparent lack of knowledge regarding the health care issue. So I think it's time to clear some misconceptions up.

First, don't be surprised to see a number of links inside Patrick's column. He's good at providing information to back-up his flawed arguments. The problem is all of the information he provides comes from, well, sources that are hardly regarded as unbiased or even intelligent. He uses Web sites like the National Review  and Fraser Institute and freemarketcure.com. "Freedom!" the privileged white man screams, brandishing his sword. "You'll never take our freedom!"

Patrick McIlheran isn't Braveheart, and his arguments are, at best, fuzzy logic. At worst, they're an impassioned attempt to avoid a nationwide health care system in favor of a free market-based approach that would supposedly preserve our "Freedom." So I'm going to tell you about the market-based approach we have now (to some extent) and the version Canada has, and then I'm going to let you in on some additional information so you can help sniff out the bullcrap free market conservatives spew on a daily basis.

Here's my problem with a free market system: in a free market system, the private insurance companies compete and so do the hospitals (remember, Ronald Reagan deregulated the health care system so most hospitals are now "for-profit"). Consumers shop smart, choose what they want and don't want, and then pick the best plan, probably the most affordable. With competition, the prices drop and health care can be affordable and fast. On FreeMarketCure.com, there are a variety of reasons this isn't working yet in America, and it even cites a beautiful study conducted by the RAND think tank (a free market think tank) that--surprise!--happened to have a result that backed up the institute's claims that intelligent consumer spending can work better than a "free" version.

That's all well and good, but all of these points neglect one very important aspect of the for-profit private health insurance sector: that is, they make their wild profits by denying claims from their own clients. That is how private health insurance companies make their money. That is how private health insurance companies make their money. Monthly premiums are not a large source of profit. You can buy the cheapest, most amazing insurance in the world from a company like Aetna, but they can still deny your claim when you get sick, forcing you to pay out of pocket. The only way to change this is to regulate the insurance companies more strictly, but Free Market proponents steadfastly refuse this. So how free are you in a privatized system?

Don't get me wrong--the free market approach has its upsides, and it makes a lot of relevant points. The problem is that its arguments have a tendency to leave out very key facts that are essential to deciding what kind of system we should use. The fact that one of the largest private health insurance companies in America recently gave their CEO a 1.6 billion dollar retirement package seems important. How can an insurance company give away all that money? Why, by denying $1.6 billion in claims!

This still doesn't account for the extremely poor. How free are they? Or, if you refuse to help out any poor adults because you honestly think they're all lazy, then think about their kids. Why do children need to "Trust the Market" with their lives? Is that fair? Is it constitutional? Is a child truly "Free" if he or she cannot receive the basic health care necessary to make the most of his/her life? If you don't want to pay for health insurance for people who can't afford it, do you honestly think they'll simply roll over and die? Or will they go to the emergency room when they're sick and not pay the bill? Then who pays the bill? How do you win in this market-based system?

Here are some other things you need to watch out for when reading anything from the Free Market "experts":

1. Why do they always bring up Canada? Why do they always use such obscure examples of people who hate the system? Why is it their articles continually reference THE SAME PEOPLE? Canada's health care system is new, and it was started by one of its provinces and the system was so popular and well-liked that the rest of the country adapted it. In any system, there will always be a few people who hate the new changes. Canada is no exception. Finding someone in America who hates something the rest of us love would be just as possible.

So why don't any of these Free Market capitalists attack the German health care system, or Japan's? Both are universal health care systems. Germany's is the best health care system in the world. If universal health care is so horrible, then why can't these "Experts" spend more time attacking the systems at the top of the health care ladder? Because they're not vulnerable. They attack Canada's universal system because it's vulnerable.

2. But I should be "Free," they say. Any time you see a privileged white man complain he isn't "Free Enough," your bullcrap detector should immediately turn on.

3. But isn't this socialism? The Right Wing attempts to label any progress or any government program as "Socialism," including the raising of taxes for the rich for any reason. Universal Health Care does carry with it--like many aspects of any democracy--certain aspects that could be considered socialism. But does that make it socialism? Or is guaranteeing health care for every citizen a fundamental key to any Democracy? Free Market Capitalism shares a lot of commonalities with Fascism, but if I were to suggest Free Market Capitalism IS Fascism, there would be an all-out war. Every ideology overlaps with other ideologies, and politics is no different. Don't buy into the "Socialism" myth. Our government can do things to help us, so long as a majority of us want it. That's a fundamental point of democracy.

4. But isn't Universal Health Care just another bureaucracy? So are privatized health care companies. The questions is this: which would you rather have:

a) Health insurance run by a government bureaucracy run by elected representatives that WE THE PEOPLE elect. Those representatives must then answer to WE THE PEOPLE or be voted out of office.

b) Health insurance run by a private bureaucracy run by a CEO who answers directly to the shareholders.

5. Medicare is a universal program, and it has problems, they say. Not nearly as many as private health insurance companies do. The problem is bashing Medicare is easy, and there is a LOT of money being spent doing so. You want help with this, you'll need to do a LOT of digging through a LOT of Free Market Think Tanks to get to any relevant information.

There you go. I hope this was somewhat informative, and that you can take something from it. As always, I'll try to make a point of keeping an eye on our Neoconservative friends in Milwaukee to ensure not too many of you get ensnared.

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