The US is leaving Afghanistan (too slowly), but just think of the profits big corporations can make on its most important export.
Really, there must be some way Pfizer, Novartis, etc, can profit on Afghan opium (Afghanistan produces 90% of the world's crop). Big corporations increasingly dominate world trade. They're pressing globally for patent rights even to basic food crops. Patents as monopoly grants, provide corporations monopoly profits.
Corporations promote war, any war: they can make obscene amounts on it. They have a near monopsony, as well: the US Defense Department; it buys more from defense corporations than all other buyers combined, close to a definition of the word, monopsony.
The US strides, giant-like, across the world--trampling, too. But it, and almost every other nation, is bowing to a multiplicity of fiefdoms called corporations.
When the Roman Empire was self-destructing in the late 300's to late 400's, it was ruled by a class that created the model for what came after: Roman Senators lorded it over huge latifundias, with estates from Gaul to North Africa, all manned by hundreds to thousands of serfs and slaves. Senators also provided the bureaucratic skills to run the Empire, usually to their personal advantage. Over time, the Senators' holdings grew as there became fewer of them (small families), but then shrank as the Empire withered: losing estates in North Africa, for example, when the Vandals took over there--due to incompetence and rivalry between Imperial services.
But what prevailed became the feudalism of the Medieval period, dominated by Germanic conquerors--rampaging hordes that settled down to enjoy their pillage in one place.
Something similar is happening today. Corporations are the new Senatorial latifundias, spreading their thirst for profits worldwide, but in their own niches. We have feudalism of food production by Monsanto, or of pharmaceuticals by Glaxo-Smith-Kline, or of oil and coal production by the Koch brothers.
Workers are treated increasingly as serfs, as unions are driven out, workers are laid off, wages are cut and the remaining employees work harder in fear for their jobs.
Now, with the secret negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the ascendancy of these corporations lurches forward. Only "stakeholders" (not the public or Congress) are permitted to know what the negotiations entail, but leaked accounts indicate that corporations will be able to sue to block environmental and labor laws, expand patent and copyright rights, and generally override sovereign nations' regulations, as long as they can claim their profitability/interest is threatened.
Corporate feudalism is like the Roman Senators, who held life and death power over their 'dependents.' But once the nation-state is pushed aside, will there just be rampaging corporations? No governments will be able to protect the people from the corporate hordes.
Showing posts with label Koch brothers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Koch brothers. Show all posts
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Who's More Corrupt?
Did you know that the "oil spill" in Arkansas over the weekend was actually tar sands (the stuff to be piped through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline)? Tar sands are probably exempt from the taxes that fund the clean up of such spills, yet this sludge is more toxic and more difficult to clean up than conventional crude.
Some interesting facts: the first, for me, was Oil Change's report, identifying the spill with Canadian tar sands. It wasn't reported that way in the New York Times, which used the euphemism "heavy crude from western Canada," nor on NPR, which simply reported it as a major oil spill until the following day.
Tar sands aren't oil. After much processing (requiring much heat, polluting more than coal), this "bitumen" sludge can be converted into an oil feedstock for further refining, but to call it "heavy crude" conceals what it really is and why a spill is much worse than conventional oil.
Toxicity is one of the reasons for blocking the XL Pipeline, which may be why even supposedly "objective" media outlets misled. Tar sands money has corrupted Canada's politics, and is adding to the endemic, legal corruption here. It may inspire right-wing billionaires, like the Kochs, to purchase media outlets like the LA Times.
Look at the contrast between India and the US: here the courts are influenced by major corporations, especially after Citizens United, and demand outrageous privileges, like patent monopolies indefinitely extended.
India is famous for its petty and not so petty corruption, personally observed when I lived there 33 years ago. Contemporary accounts imply it's as bad now. However, in some ways it might be less corrupt than the US, where corporations get anything they want, like Novartis' minor tweaking of an AIDS drug allowing indefinite monopoly protection. An Indian judge did something our Congress and courts have rarely managed: he stood up to Big Pharma, striking down Novartis' claim that its minor modification justified a new patent (monopoly protection) for the 20 years the Indian patent law permits.
In the US, regulators, courts and Congress bend over backwards to give corporations what they want--like the covert insertion of the "Monsanto protection act" into the Food bill.
