Movie studios are starting to notice a continuing drop in movie attendance.
So what's in store for us this weekend?
Another Dreamworks high-octane irony-fest "Madagascar" and the remake of "The Longest Yard.
One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Thursday, May 26, 2005
John Podhoretz Hated Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith...
...but likes this movie. I think it's safe to say I'll be ignoring his opinion on films henceforth.
Something to throw in the teeth of so many people...
Haughty Europeans, Arab extremists, Pat Buchanan...
On the Other Hand...
Here's an interesting analysis in today's WaPo, which, if true, is indicative of a larger shift toward centralizing power in the Federal Government's hands. Whether it's really an institutional shift or a political shift remains to be seen.
If it's the former, read your Roman history books. They point the (scary) way of the future.
If it's the former, read your Roman history books. They point the (scary) way of the future.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
The Ugly Smell of Compromise
It used to be an axiom that anything bi-partisan should be feared by the voters; because anything that these enemies could agree had to involve neither side giving up anything important. Thus, any compromise involved the voters, and especially the taxpayers, getting screwed.
If this report is true, the rule will have been proved. Dammit, George, it's time to throw down a veto.
If this report is true, the rule will have been proved. Dammit, George, it's time to throw down a veto.
Sorry for being gone. Here's a fisking.
In my college days, my folks used to get the Washington Post delivered. I used to get yelled at for reading the paper before my father did, but read it anyway I did. But I was selective in my reading: the editorial page. After the Post's nauseating coverage of the '96 conventions (rapturously fulsomizing for two days over the Clinton's choice of Atlanta before the convention, relegating the Republican convention to an insert on the bottom of the front page), I determined that if I was going to read Democratic political commentary, I was going to read the stuff that was up-front about it.
Nowadays, of course, I find the Post to be perhaps the best newspaper in the country, and certainly the best left-leaning one. It regularly outshines the New York Times in fairness and accuracy. It's still a Democratic paper, and unabashed about it, but its integrity as a news organization has not, to my knowledge, been significantly compromised.
It's columnists, of course, are another story. The Post's editorial page is generally one of the fairest in the business, a roughly 60-40 ratio of Democrats to Republicans. Of the Democrats, William Raspberry is always a good, genial read, Richard Cohen is cheap and tedious, and Colbert King reminds me of an
Enlightenment-era monarch, full of a sense of his own importance, constantly reminding us by his very presence of ages long past, and in the end, he says nothing (I'm not going to bother about Anne Applebaum and Ellen Goodman, because, it pains me greatly to say, I can't remember a word they've written).
But E.J. Dionne, now there's an apparatchik worth letting loose a Fisk on. You can accept this as my statement on the judicial mess as well:
I imagine that somehow this is intended to be relevatory, as though the known universe were unaware that Specter is a squish who'd sooner eat goat entrails than make a decision between one side or another. We're talking about a guy who, given the choice between saying "Guilty" and "Not Guilty" said "They haven't proved it," just to make sure his rear was covered.
"Checks and balances," you say? I am intrigued. Tell me more of these plucky "checks and balances." I failed high school civics and have no idea wherefrom such a concept might have fallen.
Still is. Philadelphia is one of the worst-run cities on the East Coast. It makes Boston look like the New Jerusalem. The Democratic machine is as entrenched, and as powerful, now as it was then. So Specter appears to have accomplished nothing by this bold crossing of the aisle except getting his name in the papers.
Imagine what might have been if he had decided to say "We need these guys in power, so they can do what's right." This might not have been immediately possible, given the circumstances of Philly politics. But building on this momentum might have led to a growing of the party's base and an actual choice in governance, instead of the one-party kleptocracy the city is today. But Specter's wouldn't be interested in that.
The "right to filibuster." Oh, isn't that just what we need? Dark were the days for our most powerful legislators, until the Right to Filibuster was preserved by the brace, the few, the Specters of Truth!
Senators of the World, UNITE!!!
Heaven Forfend.
All of this would be fine if I perceived the need for the President's judicial choices to be moderated, if I saw a threat they presented. I've never heard a Democrat put forward a cogent argument that detailed what was wrong with the President's picks. They've been described as "extreme," "right-wing," "theocratic" and so on. What I haven't heard is why they shouldn't be judges. Surely, in a world where "we need these guys to watch those guys," a few origonal constructionists in a judiciary full of penumbra-expanders would be a welcome, even moderating influence?
