The Janesville Messenger, a proud member of the local monopoly of media propagandists that includes the Janesville Gazette and their affiliated radio stations are in full campaign mode saturating the Rock County area with GOP electioneering hackery.
The victims of an educated citizenry penning the editorial in Sunday's Janesville Messenger (Page 6) seemed to have gotten their underwear all bunched up after President Obama stopped in Madison last week reminding folks not to forget who really drove the country into the ground.
Titled "No 'civic duty' to vote," the way they see it is, is that the majority of Americans MUST be ignorant since Barack Obama won the presidency. What else could explain it? And since they believe most voters are either clueless or too stupid to vote intelligently - they should embrace the civic duty on election day ... by staying home.
Democrats must not let republicans win by default. That's all the hope republicans have - it's all riding on the premise that America won't show up to vote.
Showing posts with label Messenger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Messenger. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Congress Should Defund Murderous War Profiteers
This coincidence was too good to pass up after the far Right-wing Janesville Messenger slammed the 75 Democrats for voting against defunding the community group ACORN.
In this video, Rachel Maddow takes sharp aim at those groups and suggests no organizations should be exempt from defunding and prosecution, and that includes ACORN. Cut them all loose.
Maddow: Congress Should Defund Murderous War Profiteers
A Glenn Beck Truism: Why is MSNBC and Rachel Maddow the only major network to report on this? Where is Fox, CNN and the rest of the mainstream media? What does that tell you - Huh?
Janesville Messenger Editorial Excerpt: (Page 6)It's strange they would suggest that ACORN would have to take up murder before certain members of Congress would defund them. Because that's exactly what many Private Military Companies (PMC's) and other right-leaning organizations leeching off of taxpayers take up along with prostitution and fraud, and they're still in business. Of course the crimes alleged against ACORN pale in comparison.
All of which begs the question: What would ACORN have to do, short of murder, to convince Baldwin that it doesn't deserve a hand-out from the American taxpayer.
In this video, Rachel Maddow takes sharp aim at those groups and suggests no organizations should be exempt from defunding and prosecution, and that includes ACORN. Cut them all loose.
Maddow: Congress Should Defund Murderous War Profiteers
A Glenn Beck Truism: Why is MSNBC and Rachel Maddow the only major network to report on this? Where is Fox, CNN and the rest of the mainstream media? What does that tell you - Huh?
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Janesville Paper Slams Baldwin As ACORN Apologist
Janesville Messenger Editorial Excerpt: (Page 6)
Baldwin was one of just 75 Democrats to vote against cutting off the cash for the federally funded community organization ACORN, which has been implicated in cases of voter-registration, and most widely in a sting that exposed various employees across the county who were willing to....
With mounting evidence and intense pressure from a media campaign against the group, Democrats for the most part, have become increasingly unwilling to defend the group's large body of good works. Given that, would anyone doubt it took incredible courage to cast that vote in the face of the conspiratorial driven media campaign against the community organization? Despite video taped allegations, ACORN should have been allowed to defend itself against the evidence before the House entertained the Republicans amendment to defund the group. Instead, the weak-kneed congress buckled under the pressure from media stooge Glenn Beck and his cast of clowns at Fox News. What an embarrassment.Like most congressional decisions driven by partisan hacks, this action by the right will very likely come back to haunt them and their associated community organizations.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Local Editors Differ On Media Reality
A couple of weeks ago, the editor of the Janesville Gazette, Scott Angus, took the right-wing spinner Bill O'Reilly to task over an a article O'Reilly wrote about on things he learned in 2008, including media bias. The Gazette editor strongly opposed O'Reilly's view that candidates in the 2008 presidential campaign received differential treatment from the press. Originally, I had no intentions to write about the editor's view of O'Reilly, after all like everyone else, it's his opinion. But the newspaper has been stretching out this non-story repeatedly through their anonymous "Sound Off" column in what appears to be an off-balance defense of their own publication.
Taking verbal shots at somebody like Fox News Bill O’Reilly is like aiming a shotgun at a barn, you usually can’t miss. As much as O’Reilly is a journalistic phony, he can rant on about five hundred different subjects in any given year, to which two or three he can make sense on. As a citizen blogging about the media and it's effects on politics and public opinion, I’ve been carrying on about our local media bias for several years now. Finally, media bias is something O'Reilly happens to agree with me on. But so does Bill Moyers, Dan Rather, Jon Stewart, Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky and all the folks at Fair Media, Free Press and Media Matters, just to name a few. They all have spoken out against the literally corrupted traditional media in America and are far more credible on media bias than Bill O'Reilly.
But, the Gazette editor seemed to have taken O'Reilly's remarks personally, as if O'Reilly was directly criticizing the Gazette. No such luck. Angus defended his newspaper for one reason, because he thought it was necessary.
The Gazette by far is one of the most politically biased, news distorting local issue omitters I have ever read for a daily publication of such modest size. In those regards, they are a wild success. Evidence of this is written about and exposed in dozens of examples throughout my blog. Going after a distant fellow like O’Reilly allows the Gazette to address criticisms of media bias on their own terms without answering any of those observations. As long as it works for them - that's what counts.
Now some folks, in a high-pitched snot-faced sort of way, have said to me, "nobody is twisting your arm to read the Gazette, if you don't like it, don't buy it, change the channel." To those folks I've said "sorry, but I can't expose the underlying agendas, deceptions and distortions of others by ignoring them." Besides, adopting the "ignore and they will go away" defense philosophy is the hallmark of either a sanctimonious fool or a coward. If anything, I will opine my opposition of what I believe is wrong as often as necessary, and hope never to shirk this all important duty of American citizenry, whether they ignore me or not.
Just this past Sunday (January 25), the editor(s) of the Gazette’s sister publication, the Janesville Messenger, expressed what they believed in and wrote one of their typically bloated editorials filled with anti-American rhetoric and unhinged demagoguery. But they also said this…….
Taking verbal shots at somebody like Fox News Bill O’Reilly is like aiming a shotgun at a barn, you usually can’t miss. As much as O’Reilly is a journalistic phony, he can rant on about five hundred different subjects in any given year, to which two or three he can make sense on. As a citizen blogging about the media and it's effects on politics and public opinion, I’ve been carrying on about our local media bias for several years now. Finally, media bias is something O'Reilly happens to agree with me on. But so does Bill Moyers, Dan Rather, Jon Stewart, Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky and all the folks at Fair Media, Free Press and Media Matters, just to name a few. They all have spoken out against the literally corrupted traditional media in America and are far more credible on media bias than Bill O'Reilly.
O'Reilly Excerpt:After blow-harding his way with his own brand of phony journalism, and making a very good buck at it, Billo has finally come around to this truth: You're never too old to learn. That O'Reilly happened to use Barack Obama and Sarah Palin as his examples of media bias is fine with me if that's what it takes to raise his level of media bias awareness - good for him. We can now say that O'Reilly's years of previous ignorance on media bias can be written off as harmless "youthful conservative indiscretions."
So, the lesson here is clear: No longer can the American media be relied upon to bring us fact-based information. The news media has entered the ideology business, much like talk radio. This will greatly harm the nation, as unbiased information is critical for an informed citizenry. The collapse of journalistic standards was a huge but largely untold story in 2008.
But, the Gazette editor seemed to have taken O'Reilly's remarks personally, as if O'Reilly was directly criticizing the Gazette. No such luck. Angus defended his newspaper for one reason, because he thought it was necessary.