The US may have fewer officials and politicians with their hands out, but the powerful use legal corruption. Their bribes are more lucrative: campaign funds, insider info, high paying jobs, and promotions when they recycle back from private to public sectors.
They are in service to our ultimate Roman Senators--the Koch brothers, Murdoch or Lockheed Martin--who know that control of the media is key.
Outside the US, people get freer news: in the US, Congress is writing a law to more strictly control the Internet, our best remaining source for a free flow of information.
Are we already a corporate state, a plutocracy like the later Roman Empire? Hard to tell with the managed information we're fed.
Some interesting facts: the first, for me, was Oil Change's report, identifying the spill with Canadian tar sands. It wasn't reported that way in the New York Times, which used the euphemism "heavy crude from western Canada," nor on NPR, which simply reported it as a major oil spill until the following day.
Tar sands aren't oil. After much processing (requiring much heat, polluting more than coal), this "bitumen" sludge can be converted into an oil feedstock for further refining, but to call it "heavy crude" conceals what it really is and why a spill is much worse than conventional oil.
Toxicity is one of the reasons for blocking the XL Pipeline, which may be why even supposedly "objective" media outlets misled. Tar sands money has corrupted Canada's politics, and is adding to the endemic, legal corruption here. It may inspire right-wing billionaires, like the Kochs, to purchase media outlets like the LA Times.
Look at the contrast between India and the US: here the courts are influenced by major corporations, especially after Citizens United, and demand outrageous privileges, like patent monopolies indefinitely extended.
India is famous for its petty and not so petty corruption, personally observed when I lived there 33 years ago. Contemporary accounts imply it's as bad now. However, in some ways it might be less corrupt than the US, where corporations get anything they want, like Novartis' minor tweaking of an AIDS drug allowing indefinite monopoly protection. An Indian judge did something our Congress and courts have rarely managed: he stood up to Big Pharma, striking down Novartis' claim that its minor modification justified a new patent (monopoly protection) for the 20 years the Indian patent law permits.
In the US, regulators, courts and Congress bend over backwards to give corporations what they want--like the covert insertion of the "Monsanto protection act" into the Food bill.
The US may have fewer officials and politicians with their hands out, but the powerful use legal corruption. Their bribes are more lucrative: campaign funds, insider info, high paying jobs, and promotions when they recycle back from private to public sectors.
They are in service to our ultimate Roman Senators--the Koch brothers, Murdoch or Lockheed Martin--who know that control of the media is key.
Outside the US, people get freer news: in the US, Congress is writing a law to more strictly control the Internet, our best remaining source for a free flow of information.
Are we already a corporate state, a plutocracy like the later Roman Empire? Hard to tell with the managed information we're fed.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Stimulus or Austerity
What do we hear from the movers and shakers? Still, austerity.
Greece is imploding, and even if moderates win this Sunday, it's unlikely that they'll be able to force Germany's Angela Merkel to abandon her stance: austerity as the solution to all their economic ills. Spain is now the problem de jour: another bank/bonds crisis, but again, European bonds, the only interim solution, are nixed by Merkel.
Merkel has her reasons. Germans have their history as justification: the Weimar Republic collapsed under inflation that saw the mark tumble to over 1 trillion to the dollar, wiping out the middle class. After that, the Nazis took over.
Ironically, but also logically, some of the beneficiaries of the austerity-driven depression that's overtaking Europe's periphery are politicians of the extreme right, like Greece's neo-Nazi Golden Dawn.
If Germans could realize that their resistance to meaningful bailouts and stimulus to create growth is creating little Weimar's all over Europe, perhaps they'd re-think their reluctance.
Angela's conservatives are in the driver's seat in Europe. In the US, conservatives are in a similar position, even though they don't control the federal government. The tea party dominated Republicans control the House, and effectively stymie any stimulatory policy in the Senate: 41 votes out of 100 = a blocking minority. Plus, by controlling a majority of states, Republicans are able to lay off public employees wholesale--partly to balance budgets, but partly because unionized public employees are the only organized group left that can counter their lock-step promotion of corporate and wealthy/selfish class interests. Conservatives see public employees as "the greatest threat" to the US economy. However, the net effect of state (and local) layoffs has been to offset any growth in employment in the private sector, one of the prime reasons why unemployment went up a notch last month.