Apparently not.
Did the President have "unprecedented control over the judiciary" in the days before Clinton when Senates, as a rule passed all but a few of a President's nominees? Or was the judiciary, selected by the President within a select set of parameters, and passed by the Senate provided they weren't completely imbecilic, a truly independent branch of government, as it was intended to be?
Is the establishment of a 60-vote supermajority to pass any judicial nominee not an unprecedented expansion of senatorial control over the judiciary?
Yes, "shameful rhetoric" always costs senators votes. That's why Ted Kennedy's career in the Senate was so brief.
And this is what comes out when a Beltway journalist can't fathom the possibility that a two-term President whose party controls Congress might nominate people whose ideas resonate with a sizable section of the public. The formula is so typical as to be cliche: speak out on the need to soak the rich = "authentic" populism. Speak out on cultural issues that play in Peoria = "counterfeit" populism.
Someone be a sport and tell E.J. that there's a thing called character assassination. If the concept confuses him, he can ask Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas to elucidate on the subject.
Number of words between E.J.'s backhanded comment that there were "honest differences" on the side of the Democrats and his cynical determination that Frist is merely building up an exploratory committee: 39, including the "a's" and "the's".
That's hutzpah, my friends.
History lesson time: in 1940 Germany took over Paris, by invading the country. The Allies later disputed the Nazi occupation of France, and I'm assuming bombing was involved. The analogy works like this: People cannot claim legitimacy by historical tradition for something that has been recently established. Thus, the "nuclear option" was aimed at the Democratic supermajority, which, as I previously pointed out, is not part of Senate tradition.
Now, can a great big Brookings Institute fellow understand that?
Why, the impertinence of the thing! The next thing you know, people will start comparing the President to Hitler!
And Micheal Moore speaks for the constituency to which Harry Reid is "pandering," if "pandering" means "agree with" and "speaks for" means "belongs to roughly the same political coalition as."
Don't you love it? Two Senators out of 100, and on we are to Pat Robertson, who's said another dumb thing. This is selective quoting with a vengeance.
Press Summary: "The deal is not perfect. It allows people who have different viewpoints to become judges. That's bad, mmkay?"
Snark aside, at least Dionne had an objection to Brown that didn't involve the a-word, and for that he should be commended. It allows the question of whether 70 years of New Deal jurisprudence has been good for anything other than keeping certain aspects of our economy mired in the 1970's to be debated. But it still sounds too much like an insistence that the judiciary be monolithic, while the political branches be partisan.
It also underlines the degree to which Democrats have become the country's real conservatives. Back when Specter was switching parties, the argument of 70 years of tradition was the last thing any self-respecting Democrat would have respected. Now, it's routinely trotted out as a weapon against any of Bush's proposals, from Social Security to ANWR. None of them seem to realize that such an argument gives off the impression that they have no other arguments to fall back on.
Nowadays, of course, I find the Post to be perhaps the best newspaper in the country, and certainly the best left-leaning one. It regularly outshines the New York Times in fairness and accuracy. It's still a Democratic paper, and unabashed about it, but its integrity as a news organization has not, to my knowledge, been significantly compromised.
It's columnists, of course, are another story. The Post's editorial page is generally one of the fairest in the business, a roughly 60-40 ratio of Democrats to Republicans. Of the Democrats, William Raspberry is always a good, genial read, Richard Cohen is cheap and tedious, and Colbert King reminds me of an
Enlightenment-era monarch, full of a sense of his own importance, constantly reminding us by his very presence of ages long past, and in the end, he says nothing (I'm not going to bother about Anne Applebaum and Ellen Goodman, because, it pains me greatly to say, I can't remember a word they've written).
But E.J. Dionne, now there's an apparatchik worth letting loose a Fisk on. You can accept this as my statement on the judicial mess as well:
'Watch Those Guys'
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005; Page A17
No one was more relieved last night by the deal that avoided the end of Senate's right to filibuster judicial nominees than Arlen Specter.