The Gazette by far is one of the most politically biased, news distorting local issue omitters I have ever read for a daily publication of such modest size. In those regards, they are a wild success. Evidence of this is written about and exposed in dozens of examples throughout my blog. Going after a distant fellow like O’Reilly allows the Gazette to address criticisms of media bias on their own terms without answering any of those observations. As long as it works for them - that's what counts.
Now some folks, in a high-pitched snot-faced sort of way, have said to me, "nobody is twisting your arm to read the Gazette, if you don't like it, don't buy it, change the channel." To those folks I've said "sorry, but I can't expose the underlying agendas, deceptions and distortions of others by ignoring them." Besides, adopting the "ignore and they will go away" defense philosophy is the hallmark of either a sanctimonious fool or a coward. If anything, I will opine my opposition of what I believe is wrong as often as necessary, and hope never to shirk this all important duty of American citizenry, whether they ignore me or not.
Just this past Sunday (January 25), the editor(s) of the Gazette’s sister publication, the Janesville Messenger, expressed what they believed in and wrote one of their typically bloated editorials filled with anti-American rhetoric and unhinged demagoguery. But they also said this…….
Janesville Messenger Editorial Excerpt:Media love affair? When will the media's love for Obama begin to wane? And so it is, one Bliss newspaper editor credits a media controlled public for Obama's popularity, basically O'Reilly's position. While the other one said the bias is the reality, and the media innocently reports it ........so the question is - whose bias is the reality?
But rapturous Obamaphiles might want to reflect more thoughtfully on the media love affair with BHO. Passions wane over time, after all.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Wisconsin Voters Eligible - For Now
Sunday’s (Oct. 19) Janesville Messenger contained an editorial comprised of excerpts from three national publications attempting to divert attention away from the important issues of the day with the overheated rhetoric of voter registration fraud.
In a bold-faced move just eight weeks before Election Day, Wisconsin’s Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen (R)started a frivolous voter registration lawsuit only after he became McCain's state campaign co-chair. Designed to deflate voter confidence and gum up democratic efforts, Van Hollen's suit was finally seen for what it is and thrown out of court on Thursday.
After Election Day '08, Van Hollen will have two more years until his own election day of reckoning, lets hope he finds the time then to do something about his newfound crusade against voters.
Read Marge Krupp's statement on the court ruling here.
The Messenger also contained a confusing article written by Star Parker who blames government for the financial crisis when the masters of Wall Street speculated on an inch of deregulation and greedily turned it into a mile. Parker regularly and naively blames the government for creating the hold the “welfare state” has on the free markets, and its effect on urban centers, bankers and financiers. Yet, she implies – the free markets can regulate themselves. Our problem is - WE just don't understand.
If anything, Parker should at least convince herself with her own rationale and celebrate the financial crisis because after all, she writes - what we are watching is the latest failure of the welfare state. If you've read Parker's columns in the past, nothing should make her happier than this.
But if we are watching the failure of the welfare state as she alone understands and gleefully explains, will it still continue to fail if the rest of us don't understand it?
The League of Women Voters put the fabricated crisis surrounding Wisconsin's voter registration in clear perspective.
Read humans refusing to smear Obama for McCain campaign.
Messenger Editorial Excerpt:Wrong. The day AFTER election day is the BEST time for states, attorney generals and local jurisdictions to prepare for and aggressively press for more voter safeguards for the next election.
If we learned anything from the mess in Florida in 2000, it’s this: When elections don’t end on Election Day, things get ugly quickly. That is why today, and not the day after Election Day, is the day for Americans of all political stripes to aggressively press for more robust safeguards against vote fraud….. —National Review
In a bold-faced move just eight weeks before Election Day, Wisconsin’s Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen (R)started a frivolous voter registration lawsuit only after he became McCain's state campaign co-chair. Designed to deflate voter confidence and gum up democratic efforts, Van Hollen's suit was finally seen for what it is and thrown out of court on Thursday.
After Election Day '08, Van Hollen will have two more years until his own election day of reckoning, lets hope he finds the time then to do something about his newfound crusade against voters.
Read Marge Krupp's statement on the court ruling here.
Messenger Editorial Excerpt:But isn't the "go-along, get along" theme the social doctrine conservatives apply on those ever-changing liberals to participate in and join the status quo? Since when is liberalism "conventional" and conservatism anything else but "the same old?"
McCain and Palin are common sense conservatives and proven reformers. Their record of reform can be emphasized and contrasted with Obama’s and Biden’s record of conventional, go-along, get along liberalism. -- The Weekly Standard
Messenger Editorial Excerpt:But everyone knows “unaffordable housing” caused the crisis, who do we blame for that?
ACORN helped make the term ”affordable housing” a Washington staple. So as the roots of the financial crisis are laid bare, take a hard look at ACORN. – The Washington Times
The Messenger also contained a confusing article written by Star Parker who blames government for the financial crisis when the masters of Wall Street speculated on an inch of deregulation and greedily turned it into a mile. Parker regularly and naively blames the government for creating the hold the “welfare state” has on the free markets, and its effect on urban centers, bankers and financiers. Yet, she implies – the free markets can regulate themselves. Our problem is - WE just don't understand. If anything, Parker should at least convince herself with her own rationale and celebrate the financial crisis because after all, she writes - what we are watching is the latest failure of the welfare state. If you've read Parker's columns in the past, nothing should make her happier than this.
But if we are watching the failure of the welfare state as she alone understands and gleefully explains, will it still continue to fail if the rest of us don't understand it?
The League of Women Voters put the fabricated crisis surrounding Wisconsin's voter registration in clear perspective.
League of Women Voters Urges Citizens to Vote:
People should not be put off by scare tactics, nor confused by misinformation and myths about voter fraud. Our system in Wisconsin is a model for the nation.
Read humans refusing to smear Obama for McCain campaign.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Did Bush and Paulson Cause Global Panic?
The editorial in Sunday’s Janesville Messenger titled “Some lies are worse than others” was another one-sided but amusing attempt by the newspaper to throw the blame for the current economic catastrophe onto the back of yet another Democrat.
But the consequences resulting from Reid’s remarks posed little danger and were easily repairable when compared to statements made by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on September 24th when he waltzed into Congress like a man yelling "fire!" into a crowded movie theatre.……
Or how about on September 25th, when the incompetent President Bush had a few comments of his own to soothe the jittery markets.
Also on the editorial page of the Sunday Messenger was an article written by Richard Rahn, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, he writes.....
Janesville Messenger Editorial Excerpt:Reid could have said “major” automaker just as well, it wouldn’t have surprised anyone. But the truth is, it was soon revealed that AIG, the world’s largest insurance firm needed an additional $38 billion on top of the $85 billion loan they received from the Fed just two weeks earlier. There was no need for Reid to apologize for his statement. There was some truth behind it.
The feckless Reid, …..said last week that quick action was needed to bail out the ailing financial industry because a “major” insurance company would go bankrupt if markets weren’t calmed. Already skittish investors reacted immediately, sending stock prices for three of the largest insurance companies plunging.
But the consequences resulting from Reid’s remarks posed little danger and were easily repairable when compared to statements made by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on September 24th when he waltzed into Congress like a man yelling "fire!" into a crowded movie theatre.……
Paulson Warns Of Consequences:Unlike the vague warning Reid spoke of mentioning a “major” insurance company, no one had to guess which global stock market Paulson was referring to, there’s only one.
Architects of a $700 billion bailout plan urged US lawmakers to act swiftly or face dire economic consequences as global stock markets fell for a second day on growing concern the rescue may be delayed.
Or how about on September 25th, when the incompetent President Bush had a few comments of his own to soothe the jittery markets.