Given their antagonism to public employees, it's not surprising that Republicans refuse to allow the major Federal grants (stimulus expenditures) necessary to prevent the layoffs or hire back the teachers and police needed.
The US doesn't have the equivalent of Greece's Golden Dawn or its left-wing Syriza, but Republican intransigence and Democratic waffling surely justify them.
Instead, we have the Koch brothers, Karl Rove and the millionaire/billionaire funded super-pacs on one side, and only the weakened Occupy movement on the other. So, our equivalent of the Nazi takeover of Weimar would put corporations and their owners in control.
Why "only" the Occupy movement? Tom Barrett, the defeated old-line Democrat in Wisconsin is your answer. Centrist resistance may win barely enough votes in the General Election against Koch-Rove billions, but what people really yearn for is the kind of policy (only more so) that Obama campaigned on but only half-delivered. Incremental measures aren't solutions.
Even with Obama, the 1%, or the Selfish Class, face little resistance to their takeover. Long-term depression could result, paralleling the history of the late Roman Empire.
Greece is imploding, and even if moderates win this Sunday, it's unlikely that they'll be able to force Germany's Angela Merkel to abandon her stance: austerity as the solution to all their economic ills. Spain is now the problem de jour: another bank/bonds crisis, but again, European bonds, the only interim solution, are nixed by Merkel.
Merkel has her reasons. Germans have their history as justification: the Weimar Republic collapsed under inflation that saw the mark tumble to over 1 trillion to the dollar, wiping out the middle class. After that, the Nazis took over.
Ironically, but also logically, some of the beneficiaries of the austerity-driven depression that's overtaking Europe's periphery are politicians of the extreme right, like Greece's neo-Nazi Golden Dawn.
If Germans could realize that their resistance to meaningful bailouts and stimulus to create growth is creating little Weimar's all over Europe, perhaps they'd re-think their reluctance.
Angela's conservatives are in the driver's seat in Europe. In the US, conservatives are in a similar position, even though they don't control the federal government. The tea party dominated Republicans control the House, and effectively stymie any stimulatory policy in the Senate: 41 votes out of 100 = a blocking minority. Plus, by controlling a majority of states, Republicans are able to lay off public employees wholesale--partly to balance budgets, but partly because unionized public employees are the only organized group left that can counter their lock-step promotion of corporate and wealthy/selfish class interests. Conservatives see public employees as "the greatest threat" to the US economy. However, the net effect of state (and local) layoffs has been to offset any growth in employment in the private sector, one of the prime reasons why unemployment went up a notch last month.
Given their antagonism to public employees, it's not surprising that Republicans refuse to allow the major Federal grants (stimulus expenditures) necessary to prevent the layoffs or hire back the teachers and police needed.
The US doesn't have the equivalent of Greece's Golden Dawn or its left-wing Syriza, but Republican intransigence and Democratic waffling surely justify them.
Instead, we have the Koch brothers, Karl Rove and the millionaire/billionaire funded super-pacs on one side, and only the weakened Occupy movement on the other. So, our equivalent of the Nazi takeover of Weimar would put corporations and their owners in control.
Why "only" the Occupy movement? Tom Barrett, the defeated old-line Democrat in Wisconsin is your answer. Centrist resistance may win barely enough votes in the General Election against Koch-Rove billions, but what people really yearn for is the kind of policy (only more so) that Obama campaigned on but only half-delivered. Incremental measures aren't solutions.
Even with Obama, the 1%, or the Selfish Class, face little resistance to their takeover. Long-term depression could result, paralleling the history of the late Roman Empire.
Friday, May 18, 2012
A Looming Minority: Demographic Angst
White people will become a minority in the US, since white births have fallen below 50% for the first time in US history. The white majority is past childbearing. That's huge; it may explain a lot of things, like America's political polarization, the extreme anti-immigrant politics of the South and West, the conservative urge to cut funds for services like education--increasingly, they'll be spent on minority kids.
As a New York Times (05/17/12) article pointed out, the younger and older generations won't look like each other, and working together will get harder. It's already hard. There is, now, a split between older voters and younger over education budgets, for example: seniors vote against and vote them down regularly. In one of my towns (I pay taxes in two), the school age population is already markedly more minority than those of voting age, and the budget is voted down more often.
