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
 

 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
 

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 

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.
 

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