Bush Warns of Danger:Speculators needn't speculate which America Bush was referring to. But was he afraid his bail out bill might fail? Ever since Paulson and Bush opened up their big mouths, the DOW lost 2,500 points, 401k’s lost over two trillion dollars and it could take years before those losses are recouped. Yes indeed, some lies are worse than others.
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday that lawmakers risk a cascade of wiped-out retirement savings, rising home foreclosures, lost jobs and closed businesses if they fail to act on a massive financial rescue plan. "Our entire economy is in danger," he said. Without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic and a distressing scenario would unfold,"
Also on the editorial page of the Sunday Messenger was an article written by Richard Rahn, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, he writes.....
Who really caused financial meltdown?:Just a week earlier, Rep. Paul Ryan, who we've been repeatedly reminded by his Bail-Out defenders that he holds a bachelors degree in economics and political science had this to say.
"Following the stock market collapse of 1929, the Hoover Administration tried to spend its way out of Great Depression, increasing federal spending by 47 percent between 1929 and 1932..........
Wall Street Journal Excerpt:One says Hoover did too much - the other said Hoover didn't do enough. But the best blurp from Ryan is perhaps his self-describing "laissez-faire conservative." Now that's a good one.
"This is a Herbert Hoover moment, where he sat by and let a Wall Street crash turn into a Great Depression . . . There are times when free-markets stop and rational thinking goes out the window. It then isn't enough to be a laissez-faire conservative and let Rome burn . . ." — Rep.Paul Ryan
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Will Political Winds Backlash Into Perfect Storm?
What a difference a change in ownership can make. One of the things the Janesville Messenger used to do well in the past was with their local election stories and coverage. They were usually written with a neutral bias, in sort of a “I write ‘em as I sees ‘em – you decide” kind of way. Those days are over.
Sunday’s Janesville Messenger front page story titled, “Ryan’s challengers face uphill battle” contained several passages that were heavily weighted against his challengers and glossed over Ryan’s record of party-line votes with opinions from biased observers.
On top of it all, Republicans complained it was the Democrats who lacked leadership and blamed them for the failed bail out. Never mind that 2/3 of democrats voted for the bill.
The article, and this was not an op-ed, also conjectured about Ryan’s future in government by purposely placing his skill set above his duties and abilities as representative while implying that his challengers are not his equals.
It comes down to this. If we don’t like where things have been headed for the past ten years, why in the world would anyone vote for the same party policies, principles and partisans that got us to where we are today, more so particularly, that party's rising stars?
Sunday’s Janesville Messenger front page story titled, “Ryan’s challengers face uphill battle” contained several passages that were heavily weighted against his challengers and glossed over Ryan’s record of party-line votes with opinions from biased observers.
JM Excerpt:You know he's not talking about Democrats here. Presumably, this article was written before the bill eventually passed. But on Tuesday, the majority of House Republicans voted against the bill and were on the public’s side – except Ryan……he voted for it. So, Ryan is not representative of that "right side of the public" group. Secondly, once Ryan dropped his purported free-market principles, with or without the addition of capital gains tax cuts or earmarks, his position on the bill was to tow the GOP house party-line which was for the bail-out.
“I see little dissatisfaction with Rep. Ryan……….Second, unless there is an amazing backlash to the stock market plunge (Tuesday) that outweighs the backlash from the Republican House vote against the current plan, Republicans in the House probably are on the right side of the public." -- observer
Folkbum Excerpt:When a majority of republican’s voted against the bill, they also voted against GOP house leadership. This exposed a deep fracture within the party. But not Ryan, he boldly tows the party-line. Throw in his propensity towards Wall Street and there was no way Ryan would vote against this bail-out bill. Principles and constituents be damned.
It's simple, really: Paul Ryan voted for this bill because John Boehner told him to.
On top of it all, Republicans complained it was the Democrats who lacked leadership and blamed them for the failed bail out. Never mind that 2/3 of democrats voted for the bill.
The article, and this was not an op-ed, also conjectured about Ryan’s future in government by purposely placing his skill set above his duties and abilities as representative while implying that his challengers are not his equals.
JM Excerpt:So good – in fact? The key here of course is Ryan is “one of his party’s rising stars.” I won’t deny that, and you too would be a star if you towed the “party-line” 90% of the time and pushed the party’s ideology in bills and policy. Constituents? Why…. those are the political winds.
So good, in fact, that political observers regard the 38-year-old as one of the party's rising stars.
It comes down to this. If we don’t like where things have been headed for the past ten years, why in the world would anyone vote for the same party policies, principles and partisans that got us to where we are today, more so particularly, that party's rising stars?
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Local Newspaper Turned Into Partisan Plaything
It didn’t take the new owner of the Janesville Messenger, Bliss Communications, too long to turn the Messenger, a twice-a-week free newspaper, into a full blown WMC propaganding hack-arm for the Republican Party. Last week Wednesday’s Messenger set the stage when the newspaper exploited the military service of a candidate for the Wisconsin state legislature into a shameless political folly as a front-page news story. Of course, the candidate’s party officials gave their blessings!
Sunday’s edition of the Messenger continued on this apparent new path. Articles were loaded down with business promotional material and WMC affiliates masquerading as news articles including one on TV4US, describing the corporate lobbyist organization as an advocacy group working on behalf of cable customers. The Messenger editorial page, never to be outdone, was the usual mindless chatter and demagoguery most of us in Janesville have become accustomed to over the years.
But the story here is, in my years of reading and watching these newspapers, I’ve never seen the Messenger taken down to such bottom-feeding depths and one-dimensional content outside of the editorial page. Evidently, Bliss has turned this newspaper into a battering ram plaything for itself to promote their political agenda.
Individuals with progressive ideals and like-minded businesses in Rock and Walworth might want to take a step back and reconsider what these newspapers represent and what you’re supporting when buying into marketing and advertising in their pages. Granted, Bliss has a near monopoly here and there are few local alternatives, but we’re not doing ourselves any favors supporting newspapers whose political agenda will thrive only by dividing the community.
On a separate but relevant note and not much better than our newspapers here in Janesville, was the newsprint front page of Sunday’s Chicago Tribune. The headliner read, “The Mud Hits Chicago: The murder rate in the city is up 18 percent over last year. Republicans and attack ads are trying to put the blame on Barack Obama. We weigh the charges against his record.” No kidding here folks, the Chicago Tribune, once considered one of the top newspapers in the country, thinks running an attack ad on their front page and then debating it - is headline news! And traditional newsprint wonders why they're losing readers?
Best Explanation For Georgia/Russia Conflict so far.
Sunday’s edition of the Messenger continued on this apparent new path. Articles were loaded down with business promotional material and WMC affiliates masquerading as news articles including one on TV4US, describing the corporate lobbyist organization as an advocacy group working on behalf of cable customers. The Messenger editorial page, never to be outdone, was the usual mindless chatter and demagoguery most of us in Janesville have become accustomed to over the years.
But the story here is, in my years of reading and watching these newspapers, I’ve never seen the Messenger taken down to such bottom-feeding depths and one-dimensional content outside of the editorial page. Evidently, Bliss has turned this newspaper into a battering ram plaything for itself to promote their political agenda.
Individuals with progressive ideals and like-minded businesses in Rock and Walworth might want to take a step back and reconsider what these newspapers represent and what you’re supporting when buying into marketing and advertising in their pages. Granted, Bliss has a near monopoly here and there are few local alternatives, but we’re not doing ourselves any favors supporting newspapers whose political agenda will thrive only by dividing the community.