A good portion of the radical right-wing social agenda could be explained by the fear of becoming a minority. Anti-women: yeah, it's those young women of color who are having all those babies, and that's probably because of the breakdown of marriage and the family, which is why they've got to stop gays, too. Stop Obama, too, the black President. Cut government spending, cut jobs and gut public employee rights: sure, minorities and women work for governments disproportionate to their share of the population.
Terrorism and wars abroad? Terrorists are seen as foreign and dark-skinned, even though we've had our own homegrown WASP terrorists, like the Oklahoma bomber, the Washington snipers and so many school shooters. So, we launch a war on Terror, or the mealy-mouthed alternative the Obama administration came up with, and increasingly, it seems, Muslims are targeted and recruited (through sting operations), which somehow translates into Brown people--the ones who are threatening to take America away from the desperate grip of older, "conservative" un-brown people, who want to "take America back."
Corporate conservatives are using all of the above to fund a politics that is all about establishing corporate dominance: eviscerate regulations and workers' rights, and reduce already low, loop-hole-ridden corporate taxes. But they also want to insure they get Government's business, including more and better wars.
Scott Walker of Wisconsin isn't their hero; he's their employee.
However, corporations aren't American; they don't hold any special allegiance to the US. They can be just as exploitative of the US as oil and mining companies have been to nations like Ecuador and the Congo. Corporate money flows to Republican extremists not because corporations are anti-gay, or anti-minority, but because right-wingers will toe the corporate line and most are true laissez-faire believers.
Barbarians ripped off Rome in the fifth century; corporations want to do it here, now.
As a New York Times (05/17/12) article pointed out, the younger and older generations won't look like each other, and working together will get harder. It's already hard. There is, now, a split between older voters and younger over education budgets, for example: seniors vote against and vote them down regularly. In one of my towns (I pay taxes in two), the school age population is already markedly more minority than those of voting age, and the budget is voted down more often.
A good portion of the radical right-wing social agenda could be explained by the fear of becoming a minority. Anti-women: yeah, it's those young women of color who are having all those babies, and that's probably because of the breakdown of marriage and the family, which is why they've got to stop gays, too. Stop Obama, too, the black President. Cut government spending, cut jobs and gut public employee rights: sure, minorities and women work for governments disproportionate to their share of the population.
Terrorism and wars abroad? Terrorists are seen as foreign and dark-skinned, even though we've had our own homegrown WASP terrorists, like the Oklahoma bomber, the Washington snipers and so many school shooters. So, we launch a war on Terror, or the mealy-mouthed alternative the Obama administration came up with, and increasingly, it seems, Muslims are targeted and recruited (through sting operations), which somehow translates into Brown people--the ones who are threatening to take America away from the desperate grip of older, "conservative" un-brown people, who want to "take America back."
Corporate conservatives are using all of the above to fund a politics that is all about establishing corporate dominance: eviscerate regulations and workers' rights, and reduce already low, loop-hole-ridden corporate taxes. But they also want to insure they get Government's business, including more and better wars.
Scott Walker of Wisconsin isn't their hero; he's their employee.
However, corporations aren't American; they don't hold any special allegiance to the US. They can be just as exploitative of the US as oil and mining companies have been to nations like Ecuador and the Congo. Corporate money flows to Republican extremists not because corporations are anti-gay, or anti-minority, but because right-wingers will toe the corporate line and most are true laissez-faire believers.
Barbarians ripped off Rome in the fifth century; corporations want to do it here, now.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Billions, Anger and Inequality
Back when I taught in Florida, I was attempting to explain why progressive taxes made sense, when one resource-enhanced student exclaimed: "If the poor don't like being poor, then why don't they get rich!" My explanation was not as simple as the viral U-Tube of Elizabeth Warren, but I did say that everyone benefits from society, and the rich benefit more.
Progressive taxation means that if you get more from society, enabling you to become rich, then you should also pay more: you didn't do it alone. Furthermore, a good portion of government services, including police and our imperial military benefit the rich disproportionately.
But the United States is still cursed with its "pioneer" heritage, memorializing people like Daniel Boone, who went out into the wilderness and thrived. Of course, even the Daniel Boones depended on others to raise them, teach them to shoot a gun, even get dressed. Most had mothers and fathers, at least. Most were also aided by fellow pioneers, and, surprisingly, by indigenous people they encountered along the way: even they didn’t do it alone. However, that's the story we tell ourselves in these disUnited States.
