Thanks for all of the positive responses to Friday's blog on "Federalism!" Just today, George Will's most recent article entitled "Worthy Points to Debate" had the following paragraph responding to Mitt Romney's campaign stump speech claiming "redistribution is not an American Value." Will writes; "You say "redistribution" has "never been a characteristic of America." You have to be kidding, right? Is not redistribution one purpose of progressive taxation? Is not what government does - from agriculture subsidies to subsidized student loans to entitlements - the redistribution of wealth from one cohort or region to another?" Nice job George, but perhaps if you read my blog, you would have learned that I pointed that fact out a couple of weeks ago, and the list of "redistributions" is a lot longer than those listed in your article. Far too often, Federalism (defined as "The sharing of powers between a strong central government and its constituent states") is confused with "Socialism." Amazingly, some on the Right side of the political spectrum refuse to admit they are wrong, and "double down" on the notion that government is not needed or is a total waste. Can those people please admit that without federal assistance, many states (including virtually ALL of those led by Republican governors and State Houses) could not come close to balancing their constitutionally mandated balanced budgets without federal revenue sharing!? But why the discussion then? Because it remains "red meat" for the ignorant who mainly follow talking heads for their information.
Did anyone notice that Scientific American recently reported that over 93% of the material presented on climate change on Fox News is wrong? That 81% of the reports on climate change presented in The Wall Street Journal is also wrong? We know climate change should be a universal concern, but the GOP and its ideological supporters have made it a major political issue instead. Along the way, their main outlets for information have in fact been engaged in a campaign of obvious "misinformation." Gee, "Fair and Balanced" Fox News caught in documented lies? Can it be? You bet. Will this even remotely cause its avid audience to begin to question whether the information they routinely present on Obama or political issues may also be wrong? Don't count on it. Those on the extreme ends of both sides ("Wing Nuts") fairly often refuse to face actual facts, and instead, act defensively by attacking the messenger instead. When facts are not in their favor, they label the messenger as "biased" and "Untruthful." Perhaps that is why the Romney camp actually came out and proclaimed they were not at all concerned with "Fact Checkers" in this campaign?
More evidence of misinformation was just confirmed again with a statement by Mike Huckabee that the Administration's handling of the murder of our diplomats, including Ambassador Stevens is nothing more than a cover-up "worse than Watergate." I will agree it does not look good. I will agree that we must have an administration that can get its act together when tragedy occurs. But "worse than Watergate?" How little Huckabee and his audience knows about Watergate. How little they remember, no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq! When will Americans learn that the real fog of confusion is created by pundits and talking heads. How can we demand our politicians talk "straight" with us until we demand the media talk straight first?
Did anyone notice that Scientific American recently reported that over 93% of the material presented on climate change on Fox News is wrong? That 81% of the reports on climate change presented in The Wall Street Journal is also wrong? We know climate change should be a universal concern, but the GOP and its ideological supporters have made it a major political issue instead. Along the way, their main outlets for information have in fact been engaged in a campaign of obvious "misinformation." Gee, "Fair and Balanced" Fox News caught in documented lies? Can it be? You bet. Will this even remotely cause its avid audience to begin to question whether the information they routinely present on Obama or political issues may also be wrong? Don't count on it. Those on the extreme ends of both sides ("Wing Nuts") fairly often refuse to face actual facts, and instead, act defensively by attacking the messenger instead. When facts are not in their favor, they label the messenger as "biased" and "Untruthful." Perhaps that is why the Romney camp actually came out and proclaimed they were not at all concerned with "Fact Checkers" in this campaign?
More evidence of misinformation was just confirmed again with a statement by Mike Huckabee that the Administration's handling of the murder of our diplomats, including Ambassador Stevens is nothing more than a cover-up "worse than Watergate." I will agree it does not look good. I will agree that we must have an administration that can get its act together when tragedy occurs. But "worse than Watergate?" How little Huckabee and his audience knows about Watergate. How little they remember, no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq! When will Americans learn that the real fog of confusion is created by pundits and talking heads. How can we demand our politicians talk "straight" with us until we demand the media talk straight first?
RSS Feed