On a separate but relevant note and not much better than our newspapers here in Janesville, was the newsprint front page of Sunday’s Chicago Tribune. The headliner read, “The Mud Hits Chicago: The murder rate in the city is up 18 percent over last year. Republicans and attack ads are trying to put the blame on Barack Obama. We weigh the charges against his record.” No kidding here folks, the Chicago Tribune, once considered one of the top newspapers in the country, thinks running an attack ad on their front page and then debating it - is headline news! And traditional newsprint wonders why they're losing readers?
Best Explanation For Georgia/Russia Conflict so far.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Media Consolidation Hurts On Any Scale
As a critic of our local news and print media, you might've thought I would be happy to hear that the owner of CSI, the parent company of several local free publications sold out their interests to Bliss Communications, owner of the Janesville Gazette. You'd be wrong.
For all my criticism, the Messenger’s news articles including coverage of local political debates and elections were fairly balanced, even superior, compared to the Gazette. And their local stories were usually a nice reprieve from the social programming and embedded political agenda the Gazette regularly delves out.
The Messenger had what I would call a one page problem. It was their editorial page. Much to their credit though, at least the Messenger’s political agenda was confined to that page, in striking contrast to the Gazette. But boy did the Messenger take it to the extremes when they editorialized. Unlike the Gazette’s comical attempts to hide their partisanship, the Messenger's editor(s) made no effort to hide their lefty hatred.
Their far-right anarcho-capitalist editorials were enough to make Limbaugh or Coulter blush and oftentimes were so politically aloof and groundless, there was no point trying to counter this hell-bent perspective. Sometimes I actually thought their editorials were at the cutting edge of reverse propaganda.
But the real story of serious importance is the media consolidation and the monopolization of news programming and marketing. When alternatives are not available in local news and advertising, other voices are eventually pushed out of the market and off the airwaves.
On any scale, media consolidation means:
Fewer voices and viewpoints
Less diversity in ownership and programming
Less coverage of local issues that matter to communities
Less of the unbiased, independent, critical journalism we need to prevent abuses of power
One media owner can influence:
What news and information communities receive
What voices are heard – or silenced
Whether important issues get covered accurately – or covered at all
Who gets hired to report and produce the news
What music and which artists get airplay
How women and people of color are portrayed in the media
* Above points from Free Press.
Whether you read the Messenger, or agreed with them or not didn’t matter. It was the idea that different thoughts were heard from people with different backgrounds and perspectives away from the dictum of another, in this case, the Gazette’s hierarchy. That is all changed now, nowadays you don’t have to be Time Warner, General Electric, Disney, Rupert Murdoch or Clear Channel to be considered a threat to democracy. This local consolidation is just as threatening and it is not good news for the Rock or Walworth county area. More voices of democracy will disappear as they are systematically deleted from the community discourse.
Well Equipped House For A Flood
On Beloit Ave. near Jeffris Park - Photo sent in by reader
JG Excerpt - June 17, 2008:Among them of course, the Janesville Messenger, the only other publication with local content delivered to the doorsteps of Janesville area homes. This is bad news.
JANESVILLE — Bliss Communications, the publisher of The Janesville Gazette and several other daily newspapers, announced today that it has acquired Community Shoppers Inc. and its family of free distribution publications.
For all my criticism, the Messenger’s news articles including coverage of local political debates and elections were fairly balanced, even superior, compared to the Gazette. And their local stories were usually a nice reprieve from the social programming and embedded political agenda the Gazette regularly delves out.
The Messenger had what I would call a one page problem. It was their editorial page. Much to their credit though, at least the Messenger’s political agenda was confined to that page, in striking contrast to the Gazette. But boy did the Messenger take it to the extremes when they editorialized. Unlike the Gazette’s comical attempts to hide their partisanship, the Messenger's editor(s) made no effort to hide their lefty hatred.
Their far-right anarcho-capitalist editorials were enough to make Limbaugh or Coulter blush and oftentimes were so politically aloof and groundless, there was no point trying to counter this hell-bent perspective. Sometimes I actually thought their editorials were at the cutting edge of reverse propaganda.
But the real story of serious importance is the media consolidation and the monopolization of news programming and marketing. When alternatives are not available in local news and advertising, other voices are eventually pushed out of the market and off the airwaves.
On any scale, media consolidation means:
Fewer voices and viewpoints
Less diversity in ownership and programming
Less coverage of local issues that matter to communities
Less of the unbiased, independent, critical journalism we need to prevent abuses of power
One media owner can influence:
What news and information communities receive
What voices are heard – or silenced
Whether important issues get covered accurately – or covered at all
Who gets hired to report and produce the news
What music and which artists get airplay
How women and people of color are portrayed in the media
* Above points from Free Press.
Whether you read the Messenger, or agreed with them or not didn’t matter. It was the idea that different thoughts were heard from people with different backgrounds and perspectives away from the dictum of another, in this case, the Gazette’s hierarchy. That is all changed now, nowadays you don’t have to be Time Warner, General Electric, Disney, Rupert Murdoch or Clear Channel to be considered a threat to democracy. This local consolidation is just as threatening and it is not good news for the Rock or Walworth county area. More voices of democracy will disappear as they are systematically deleted from the community discourse.
Well Equipped House For A FloodOn Beloit Ave. near Jeffris Park - Photo sent in by reader
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Ryan Courageously Representing Corporate Interests
It didn’t take long after the Janesville Gazette and the Beloit Daily News gave tender endorsements for Paul Ryan’s Roadmap plan, that the Janesville Messenger would pitch in their support with a cover story promoting Ryan’s rattling caravan of old far-right-wing tax cut election year ideas.
To be fair to the newspaper, at least the twice-weekly newspaper allowed opposing viewpoints including those from two Democratic candidates challenging Ryan for the congressional seat.
But the more I read Ryan’s plan, the more it turns my stomach. And the more I read the reactions from others here and here, including the Messenger article, the more I realize many feel the same way I do.
If there is any consolation for Paul Ryan, it appears to come from the media’s willingness to give him some credit for drawing attention to problems his own votes have exacerbated. But this too, is like giving Hurricane Katrina credit for drawing attention to New Orleans.
One of the main talking points behind Ryan's corrective measures is his contention that more tax cuts/credits will lift the debt burden of entitlement spending on future deficits. Yet he seems to ignore the CBO-based CBPP findings that show recent legislated tax cuts are responsible for nearly half of our running deficits.
When you’ve come up with a plan to cut taxes for the wealthy even more than Bush did, eliminate all corporate taxes including taxes on profits and dividends, use government as a strong-arm middle-man for Wall Street investment firms, relegate health care priorities to nothing more than a shopping experience, and replace employer sponsored health insurance with a tax credit, I’d say you laid down more than a ideological marker. I’d say the 1st Congressional District of Wisconsin no longer has a representative in Congress. I’d say we have a Wall Street broker.
To be fair to the newspaper, at least the twice-weekly newspaper allowed opposing viewpoints including those from two Democratic candidates challenging Ryan for the congressional seat.
But the more I read Ryan’s plan, the more it turns my stomach. And the more I read the reactions from others here and here, including the Messenger article, the more I realize many feel the same way I do.
If there is any consolation for Paul Ryan, it appears to come from the media’s willingness to give him some credit for drawing attention to problems his own votes have exacerbated. But this too, is like giving Hurricane Katrina credit for drawing attention to New Orleans.
JM Excerpt:This appears to be among the first I’ve heard trying to draw a separation between Ryan and Bush. For a lack of a better analogy at the moment, they'd have better luck trying to split a hair using a butter knife.
“Paul Ryan really has laid down an ideological marker here. This is much more Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater than it is George W. Bush.”
