Do as I say, not as I do folks! But I suppose this is the sort of government waste we need to get rid of, legal council for the poor.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, no, it's redundant service, don'tchaknow. Everyone knows that poor people who *do* muster up the gumption to take a grievance with, say, a large business have *extra* legal representation.
I saw 'The Rainmaker' once, so I know it's true.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In a broader sense, Scott’s bill gets at what has long troubled me about the Tea Party movement: It is fueled by populist anger, but it has been hijacked by plutocrats.
Mm.
How telling is it that, if anything, I don't think this language is cynical enough? Hijacking implies a forceful takeover. Invaders from outside storming a bridge and altering course. It doesn't work. Not when the 'plutocrats' involved laid the keel and set the itinerary. Convincing american conservatives to vote against their own interests is a fait accompli that hasn't changed significantly for decades, even if it serves these guys to pat the tea party on the head and say "oh, you're such good little easily maneuvered and manipulated populist rabble-rousers! You're changing everything, I promise!"
They're so well-versed at this by now that moving from the cynically straightforward, self-serving manipulation of "nominally unnamed conservative populist anger" to their ends, to doing the same with "conservative populist anger with a rallying moniker" had to have been as easy for them as getting up in the morning and slipping into their favorite bathrobe. Maybe it's even easier, because by now they're conditioned to not believe anyone that the calls are coming from inside the house, as it were.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
At first glance, I thought it was going to be one of those Coulter-like "Why conservatives hate democracy and America" but it looks, on the surface, to at least try to be well-reasoned.
I wonder if there's a study out there that tracks the publication of those sort of rag books that demonize the other side, to see if one side has a real advantage. It seems like all I ever see are books by GOP/Conservative/Liberal haters harping on how evil liberals are and how awesome America is. But I don't know if that's real or just my perception.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't be surprised if it's real, but some of it may be due to some pump and pimp factors. For decades there have been a whole slew of think-tanks that are dedicated to manufacturing and propagating what you could generously term 'anti-liberal lit' — the best known example is the long running Manhattan Institute's 'book fellowship program,' which has been used by The John M. Olin Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Earhart Foundation and the Carthage Foundation (and probably others) to fund activist writers (and provide centers of 'research' for their books), then dump them at cost or below, buy tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own books, send out as many copies to mailing lists and party members as they can, then dump the rest.
Even ignoring all these (and the huge piles on display at cost in bookstores) conservative celeb lit is probably dominant as a product. Uncharitably, my media professor said that conservatives tend to cloister in these mediums because they're the ones that the old people know how to use (including radio).
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Interesting looking book.
At first glance, I thought it was going to be one of those Coulter-like "Why conservatives hate democracy and America" but it looks, on the surface, to at least try to be well-reasoned.
I wonder if there's a study out there that tracks the publication of those sort of rag books that demonize the other side, to see if one side has a real advantage. It seems like all I ever see are books by GOP/Conservative/Liberal haters harping on how evil liberals are and how awesome America is. But I don't know if that's real or just my perception.
What's The Matter With Kansas? is far from even handed or impartial. The author absolutely leans hard left and his dislike of conservatism isn't always well hidden.
Having said that, there is still a wealth of information and truth in the book. It's worth a read through IMHO. It was required reading for one of my classes, and it really is kinda strange to see how political realities play out.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would also consider the book well-reasoned, and certainly partisan. Though, in my eye, it is partisan during an analysis of a situation and political strategy at play which ought reasonably inspire some partisan feelings on the matter.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Scott said Congress has ignored its responsibility to secure U.S. borders and that he has voted for tough immigration bills that included making English the official language
Um...making english the official language needed a recent bill in congress...in the united states of america?
posted
Let him keep doing such transparently racist things as that-increasing shares of a shrinking market. Down the tubes. After all, the steadily-increasing minority population in the USA will just *love* that sort of targeted legislation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