I imagine that somehow this is intended to be relevatory, as though the known universe were unaware that Specter is a squish who'd sooner eat goat entrails than make a decision between one side or another. We're talking about a guy who, given the choice between saying "Guilty" and "Not Guilty" said "They haven't proved it," just to make sure his rear was covered.
The senior Republican senator from Pennsylvania began his political life revering John F. Kennedy and proudly declared himself a "Kennedy Democrat." The foundation of his career was the idea of checks and balances.
"Checks and balances," you say? I am intrigued. Tell me more of these plucky "checks and balances." I failed high school civics and have no idea wherefrom such a concept might have fallen.
In the late 1960s, Specter decided that party loyalty could ask too much. Despite his Democratic leanings, he accepted the Republican nomination for district attorney in Philadelphia. He was running against a Democratic machine that was, as Specter once put it, "highly suspect if not demonstrably corrupt."
Still is. Philadelphia is one of the worst-run cities on the East Coast. It makes Boston look like the New Jerusalem. The Democratic machine is as entrenched, and as powerful, now as it was then. So Specter appears to have accomplished nothing by this bold crossing of the aisle except getting his name in the papers.
Along with Tom Gola, a legendary basketball star whom the Republicans ran for city comptroller, Specter argued that the citizens of Philadelphia desperately needed the minority party to have some power to curb the abuses of the majority.
Their brilliant slogan, one of my favorites: "We need these guys to watch those guys."
Imagine what might have been if he had decided to say "We need these guys in power, so they can do what's right." This might not have been immediately possible, given the circumstances of Philly politics. But building on this momentum might have led to a growing of the party's base and an actual choice in governance, instead of the one-party kleptocracy the city is today. But Specter's wouldn't be interested in that.
There could be no better argument for preserving judicial filibusters. That's why a substantial group of Republicans led by Sen. John McCain joined with moderate Democrats last night in a compromise that will keep the right to filibuster alive.
The "right to filibuster." Oh, isn't that just what we need? Dark were the days for our most powerful legislators, until the Right to Filibuster was preserved by the brace, the few, the Specters of Truth!
Senators of the World, UNITE!!!
The "nuclear option" was a problem not only because it meant reducing the power of Senate Democrats
Heaven Forfend.
but also because it substantially reduced the ability of the Senate as a whole to challenge presidential judicial appointees. That capacity gives the Senate, currently the most middle-of-the-road of the elected branches of the federal government, the ability to exercise a moderating influence on the president's judicial choices.
All of this would be fine if I perceived the need for the President's judicial choices to be moderated, if I saw a threat they presented. I've never heard a Democrat put forward a cogent argument that detailed what was wrong with the President's picks. They've been described as "extreme," "right-wing," "theocratic" and so on. What I haven't heard is why they shouldn't be judges. Surely, in a world where "we need these guys to watch those guys," a few origonal constructionists in a judiciary full of penumbra-expanders would be a welcome, even moderating influence?
Apparently not.
The nuclear option to blow away the minority's rights promised a huge and unprecedented expansion of presidential control over the judiciary. The Republican compromisers decided that they needed to exercise some control over "those guys" in the White House. They also know they will welcome such influence when the Democrats take back the White House, as they will some day.
Did the President have "unprecedented control over the judiciary" in the days before Clinton when Senates, as a rule passed all but a few of a President's nominees? Or was the judiciary, selected by the President within a select set of parameters, and passed by the Senate provided they weren't completely imbecilic, a truly independent branch of government, as it was intended to be?
Is the establishment of a 60-vote supermajority to pass any judicial nominee not an unprecedented expansion of senatorial control over the judiciary?
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and other Republicans who backed the nuclear option hurt themselves badly with shameful rhetoric suggesting that murder and mayhem, not honest differences, were at the heart of this battle.
Yes, "shameful rhetoric" always costs senators votes. That's why Ted Kennedy's career in the Senate was so brief.
Thus did Frist accuse the Democrats of wanting to "kill, to defeat, to assassinate" President Bush's nominees. Oh, my. That's what comes out when a Princeton graduate plays the role of counterfeit populist in pandering to the Christian right.
And this is what comes out when a Beltway journalist can't fathom the possibility that a two-term President whose party controls Congress might nominate people whose ideas resonate with a sizable section of the public. The formula is so typical as to be cliche: speak out on the need to soak the rich = "authentic" populism. Speak out on cultural issues that play in Peoria = "counterfeit" populism.