Dead End Excerpt:Yet, I don’t know how many times I’ve heard Ryan’s supporters claim he is not an ideologue OR a partisan. Nothing is further from the truth. The “Roadmap for America’s Future” is more a ideological profile of it’s author, a radical corporate right-wing business model dressed up in a moderate conservative suit for public consumption, than it is a comprehensive view of the inner workings of government.
Fortunately it appears that the extreme free-market ideas of George W. Bush and Paul Ryan are on the wane and we are moving into a period where policies that view carefully crafted government involvement as a positive force are on the rise.
One of the main talking points behind Ryan's corrective measures is his contention that more tax cuts/credits will lift the debt burden of entitlement spending on future deficits. Yet he seems to ignore the CBO-based CBPP findings that show recent legislated tax cuts are responsible for nearly half of our running deficits.
When you’ve come up with a plan to cut taxes for the wealthy even more than Bush did, eliminate all corporate taxes including taxes on profits and dividends, use government as a strong-arm middle-man for Wall Street investment firms, relegate health care priorities to nothing more than a shopping experience, and replace employer sponsored health insurance with a tax credit, I’d say you laid down more than a ideological marker. I’d say the 1st Congressional District of Wisconsin no longer has a representative in Congress. I’d say we have a Wall Street broker.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Radical Tax Policies Threaten To Divide Nation Further
The Sunday edition (April 27th) of the Janesville Messenger contained their bi-annual tax ritual editorial titled,"Tax policy threatens to divide nation."
When the top 300,000 Americans collectively rake in income equivalent to the bottom 150 million Americans, something is wrong and it has nothing to do with taxes.
But to be fair, the Messenger editorial is about tax policy, and in simple terms we are taxed not as an individual but by the income we earn determined by sliding-scale brackets for the best and fairest of reasons. For instance, if the country produced $5 trillion in annual cash flows and you alone collected 2.5 trillion of it - you are in a bracket that collected 50% of all revenue, you would be required to pay 50% of the goverment's operating costs. It may be 20% percent of 2.5 trillion dollars or it might be 80% percent, whatever the government requires. Granted, I'm looking at supply side only, but this isn't rocket science.
A flat tax is an income-blind tax that would raise the cost of living tremendously to anyone earning less than $200,000.
The Fair Tax or flat tax recently promoted by some GOP presidential candidates including Mike Huckabee actually involves a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level. Is that what poor Americans really want? ....another entitlement? Contrary to what rich people think, the masses don't want a hand-out. They WANT to pay their fair share in taxes providing they're paid their fair share in wages. If you think there is a great divide between the rich and the poor now, you ain’t seen nothing till you see what a flat tax, a two-tier two-America's tax rate or sales only tax would do. Any of them would be devastating.
Drop the phony moniker and implications of the "Fair Tax" plan and endorse the implied simplicity of a Fair Wage doctrine designed to not only pay everyone a living wage, but a taxable one as well.
JM Editorial Excerpt:Oh, boo-hoo-hoo.
According to a study conducted by Stephen Moore, a senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal, the top 10 percent of wage earners in the country now pay 68 percent of federal income taxes. The bottom 50 pay just 3 percent.
When the top 300,000 Americans collectively rake in income equivalent to the bottom 150 million Americans, something is wrong and it has nothing to do with taxes.
But to be fair, the Messenger editorial is about tax policy, and in simple terms we are taxed not as an individual but by the income we earn determined by sliding-scale brackets for the best and fairest of reasons. For instance, if the country produced $5 trillion in annual cash flows and you alone collected 2.5 trillion of it - you are in a bracket that collected 50% of all revenue, you would be required to pay 50% of the goverment's operating costs. It may be 20% percent of 2.5 trillion dollars or it might be 80% percent, whatever the government requires. Granted, I'm looking at supply side only, but this isn't rocket science.
A flat tax is an income-blind tax that would raise the cost of living tremendously to anyone earning less than $200,000.
The Fair Tax or flat tax recently promoted by some GOP presidential candidates including Mike Huckabee actually involves a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level. Is that what poor Americans really want? ....another entitlement? Contrary to what rich people think, the masses don't want a hand-out. They WANT to pay their fair share in taxes providing they're paid their fair share in wages. If you think there is a great divide between the rich and the poor now, you ain’t seen nothing till you see what a flat tax, a two-tier two-America's tax rate or sales only tax would do. Any of them would be devastating.
Drop the phony moniker and implications of the "Fair Tax" plan and endorse the implied simplicity of a Fair Wage doctrine designed to not only pay everyone a living wage, but a taxable one as well.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
With Republicans, Reform Wasn't Necessary
The April 15th edition of the Janesville Messenger contained an article written by Jim Lyke in which he offered his perspective about the recent local elections.
There is widespread agreement that the non-partisan state supreme court race was dirty, but Lyke along with many others think a candidate shouldn’t dig too deeply into the work record of their opposition. I strongly disagree. They could frame it as a “private” investigator hired to dig up dirt, but in Ziegler’s case with the hundreds if not thousands of decisions and positions a judge makes during their career, you need an investigator to pour over these documents to find the truth. Clifford’s investigation did just that but revealed nothing about Ziegler’s private life during the campaign and without that “investigation,” no one would have ever suspected Ziegler’s conflict of interest. Even her victims didn't know. Compared to Ziegler, Clifford ran a very clean campaign. But she lost because heavily financed negative campaigns work.
But I also find the typical assumptions that partisans often make regarding chambers of commerce and business interests in Lyke’s column. For instance the very idea that because Democrats are in the majority, the WMC shouldn’t be too rigorous in their efforts to further the interest of the business community, otherwise they will make enemies, implies that Democrats are anti-business. Lyke also defends Forward Janesville as a bi-partisan or non-partisan institution simply because they don’t publicly endorse candidates or have a political action committee? Forward Janesville clearly has a political agenda and beats the very same, only slightly smaller drum as the WMC. There may be a token streak of democratic ideals somewhere in their mission statement but they are clearly a tool of Republicanism.
Chambers of commerce like Forward Janesville have been flying under the political radar for years in Janesville. Even their questions of the school and council candidates were framed with assumptions to elicit a certain response that could have spelled disaster for an indifferent candidate. Some candidates clearly played it safe with very "under the counter" answers.
Finally, Lyke bashes Doyle for the school funding crisis by saying he opted for the easy way out using his partial veto power to fund education with millions of extra dollars. Well then, had not the Republican-led state legislature sent Doyle a woefully inadequate budget, he would not have had to revive the monster with his scalpel. Simply put, had Doyle not performed a major transplant, the Janesville school deficit could have been $5 million instead of $1.8 million.
But I do agree with Lyke on at least one issue. The time is now for Madison to push budget reforms and have some serious discussions about school funding because if the WMC continue to buy Republicans back in, the school crisis today will look like the “good ol’ days.”
Hey Jim, don’t tell me you’re a liberal, let me continue to figure it out, it's more fun this way.
The editorial in the Messenger was another one of those GOP in-denial exercises where they defended Biskupic and his railroad job against the poor Georgia Thompson. I almost fell off my chair in hysterical laughter when I read this passage.
Don't raise too much money Jim Doyle, you might attract attention from the right-wing media and they in turn will put a republican lackey like Biskupic on your tail. And when he sends an innocent person to jail out of blind stupidity, its your fault because suspicious minds thought you raised too much money. No evidence of politics here - no sireee.