That's why Herman Cain, and now Governor Perry, are proposing to replace our (very mildly) progressive income tax with a flat tax. A flat tax implies that everyone benefits equally from the present configuration of society. Lenin pointed out that the poor also benefit from bridges: they can sleep under them.
Cain's 9-9-9 proposal would not benefit everyone equally. The poor, the elderly and those on fixed income, would see their taxes rise considerably, most others would see their taxes rise, too, but the wealthy would see their taxes fall even more. There would be huge savings for the ultra-rich like the Koch brothers, even though they pay lower tax rates than most taxpayers pay already. Their main sources of wealth are capital gains and the hedge-fund traders' special loophole for their outrageous profits, and in both cases, since Bush W's tax "reforms," they are taxed at lower rates than work.
In fact, that's what the OWS movement is about: the unfair advantages of those who don't work, except with numbers: from hedge-fund heads, to bank honchos, to corporate CEO's, to speculators, to inherited wealth; these are the 1%. Thing is, it's been that way for years, and getting worse. While productivity has doubled since the '70's, wages have remained stagnant. Guess where all the extra money went.
The US today, has the most unequal income of all developed countries: we match Turkey! We've been on a trajectory towards a society like fifth century Rome, divided between all-powerful Senators holding all the wealth, a vanishing middle class, and the Senator's serfs. Cain and Perry know where they're headed. Thanks to OWS, a growing number of Americans are opening their eyes, even some Democratic politicians.
Let's hope corporate billions can't undo their anger.
Progressive taxation means that if you get more from society, enabling you to become rich, then you should also pay more: you didn't do it alone. Furthermore, a good portion of government services, including police and our imperial military benefit the rich disproportionately.
But the United States is still cursed with its "pioneer" heritage, memorializing people like Daniel Boone, who went out into the wilderness and thrived. Of course, even the Daniel Boones depended on others to raise them, teach them to shoot a gun, even get dressed. Most had mothers and fathers, at least. Most were also aided by fellow pioneers, and, surprisingly, by indigenous people they encountered along the way: even they didn’t do it alone. However, that's the story we tell ourselves in these disUnited States.
That's why Herman Cain, and now Governor Perry, are proposing to replace our (very mildly) progressive income tax with a flat tax. A flat tax implies that everyone benefits equally from the present configuration of society. Lenin pointed out that the poor also benefit from bridges: they can sleep under them.
Cain's 9-9-9 proposal would not benefit everyone equally. The poor, the elderly and those on fixed income, would see their taxes rise considerably, most others would see their taxes rise, too, but the wealthy would see their taxes fall even more. There would be huge savings for the ultra-rich like the Koch brothers, even though they pay lower tax rates than most taxpayers pay already. Their main sources of wealth are capital gains and the hedge-fund traders' special loophole for their outrageous profits, and in both cases, since Bush W's tax "reforms," they are taxed at lower rates than work.
In fact, that's what the OWS movement is about: the unfair advantages of those who don't work, except with numbers: from hedge-fund heads, to bank honchos, to corporate CEO's, to speculators, to inherited wealth; these are the 1%. Thing is, it's been that way for years, and getting worse. While productivity has doubled since the '70's, wages have remained stagnant. Guess where all the extra money went.
The US today, has the most unequal income of all developed countries: we match Turkey! We've been on a trajectory towards a society like fifth century Rome, divided between all-powerful Senators holding all the wealth, a vanishing middle class, and the Senator's serfs. Cain and Perry know where they're headed. Thanks to OWS, a growing number of Americans are opening their eyes, even some Democratic politicians.
Let's hope corporate billions can't undo their anger.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Democracy as Distraction
Democracy As Distraction
What do you call a political system in which a tiny wealthy class trains most of society not to think? What do you call a politics that can be bought and sold, but costs more than any but the wealthiest can pay?
It isn't democracy.
The amount spent on the mid-term elections, (over $4 billion) was staggering, and the sources of much of that money may never be known. We do know that a collection of European firms ponied up almost a million. We also know that a multi-millionaire spent millions on a personal vendetta. We know that two billionaire brothers funded groups like 60 Plus, purporting to be just ordinary folks, accusing sitting Democratic Congressmen of supporting heinous provisions supposedly in the healthcare law: they weren't in it, the Congressmen didn't support such provisions, but that didn't matter. Fifty of 53 Blue Dog to outspokenly progressive Congressmen and women attacked by groups like 60 Plus were defeated.