Someone be a sport and tell E.J. that there's a thing called character assassination. If the concept confuses him, he can ask Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas to elucidate on the subject.
Frist is waging this fight because he wants to be president and needs support from social conservatives.
Number of words between E.J.'s backhanded comment that there were "honest differences" on the side of the Democrats and his cynical determination that Frist is merely building up an exploratory committee: 39, including the "a's" and "the's".
That's hutzpah, my friends.
Then there was the comment from the other Republican senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum. Senate debates routinely produce tortured metaphors. But in arguing that Democrats had no right to demand that Republicans follow the standard rules in changing the Senate's filibuster procedures, Santorum hit new heights of weirdness.
Here's what Santorum said: "The audacity of some members to stand up and say, 'How dare you break this rule,' that's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city. It's mine.' This is no more the rule of the Senate than it was the rule of the Senate before not to filibuster."
Huh?
History lesson time: in 1940 Germany took over Paris, by invading the country. The Allies later disputed the Nazi occupation of France, and I'm assuming bombing was involved. The analogy works like this: People cannot claim legitimacy by historical tradition for something that has been recently established. Thus, the "nuclear option" was aimed at the Democratic supermajority, which, as I previously pointed out, is not part of Senate tradition.
Now, can a great big Brookings Institute fellow understand that?
Santorum later insisted that his words were "meant to dramatize the principle of an argument, not to characterize my Democratic colleagues." Gee, thanks for that.
Why, the impertinence of the thing! The next thing you know, people will start comparing the President to Hitler!
Oh, yes, and although he is not a senator, Pat Robertson certainly speaks for the constituency to which Bill Frist was pandering.
And Micheal Moore speaks for the constituency to which Harry Reid is "pandering," if "pandering" means "agree with" and "speaks for" means "belongs to roughly the same political coalition as."
Don't you love it? Two Senators out of 100, and on we are to Pat Robertson, who's said another dumb thing. This is selective quoting with a vengeance.
The deal is not perfect. There are grounds to worry that the federal judiciary will be dominated at the end of the Bush years by a certain style of conservative -- Janice Rogers Brown is representative -- ready to roll back the New Deal jurisprudence of the last 70 years. Many who buy this legal approach preach that federal rules on wages and hours, environmental and business regulation, should be overturned by courts that would use 19th-century standards to void Washington's capacity to create rational standards for a complex 21st-century economy. Stopping such a judicial takeover would justify filibusters.
Press Summary: "The deal is not perfect. It allows people who have different viewpoints to become judges. That's bad, mmkay?"
Snark aside, at least Dionne had an objection to Brown that didn't involve the a-word, and for that he should be commended. It allows the question of whether 70 years of New Deal jurisprudence has been good for anything other than keeping certain aspects of our economy mired in the 1970's to be debated. But it still sounds too much like an insistence that the judiciary be monolithic, while the political branches be partisan.
It also underlines the degree to which Democrats have become the country's real conservatives. Back when Specter was switching parties, the argument of 70 years of tradition was the last thing any self-respecting Democrat would have respected. Now, it's routinely trotted out as a weapon against any of Bush's proposals, from Social Security to ANWR. None of them seem to realize that such an argument gives off the impression that they have no other arguments to fall back on.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Why didn't Bush think of this?
This sounds like a damn fine idea of what to do with Social Security. The only problem is, we'd be short of cash for paying the current retirees, which would all but guaruntee an AARP revolt (not that we don't have that anyway).
Too bad. It could have saved us all a lot of bother.
Too bad. It could have saved us all a lot of bother.
Sullying Watch
Andrew Sullivan parodies are now be common in the Corner.
Even Glenn Reynolds has piled on lately, albeit in his typically unruffled (not to say icy) manner.
It makes me sad to see, but I have to say that he's brought this on himself. I mean, Abu Ghraib? How can this story still have legs?
Even Glenn Reynolds has piled on lately, albeit in his typically unruffled (not to say icy) manner.
It makes me sad to see, but I have to say that he's brought this on himself. I mean, Abu Ghraib? How can this story still have legs?
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Kofi Annan and the Middle Finger
Classical Values puts them both together in a post involving, of all things, academia.
It's a good thing we have two middle fingers.