There is widespread agreement that the non-partisan state supreme court race was dirty, but Lyke along with many others think a candidate shouldn’t dig too deeply into the work record of their opposition. I strongly disagree. They could frame it as a “private” investigator hired to dig up dirt, but in Ziegler’s case with the hundreds if not thousands of decisions and positions a judge makes during their career, you need an investigator to pour over these documents to find the truth. Clifford’s investigation did just that but revealed nothing about Ziegler’s private life during the campaign and without that “investigation,” no one would have ever suspected Ziegler’s conflict of interest. Even her victims didn't know. Compared to Ziegler, Clifford ran a very clean campaign. But she lost because heavily financed negative campaigns work.
But I also find the typical assumptions that partisans often make regarding chambers of commerce and business interests in Lyke’s column. For instance the very idea that because Democrats are in the majority, the WMC shouldn’t be too rigorous in their efforts to further the interest of the business community, otherwise they will make enemies, implies that Democrats are anti-business. Lyke also defends Forward Janesville as a bi-partisan or non-partisan institution simply because they don’t publicly endorse candidates or have a political action committee? Forward Janesville clearly has a political agenda and beats the very same, only slightly smaller drum as the WMC. There may be a token streak of democratic ideals somewhere in their mission statement but they are clearly a tool of Republicanism.
Chambers of commerce like Forward Janesville have been flying under the political radar for years in Janesville. Even their questions of the school and council candidates were framed with assumptions to elicit a certain response that could have spelled disaster for an indifferent candidate. Some candidates clearly played it safe with very "under the counter" answers.
Finally, Lyke bashes Doyle for the school funding crisis by saying he opted for the easy way out using his partial veto power to fund education with millions of extra dollars. Well then, had not the Republican-led state legislature sent Doyle a woefully inadequate budget, he would not have had to revive the monster with his scalpel. Simply put, had Doyle not performed a major transplant, the Janesville school deficit could have been $5 million instead of $1.8 million.
But I do agree with Lyke on at least one issue. The time is now for Madison to push budget reforms and have some serious discussions about school funding because if the WMC continue to buy Republicans back in, the school crisis today will look like the “good ol’ days.”
Hey Jim, don’t tell me you’re a liberal, let me continue to figure it out, it's more fun this way.
The editorial in the Messenger was another one of those GOP in-denial exercises where they defended Biskupic and his railroad job against the poor Georgia Thompson. I almost fell off my chair in hysterical laughter when I read this passage.
JM Editorial Excerpt:In all due respect. Ha-ha-ha-he-ho-he-ha-ha-he-ho-ho. Stop it please!
Just once, we'd like to see even a modicum of humility.
After all, his administration's craven fund-raising created the political climate that attracted media attention to the travel contract, and ultimately, the scrutiny of Biskupic's office.
Don't raise too much money Jim Doyle, you might attract attention from the right-wing media and they in turn will put a republican lackey like Biskupic on your tail. And when he sends an innocent person to jail out of blind stupidity, its your fault because suspicious minds thought you raised too much money. No evidence of politics here - no sireee.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
GOP: Going Up In Smoke
The Janesville Messenger editorial today used a quote from Gov. Jim Doyle as proof he is flip-flopping on his promises when he vetoed a cigarette tax hike in 2003.
Just for fun, I’m going to use the same rhetoric President Bush and Rep. Paul Ryan use to support their taxcuts as a fair analogy to support the Wisconsin cigarette tax increase. As you probably know by now, the GOP wants to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent and to my dismay, it appears some Democrats have bought into their reasoning. The reasoning of course is the idea that the taxcuts have, counter-intuitively by the way, produced more revenue for the government – to spend, so therefore we must make them permanent. Now lets turn to the cigarette tax and apply the same logic. Since the Governor implies that the motivation to increase the tax is health based, if he were to cut the current cigarette tax, more people will smoke and the state will collect more revenue – to spend. That's what a tax cut does, according to the GOP.
But instead, the Governor wants to increase the tax, thereby encouraging people to smoke less, and thereby, returning less revenue to the state. That's what a tax increase does, according to the GOP. Well, we know things don’t work that way, but that is what the GOP would want us to believe, so long as its their tax policy.
Regarding the Bush tax cut however, supporters also link it to our growing economy and decreasing the national deficit. However it appears that whatever life our economy has shown since 9-11, it happened despite the Bush tax cuts and one could only speculate now how much greater things would be if the taxcuts, particularly to the top 5% never happened. We might have a budget surplus today, an economy more than just struggling to hold its head above water, and God forbid, more money for the government to spend.
JM excerpt:Times have changed – not Doyle. Doyle’s statement proves how difficult this issue is, he knows that a low cigarette tax only makes it easier for people to smoke, an indefensible position for the state to maintain. And he knows that it is indefensible for the state to rely on revenue raised by hiking taxes on something as indefensible as cigarette smoking. Because of the times, Doyle was smart to veto this hike in 2003, but even smarter to propose the hike in 2007.
Such a tax hike, Doyle said at the time,” puts the state in the very untenable position in which we want people to smoke, and (we) become reliant on that money.”
Just for fun, I’m going to use the same rhetoric President Bush and Rep. Paul Ryan use to support their taxcuts as a fair analogy to support the Wisconsin cigarette tax increase. As you probably know by now, the GOP wants to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent and to my dismay, it appears some Democrats have bought into their reasoning. The reasoning of course is the idea that the taxcuts have, counter-intuitively by the way, produced more revenue for the government – to spend, so therefore we must make them permanent. Now lets turn to the cigarette tax and apply the same logic. Since the Governor implies that the motivation to increase the tax is health based, if he were to cut the current cigarette tax, more people will smoke and the state will collect more revenue – to spend. That's what a tax cut does, according to the GOP.
But instead, the Governor wants to increase the tax, thereby encouraging people to smoke less, and thereby, returning less revenue to the state. That's what a tax increase does, according to the GOP. Well, we know things don’t work that way, but that is what the GOP would want us to believe, so long as its their tax policy.
Regarding the Bush tax cut however, supporters also link it to our growing economy and decreasing the national deficit. However it appears that whatever life our economy has shown since 9-11, it happened despite the Bush tax cuts and one could only speculate now how much greater things would be if the taxcuts, particularly to the top 5% never happened. We might have a budget surplus today, an economy more than just struggling to hold its head above water, and God forbid, more money for the government to spend.
Monday, October 09, 2006
All workers Deserve Taxable Wage
In a recent article in the Janesville Messenger, Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute explains that more welfare will result in more poverty. He claims the NY Times and leading Democrats complaints about how George W. Bush and his Republican Congress have slashed anti-poverty programs are misguided. In fact, he writes that last year the federal government spent $477 billion on some 50 different programs to fight poverty. For all the talk about Republican budget cuts, spending on these social programs has increased an inflation-adjusted 22 percent since Bush took office.
But wait a second, if spending to fight poverty has increased under Bush, is it possible that his economic agenda produced a greater population of poor people? Weren’t the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy and the tax cut on dividends supposed to generate a more prosperous society, thereby reducing the pool of eligible recipients for federal assistance? Isn’t our great Bush economy supposed to put more money in everyone's pockets and lift people out of poverty? First and foremost, every presidents national economic plan should be an antipoverty plan. How do you explain the Bush tax cut plan along with his failure to raise the minimum wage as an antipoverty plan. Is it possible that policies that increase poverty will result in more welfare?