There was no "mandate" won in this election, unless it was for deceit and misinformation. People weren't voting based on facts, but because ad campaigns generated anger and rejection--of anyone tarred with the Democratic majority, or Obama. Fury was learned amnesia. The hard times were caused by laissez-faire economics, but voters voted for laissez-faire Republicans, because Democrats, elected in 2008 to fix the economy, had failed to fix it fast enough, except for the financial industry: unemployment and job insecurity are far too high. So, egged on by negative campaigns, voters flailed out wildly against Democratic incumbents.
Democracy is a mere distraction, Elizabeth Cunningham pointed out (links to her books onsite). The real power has been grabbed by a tiny, wealthy elite; they are like Roman Senators of old, exercising power through their wealth, and through the institutions they control: in this era, corporations, financial funds and the military. They can use unlimited funds to unleash attacks on any candidate who looks at them cross-eyed.
We still think we live in a democracy? Not all anonymous funding paid off: the campaign against California's climate law went down to defeat, despite piles of oil money thrown against it. Perhaps it was defeated because anonymous donors were identified--energy companies--and voters knew the companies opposed climate change legislation for one reason only: to protect their profits.
The "Green" referendum was an exception. Ad campaigns succeeded when their funding sources remained undisclosed; they succeeded among voters who didn't pay attention to politics until a few weeks before the election and among voters who depended for information on TV "news" (which made billions on the ads).
Unless there is a genuine mass movement, laws to require disclosure of funding sources (like the Disclose Act), and a revival of real journalism, we will be ruled by money until the selfish class bankrupts the nation. Then, when the US is a burnt-out cinder, it will move on to "pleasant climes" somewhere else.
What do you call a political system in which a tiny wealthy class trains most of society not to think? What do you call a politics that can be bought and sold, but costs more than any but the wealthiest can pay?
It isn't democracy.
The amount spent on the mid-term elections, (over $4 billion) was staggering, and the sources of much of that money may never be known. We do know that a collection of European firms ponied up almost a million. We also know that a multi-millionaire spent millions on a personal vendetta. We know that two billionaire brothers funded groups like 60 Plus, purporting to be just ordinary folks, accusing sitting Democratic Congressmen of supporting heinous provisions supposedly in the healthcare law: they weren't in it, the Congressmen didn't support such provisions, but that didn't matter. Fifty of 53 Blue Dog to outspokenly progressive Congressmen and women attacked by groups like 60 Plus were defeated.
There was no "mandate" won in this election, unless it was for deceit and misinformation. People weren't voting based on facts, but because ad campaigns generated anger and rejection--of anyone tarred with the Democratic majority, or Obama. Fury was learned amnesia. The hard times were caused by laissez-faire economics, but voters voted for laissez-faire Republicans, because Democrats, elected in 2008 to fix the economy, had failed to fix it fast enough, except for the financial industry: unemployment and job insecurity are far too high. So, egged on by negative campaigns, voters flailed out wildly against Democratic incumbents.
Democracy is a mere distraction, Elizabeth Cunningham pointed out (links to her books onsite). The real power has been grabbed by a tiny, wealthy elite; they are like Roman Senators of old, exercising power through their wealth, and through the institutions they control: in this era, corporations, financial funds and the military. They can use unlimited funds to unleash attacks on any candidate who looks at them cross-eyed.
We still think we live in a democracy? Not all anonymous funding paid off: the campaign against California's climate law went down to defeat, despite piles of oil money thrown against it. Perhaps it was defeated because anonymous donors were identified--energy companies--and voters knew the companies opposed climate change legislation for one reason only: to protect their profits.
The "Green" referendum was an exception. Ad campaigns succeeded when their funding sources remained undisclosed; they succeeded among voters who didn't pay attention to politics until a few weeks before the election and among voters who depended for information on TV "news" (which made billions on the ads).
Unless there is a genuine mass movement, laws to require disclosure of funding sources (like the Disclose Act), and a revival of real journalism, we will be ruled by money until the selfish class bankrupts the nation. Then, when the US is a burnt-out cinder, it will move on to "pleasant climes" somewhere else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)