It's a good thing we have two middle fingers.
Buchanan and Patrick's Law
I've never been a fan of ol' Pat. He's a one-issue pundit who hasn't said anything new about his position in ten years, and everything he's said about the "culture war," indicates that he hasn't got the first clue how a culture changes.
That said, gleaning his teeming brain still produces the occasional intelligent thought. In this Washington times piece, he comes up with a not unfair castigation of so-called neoconservatives:
And within the context of his experience in politics, that's perfectly valid. Bush does sound like Wilson when he waxes rhapsodic about spreading freedom worldwide, and his compromises on education spending and prescription drugs and such are starting to look like LBJ-lite. But once again, I'm forced to stand up and shout "WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE?"
How are we to defeat terror, long-term, without changing the region that gives it birth? How are we to gain traction on some issues without compromising on others? Is Buchanan so enamoured of his electoral embarassments that he actively wishes to see the party he has served so long do likewise? It was easy for Barry Goldwater to be uncompromising; he had a whelk's chance in a supernova of winning. Just like nobody really wants to listen to Buchanan's crochety-grampa routine.
The same goes for anybody who accuses the GOP of "fair-weather federalism" or "big government conservatism" (which would include my good self). Politics is the art of the possible, and leadership in politics is the art of getting a few big ideas through, and leaving the rest for the people to either wise up on or accept the consequences of. NCLB can't possibly screw up education worse that it is already, and prescription drugs just might be worth it if we can get Social Security passed. And not getting hit by wave after wave of terrorist attacks like Tel Aviv during rush hour, that doesn't suck either (Maybe that's what the neos are trying to conserve?).
Even on the dangers posed by the immigration problem, where Buchanan and I are largely in agreement (a mob of foreigners, and people who think of themselves as foreigners, in our midst, is not a good thing. DUH, people), I don't think I would agree with his solution. Waves of immigration have been part of American history since time immemorial; what's at issue isn't whether they join our nation or not. When they are; they're a net gain for the U.S.A., When they're not, that's a source of trouble.
Pat wants to bring down an Iron Curtain on the U.S.-Mexico border. How that's isn't a Big Government solution to a problem, I don't know, but noting it makes me think of a thought I had regarding Andrew Sullivan, which I will hereby refer to as Patrick's Law: On the issues that he or she cares about, everyone is Big Government.
UPDATE: Boxing Alcibiades has a great example of what I'm talking about here. The Bush Administration's record on free trade is not the best. It would be a marvelous opportunity for the Democrats to use in '06. Who wants to bet that they'll even attempt to take advantage of it?
That said, gleaning his teeming brain still produces the occasional intelligent thought. In this Washington times piece, he comes up with a not unfair castigation of so-called neoconservatives:
"I'm often asked what exactly is it that they want to conserve. They are Wilsonian interventionists abroad; they are big government at home."
And within the context of his experience in politics, that's perfectly valid. Bush does sound like Wilson when he waxes rhapsodic about spreading freedom worldwide, and his compromises on education spending and prescription drugs and such are starting to look like LBJ-lite. But once again, I'm forced to stand up and shout "WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE?"
How are we to defeat terror, long-term, without changing the region that gives it birth? How are we to gain traction on some issues without compromising on others? Is Buchanan so enamoured of his electoral embarassments that he actively wishes to see the party he has served so long do likewise? It was easy for Barry Goldwater to be uncompromising; he had a whelk's chance in a supernova of winning. Just like nobody really wants to listen to Buchanan's crochety-grampa routine.
The same goes for anybody who accuses the GOP of "fair-weather federalism" or "big government conservatism" (which would include my good self). Politics is the art of the possible, and leadership in politics is the art of getting a few big ideas through, and leaving the rest for the people to either wise up on or accept the consequences of. NCLB can't possibly screw up education worse that it is already, and prescription drugs just might be worth it if we can get Social Security passed. And not getting hit by wave after wave of terrorist attacks like Tel Aviv during rush hour, that doesn't suck either (Maybe that's what the neos are trying to conserve?).
Even on the dangers posed by the immigration problem, where Buchanan and I are largely in agreement (a mob of foreigners, and people who think of themselves as foreigners, in our midst, is not a good thing. DUH, people), I don't think I would agree with his solution. Waves of immigration have been part of American history since time immemorial; what's at issue isn't whether they join our nation or not. When they are; they're a net gain for the U.S.A., When they're not, that's a source of trouble.