This right-wing brainwashing goes on and on regularly in the Janesville Messenger. Consider the editorial on Oct. 8th, titled “Tax cuts OK; not tax code.” This editorial is an annual ritual by the Messenger, where they complain that despite the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, the rich are still paying too great of a percentage of the Federal taxes at the same time the poor are paying too little. They mention that people who earn $35,000 a year paid 8.54 percent of their income in Federal taxes, but under Bush they paid 5.12 percent. A 40 percent decrease, clearly they say, all incomes benefited from the tax cuts. But in real dollars the difference of 3.42 percent amounts to $1,197, nothing to sneeze at, but barely enough to keep pace with rising real estate taxes, health insurance or energy costs. It could also buy you a new muffler for your car. The article doesn’t elaborate on the percentages the rich saved in taxes. I can't blame them, but you better believe it was much greater than 3.54 percent of an income closer to ten times $35,000. The savings? Can anyone say a brand new Lexus every year.
Moreover the Messenger explains, how millions of workers earning less than $25,000 a year have been removed from the tax rolls altogether, that this is a worthy consolation to not being paid enough. In 2000, 29 million tax returns paid no Federal tax, four years later under Bush, the number rose to 43 million. In just four short years, 14 million more people do not earn enough to pay taxes, yet the Republicans in charge will swear their taxcuts lift all boats. These numbers are proof the Bush national economic plan is a total failure. On top of this the Republican Party has denied an increase in wages to those who need it the most, for the past 9 years!
Minimum wage earners deserve more than a living wage, they deserve a taxable one as well. The tax cuts to the wealthy have not worked as these numbers show, its time to roll them back or pay workers what they deserve.
But wait a second, if spending to fight poverty has increased under Bush, is it possible that his economic agenda produced a greater population of poor people? Weren’t the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy and the tax cut on dividends supposed to generate a more prosperous society, thereby reducing the pool of eligible recipients for federal assistance? Isn’t our great Bush economy supposed to put more money in everyone's pockets and lift people out of poverty? First and foremost, every presidents national economic plan should be an antipoverty plan. How do you explain the Bush tax cut plan along with his failure to raise the minimum wage as an antipoverty plan. Is it possible that policies that increase poverty will result in more welfare?
This right-wing brainwashing goes on and on regularly in the Janesville Messenger. Consider the editorial on Oct. 8th, titled “Tax cuts OK; not tax code.” This editorial is an annual ritual by the Messenger, where they complain that despite the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, the rich are still paying too great of a percentage of the Federal taxes at the same time the poor are paying too little. They mention that people who earn $35,000 a year paid 8.54 percent of their income in Federal taxes, but under Bush they paid 5.12 percent. A 40 percent decrease, clearly they say, all incomes benefited from the tax cuts. But in real dollars the difference of 3.42 percent amounts to $1,197, nothing to sneeze at, but barely enough to keep pace with rising real estate taxes, health insurance or energy costs. It could also buy you a new muffler for your car. The article doesn’t elaborate on the percentages the rich saved in taxes. I can't blame them, but you better believe it was much greater than 3.54 percent of an income closer to ten times $35,000. The savings? Can anyone say a brand new Lexus every year.
Moreover the Messenger explains, how millions of workers earning less than $25,000 a year have been removed from the tax rolls altogether, that this is a worthy consolation to not being paid enough. In 2000, 29 million tax returns paid no Federal tax, four years later under Bush, the number rose to 43 million. In just four short years, 14 million more people do not earn enough to pay taxes, yet the Republicans in charge will swear their taxcuts lift all boats. These numbers are proof the Bush national economic plan is a total failure. On top of this the Republican Party has denied an increase in wages to those who need it the most, for the past 9 years!
Minimum wage earners deserve more than a living wage, they deserve a taxable one as well. The tax cuts to the wealthy have not worked as these numbers show, its time to roll them back or pay workers what they deserve.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Janesville Property Tax Hike - Republican?
The October 1st edition of the Janesville Messenger was chock full of the right-wing idiology (correct spelling) that I’ve come to expect from them.
One article written by Jim Lyke and titled “Opposition to referendum may be shortsighted” was generally about his experience when he attended a Madison chamber of Commerce meeting intended to halt the growth of taxes. Lyke wrote that a Republican state senator from Milwaukee (whom he refused to name) said that Democrats were opposed to his taxcut plan and then stated “Well, they even supported a school referendum – so they must be communists.”
Referring to the $70.8 million Janesville School District referendum which would tax every homeowner an additional $103 a year for the next 10 years, Lyke feels it is shortsighted to oppose a tax just because it’s a tax. He also writes that since Forward Janesville fought against a county sales tax but endorses the property tax hike for the schools, it must be good.
Because the republican Lyke supports the School referendum he wrote that he was offended by his fellow Republicans “communist” comment. Promoting higher taxes to pay for improvements and services is the kiss of death for many politicians, particularly since Republicans have used high taxes as a political weapon against those dastardly tax and spend democrats. But now since Lyke, Forward Janesville and a few others want to tax and spend, they are looking for ways to get around the very same mantra they have beat up democrats with. They have even gone so far as to hire a marketing firm to convince voters to vote themselves a hefty tax increase. You see, when Republicans tax and spend it’s a sound investment and “capitalistic” in a good way. But when democrats tax and spend, Republicans view it as socialism or worse yet a “hand-out” or what the Republican senator from Milwaukee calls those kind of taxers and spenders, they're “communists.”
Contrary to all expectations it turns out, the Janesville Property tax hike is endorsed by those tax freeze Republicans.
One article written by Jim Lyke and titled “Opposition to referendum may be shortsighted” was generally about his experience when he attended a Madison chamber of Commerce meeting intended to halt the growth of taxes. Lyke wrote that a Republican state senator from Milwaukee (whom he refused to name) said that Democrats were opposed to his taxcut plan and then stated “Well, they even supported a school referendum – so they must be communists.”
Referring to the $70.8 million Janesville School District referendum which would tax every homeowner an additional $103 a year for the next 10 years, Lyke feels it is shortsighted to oppose a tax just because it’s a tax. He also writes that since Forward Janesville fought against a county sales tax but endorses the property tax hike for the schools, it must be good.
Because the republican Lyke supports the School referendum he wrote that he was offended by his fellow Republicans “communist” comment. Promoting higher taxes to pay for improvements and services is the kiss of death for many politicians, particularly since Republicans have used high taxes as a political weapon against those dastardly tax and spend democrats. But now since Lyke, Forward Janesville and a few others want to tax and spend, they are looking for ways to get around the very same mantra they have beat up democrats with. They have even gone so far as to hire a marketing firm to convince voters to vote themselves a hefty tax increase. You see, when Republicans tax and spend it’s a sound investment and “capitalistic” in a good way. But when democrats tax and spend, Republicans view it as socialism or worse yet a “hand-out” or what the Republican senator from Milwaukee calls those kind of taxers and spenders, they're “communists.”
Contrary to all expectations it turns out, the Janesville Property tax hike is endorsed by those tax freeze Republicans.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Baldwin Illuminates 9/11 Victims
As can be expected the Janesville Messenger attacked Rep. Tami Baldwin for her refusal to commemorate Congressional failures blanketed by the memory of the innocent victims of 9/11. Besides the propaganda movie “Path to 9/11” and its seamless editing which included a Bush live speech, the GOP "disgracefully politicized what should have been a solemn and sincere resolution," said Wisconsin’s 2nd District Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin.
She was not alone in her opposition to the resolution which like many GOP bills are a smorgasborg of corrupt deals, stolen liberties and Constitutional tradeoffs. Republicans refuse to give 9/11 the proper respect it deserves without tying in self-pompous praise for their own political benefit. Similar to the recent minimum wage increase bill proposed by the Republicans, they don’t think 9/11 commemorations have the virtues to “stand on its own” in their version of Congress.