Pat wants to bring down an Iron Curtain on the U.S.-Mexico border. How that's isn't a Big Government solution to a problem, I don't know, but noting it makes me think of a thought I had regarding Andrew Sullivan, which I will hereby refer to as Patrick's Law: On the issues that he or she cares about, everyone is Big Government.
UPDATE: Boxing Alcibiades has a great example of what I'm talking about here. The Bush Administration's record on free trade is not the best. It would be a marvelous opportunity for the Democrats to use in '06. Who wants to bet that they'll even attempt to take advantage of it?
Monday, May 16, 2005
Multiculturalism's Lack of Culture
Mark Steyn is rapidly becoming one of my favorite writers, not the least of which is the fact that he can draw on knowledge of high and pop culture from the first half of the 20th century and make it relevant. Observe this:
I didn't even know Charlize Theron was South African. Read the whole thing.
In other words, if “multiculturalism” is intended to impart any facts about other cultures – the capital city of Malaysia; the principal exports of South Africa, apart from Charlize Theron – or even a vague curiosity about other cultures, then clearly it’s a spectacular failure. If you were to compare 2004’s output from Hollywood with 1944’s, you’d think a once thriving culture engaged with the world had suddenly developed a total aversion to foreigners. So obviously an interest in many cultures can’t have been the objective of “multiculturalism”. What then was its real point?
I didn't even know Charlize Theron was South African. Read the whole thing.
Friday, May 13, 2005
Blues
I am currently awash with piles of joyless work. Typical at the end of the year, but it's getting so I can hardly do any of the things I really enjoy doing. This makes it all rather pointless. I don't know how I'm going to respond to this, but I know I need to make a change.
And that poor excuse for a livejournal entry is probably all I'll have to say for today.
And that poor excuse for a livejournal entry is probably all I'll have to say for today.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Define your Morality
This is kind of interesting, although it's definition of "harm" is admittedly narrow. I'd like to point out that I think the question of whether something can be immoral solely because God says so is a little disingenuous, though perhaps not intentionally so. I would never say that something is immoral because God or the Bible says so. I would say, however, that I can trust that something is probably immoral, even if I don't fully understand why, because I have this secondhand knowledge from God.
The two statements are not the same. What religion tells us about morality does not re-define the world in the light of Revelation. Rather, it tells us what our place in the world is metaphysically. If God exists, then God created the world, and God created us. Morality is what allows us to live in the world and with its creator in an ordered fashion. Both us and our morality come from the same source.
Here's how I scored, for whatever it's worth:
The two statements are not the same. What religion tells us about morality does not re-define the world in the light of Revelation. Rather, it tells us what our place in the world is metaphysically. If God exists, then God created the world, and God created us. Morality is what allows us to live in the world and with its creator in an ordered fashion. Both us and our morality come from the same source.
Here's how I scored, for whatever it's worth:
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.60.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.40.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.75.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Interesting...
Adeimantus reveals the fact that he is "a shade or two darker" than many of his presumably WASPy liberal friends. I was not aware of this.
Is it merely human nature that I assume someone of education and a similar point of view is of my ethnicity, or is it just a Sad Commentary on our times?
Is it merely human nature that I assume someone of education and a similar point of view is of my ethnicity, or is it just a Sad Commentary on our times?
Monday, May 09, 2005
Friday, May 06, 2005
Sorry for the Light Blogging...
...but the world keeps getting in my way. I'll pick this up again on Monday. Good weekend to all.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Monday, May 02, 2005
Stephen Moore on Social Security Resistants...
From the NYPost:
Well, duh. The fewer money Uncle Sam has, the less powerful they are. What ruling class is anxious to see it's power diminished?
It is almost as if the Senate Democrats — and some feckless Republicans, too — have a hyper-allergic reaction to the notion of letting workers build up private wealth and personal ownership. A cynic might say that they are so wedded to preserving the welfare state that they want Americans to be dependent on government, even if it means they will be worse off financially.
Well, duh. The fewer money Uncle Sam has, the less powerful they are. What ruling class is anxious to see it's power diminished?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)