The Republicans used the memory of 9/11 as a way to gain leverage supporting GOP measures. She added it was disrespectful to the Sept. 11 victims and families to be "playing election year politics" with the anniversary. Republicans see this all as business as usual.
"I could never say it better than political commentator Bill Maher did: 'It's better to be safe than sorry,' " said Republican Dave Magnum, the Portage-area broadcaster who is running against Baldwin in the Congressional race. Obviously, Dave Magnum won’t stand with his supporters when he’d rather play it safe than sorry and tow the party line, or else get smeared by his fellow Republicans. This country does not need another wannabe rubberstamp for the Bush Administration.
Unfortunately, some Democrats have gone along with many of the GOP’s hijinks mainly out of fear of retribution at the polls. Leaders like Baldwin, Murtha and Feingold have shed some light into the darkest area’s of Republican misleadership, area’s that others fear to go. With that said, getting smeared by the GOP is a badge of honor for those who stand up for American values their constituents demand.
She was not alone in her opposition to the resolution which like many GOP bills are a smorgasborg of corrupt deals, stolen liberties and Constitutional tradeoffs. Republicans refuse to give 9/11 the proper respect it deserves without tying in self-pompous praise for their own political benefit. Similar to the recent minimum wage increase bill proposed by the Republicans, they don’t think 9/11 commemorations have the virtues to “stand on its own” in their version of Congress.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called it "self-congratulatory. It praises Congress for some reason. Instead of having the focus on the innocent victims of 9/11, it talked about the accomplishments of this Congress. I can't even imagine why they thought that was a good idea,"
"Instead they converted the resolution into an endorsement of the Patriot Act, punitive immigration bills, and other highly controversial measures, which many of my constituents oppose," she said in a statement explaining her vote.
The Republicans used the memory of 9/11 as a way to gain leverage supporting GOP measures. She added it was disrespectful to the Sept. 11 victims and families to be "playing election year politics" with the anniversary. Republicans see this all as business as usual.
"I could never say it better than political commentator Bill Maher did: 'It's better to be safe than sorry,' " said Republican Dave Magnum, the Portage-area broadcaster who is running against Baldwin in the Congressional race. Obviously, Dave Magnum won’t stand with his supporters when he’d rather play it safe than sorry and tow the party line, or else get smeared by his fellow Republicans. This country does not need another wannabe rubberstamp for the Bush Administration.
Unfortunately, some Democrats have gone along with many of the GOP’s hijinks mainly out of fear of retribution at the polls. Leaders like Baldwin, Murtha and Feingold have shed some light into the darkest area’s of Republican misleadership, area’s that others fear to go. With that said, getting smeared by the GOP is a badge of honor for those who stand up for American values their constituents demand.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Republicans Force Higher Local taxes
JM editorial excerpt:
There was a time when registering children for school involved a little more than paperwork. Today, the paperwork remains, but now includes painful check writing for assorted fees that in some cases cost families hundreds of dollars, and school districts a large measure of goodwill.
Well, isn’t that special. The Republican agenda for the past 12 years has been based on changing what they believe is the redistribution of their wealth, while attempting to spread economic responsibility among those they view as lazy. Tax cuts for the extremely wealthy during war-time and the so-called responsibility platform have forced domestic program cuts across the board. Local governments have no choice but to create point-of-use fees OR raise taxes and risk being labeled as the bad guys. For the wealthy few, Federal income taxes have gone down, while local taxes disguised as fees, tolls and dues for the poor majority have gone up. All the while Republicans view the solution to their defunding as a good reason to cut costs and spending even further.
Without Federal aid for schools, roads or healthcare, and combined with our politicians deliberate failure to earmark funds for the people who need it most, local communities had better get used to the idea of voting tax increases onto themselves. The push for local entities to gain more control of their own destiny is part of the Republicans plan for locals to pay their own way without Federal help. An impossibility for 90% of American communities.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Messenger defends Big Oil
Todays Messenger InBrief column announces an ID-theft meeting hosted by Rep. Paul Ryan. Shouldn’t spokesmen for the negligent insurance companies and military officials be hosting this along with the US Post office inspectors to reassure and tell us how we can avoid being ripped off? Why Ryan? On whose behalf is he speaking for? Am I the only one who thinks this? Maybe it’s just me.
Rep. Judy Robson submitted an article to the Janesville Messenger about how our private wealth is being confiscated at the gas pump, and offered her ideas on what can be done about it. The Mess editorial would not let her go unchallenged and proceeded to defend Big Oil with what they claim are relatively modest profit margins of 8% or 9%. I’m not going to get into vertical corporate economics, but those profit margin percentages are meaningless to the average American. What we hear about are the windfall $5 to $10 billion profits that are posted quarterly by Big Oil companies. What really hurts is that the Bush war has provided the perfect fear factor to induce price manipulation in this market. It’s called price gouging, it is obscene and illegal, but difficult to prove. I don’t care if they claim their profit margins are one percent or fifty percent, the profit margin defense is bogus.
If I learned one thing from Wal-Mart’s success it is this. Most American consumers don’t give a rats-ass about where (China) something is made, or how (sweatshops) it was made. They want low prices and a good value, and they want the same thing in gasoline. Will drilling in ANWAR lower the price of gasoline at the pump? Absolutely not and most Americans know this, but Bush, Ryan and the Republicans see an opportunity here. I would even bet on it that the price of gasoline would go up.
In other words, Big Oil has taken it upon themselves to establish the price of gasoline high enough to force some level of conservation on Americans. That they are reaping huge profits at our expense is incidental. According to these profiteers, regulations imposed by the government are always bad, but prices dictated by corporatists to regulate consumption are a good thing.
No question, the wild west economics promoted by so-called conservatives along with government hand-outs to corporations are killing us.
Rep. Judy Robson submitted an article to the Janesville Messenger about how our private wealth is being confiscated at the gas pump, and offered her ideas on what can be done about it. The Mess editorial would not let her go unchallenged and proceeded to defend Big Oil with what they claim are relatively modest profit margins of 8% or 9%. I’m not going to get into vertical corporate economics, but those profit margin percentages are meaningless to the average American. What we hear about are the windfall $5 to $10 billion profits that are posted quarterly by Big Oil companies. What really hurts is that the Bush war has provided the perfect fear factor to induce price manipulation in this market. It’s called price gouging, it is obscene and illegal, but difficult to prove. I don’t care if they claim their profit margins are one percent or fifty percent, the profit margin defense is bogus.
If I learned one thing from Wal-Mart’s success it is this. Most American consumers don’t give a rats-ass about where (China) something is made, or how (sweatshops) it was made. They want low prices and a good value, and they want the same thing in gasoline. Will drilling in ANWAR lower the price of gasoline at the pump? Absolutely not and most Americans know this, but Bush, Ryan and the Republicans see an opportunity here. I would even bet on it that the price of gasoline would go up.
Meet the Press excerpt:
MR. RUSSERT: But you could make less profit and lower prices at the pump if you chose to.
BIG OIL: Not, not in, not in an open market. Because if, if you reduce your price in an open market, demand goes up and you, you, you run the risk of running out of, of oil and gas. So I think the issue here is not, is not price issues. The solution here is to look at how we can increase supplies.
In other words, Big Oil has taken it upon themselves to establish the price of gasoline high enough to force some level of conservation on Americans. That they are reaping huge profits at our expense is incidental. According to these profiteers, regulations imposed by the government are always bad, but prices dictated by corporatists to regulate consumption are a good thing.
No question, the wild west economics promoted by so-called conservatives along with government hand-outs to corporations are killing us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)