Get out your cluesticks -- Cafferty needs a good knock in the head

[pat_k]

Once again, media "analysis" concludes the opposite of reality. This time it comes from Jack Cafferty on Money Line.

He reports that "Big business. . . Corp American is pouring money into races. . .", presents FEC info that demonstrates the black and white difference between Republicans and Democrats, and then is compelled to squawk "Both sides, Both sides," like all the other media parrots.

• Segments of "Corporate America" pouring(1) money into Democratic races:
  
  
  • Lawyers
  
  
  • Teachers Unions
  
  
  • Trade Unions
  
  In short, groups of people who serve the public interest and protect us from the abuses of Corporate America.


• Segments of Corporate America pouring money into Republican races.
  
  
  • Oil and Gas
  
  
  • Pharmaceuticals
  
  
  • General Contractors

Let him know what you think of his crackerjack "analysis."

Money Line Contact Form

-----------
(1) It's impossible to know whether the amounts "pouring" are comparable, since he doesn't present the numbers.

[napi21]

1. The most $$ always goes to the people in power.

Lets wait and see what happens to all that $$ when the Dems are the majority.

Now, it's true, under the direction of DeLay, the Pubs have taken this to a new supersonic level, but in all fairness, no politician'shands are clean. I realize they HAVE to have $$ for re-elections, and I HATE THAT! But for now, it's the only answer.

[pat_k]

3. The "both sides" label they cling to is a fantasy.

The numbers from REAL Corporate America (not organizations that represent people) are always tipped VERY heavily toward the Republicans -- even when Dems are in power. Yes, the Corps always play both sides of the fence to some degree. A shift toward Dems when they are in power (which has been quite awhile) only tips the balance toward other way a bit.

This goes for the folks who give to Dems too. Of course they give to increase the likelihood of being heard by the party with control, but Unions know that electing Dems serves them, and "trial lawyers" (which is the subgroup that gives overwhelmingly to the Democrats) are so demonized by the Republicans they never "pour" money into Republican pockets.

Joe Conason's "Big Lies" (among others) provides the data that makes it clear how incredibly lopsided it is.

The "both sides" meme is a fantasy the establishment must cling to (if they didn't, they would have to confront the truth -- that a whole bunch of the people in their social circle are screwing the nation.

And that goes for the "both sides are corrupt" crap. The Democratic "corruption" was akin to steal pens from the stock room. The Republicans in comparison are embezzling vast sums from the coffers.

[hughee99]

2. This may sound a little nit-picky

But I don't know that Lawyers, Teachers Unions and Trade Unions always "serve the public interest and protect us from the abuses of Corporate America". Like most group, their job is to serve the interests of it's current members and try to attract new members. Either side will benefit directly from getting the party they're supporting in power. I do absolutely agree that the interests of the Democratic supporters are much more in line with the interests of the population at large, though.

[pat_k]

4. Teaching is not a public service? Fighting for living wages is not

. . a public service? Holding Corporations accountable for harm is not a service?

What serves associations of people, serves people. When associations of people have conflicting interests, balancing those interests is what our Government is designed to do.

What serves ACTUAL corporations serves the stockholders -- and a primary mechanism is to "externalize" costs onto the public -- i.e., damage the public. It is the nature of the beast. It is how they are structured.

The battle is always between the public sector seeking to reign in the natural tendencies of the private sector to abuse the public to meet the ends they are charged with as Corporate entities. Without that control, the built in motives and nature of the Corporate structure would in fact lead to their own destruction.

[hughee99]

5. I'm not arguing that they're not public services...

but would you say that anything the teacher's union argues for is necessarily for the benefit of the public at large? A teachers union argues for a 3% raise. I'm not saying they don't deserve more money, but how exactly does the raise serve the public in general. It serves the members of the union definitely, but does more money necessarily make someone better at their job? Does the raise help the children learn more?

"What serves associations of people, serves people." Are you saying that anything that serves an association of people is necessarily beneficial to the public in general? Is anything that supports a corporation (or group of corporations) necessarily bad?

[pat_k]

8. When people associate and seek to represent their own interests. ..

. . .they are engaged in the political process precisely as it is intended for the purpose we intend it -- solving our common problems and balacing interests of PEOPLE. Of course there are conflicting interests, and that is the name of the game -- but it is a game that only works, or makes sense when actual humans, with human interests are engaged in it.

Corporate entities are NOT people. They are not groups of people. They are entities designed to earn profit. They can be run morally or immorally, for good or ill, but one thing they most definitely are not is people.

[hughee99]

14. I'm not so sure...

"What serves ACTUAL corporations serves the stockholders". Who are the stockholders if not people? What is the corporation doing if not serving their interests? In the case of corporations, it's just that the interests are almost always financial interests.

[pat_k]

17. Corp. entities could care less who their stockholder are. I should not have phrased. . .

. . .that way.

Corps are entities that people created to serve a purpose they believe to be necessary within the structure of their economy. If Corporate entities are to continue to serve us, citizens must be the only force capable of controlling their own creation -- and to do so by influencing the actions of their Gov't. To permit a Corporation to participate as a force in and of itself for itself is akin to permitting entities like foreign governments to play a direct role in exerting pressures within our political process.

If factions of people within the United States get together to lobby for something that is in the interest of a foreign Gov't, great (e.g., folks who lobby to protect Israel's interests). When citizens have an interest in Gov't action that benefits another Gov't, they should be out there lobbying for it. Whether or not that interest gets served depends on how the thing the citizens are lobbying for fits in with all the other competing interests of the other factions -- interests that are balanced through the system of Gov't and the actions of officials charged with particular duties within that system.

Similarly, stockholders could band together to lobby for something that is in the interest of a particular Corporation or for Corporate entities in general. If they do, great. (This doesn't typically happen because stockholders are not a homogeneous group with interests that serves Corporate entities. Corporations are shaped by far more diverse factional forces -- which currently includes the extremely perverting influence of Corp. entities themselves.)

[Chomskyite]

15. Incredible

A three percent raise is what galls you? I'm a college professor myself. I have a Ph.D. I net about $2300 a month, half of which goes to debts. And you're squawking about teacher's unions asking for three more percent?

I just have to shake my head.

[hughee99]

16. What are you talking about?

As an example, I mentioned a 3% raise. Did I say ANYTHING about it "galling me"? I did not. In fact I thought I was pretty clear when I said "I'm not saying they don't deserve more money".

My question is, does making more money necessarily make someone better at their job? The teacher benefits from the raise, but does it necessarily benefit the students?

[pat_k]

18. Few Gov't actions serve the interests of all its citizens. . .

. . .There is ALWAYS a balancing of interests -- a balance intended to solve our common problems and serve the public interest to the best extent possible within that imperfect human creation we are ever seeking to perfect -- our Gov't.

Whether or not a particular action -- such as a raise or reduction in compensation for public servants -- happens or does not happen depends on the influence of supporting and opposing factions, and how those interests are balanced through our system of Gov't and the actions of officials charged with particular duties within that system.

[hughee99]

21. I agree about the balancing of interests...

my original point was that the unions are representing the interested of their members, not necessarily the public at large. I'm fine with that, I think that's what they're supposed to be doing. Am I wrong about this?

My previous post was mostly wondering where the person got in their head that I was "galled" about a 3% teacher's raise, that I was "squawking" about it.

[pat_k]

22. As I read your post, you equate Unions and Corps. . .

. . .If I am reading into it more than you meant, apologies.

Equating Corps with Unions and other associations of people (a very widespread and destructive notion) is what we need to be challenging. My reply to another post (link below) probably does a better job of doing it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[hughee99]

24. Sorry for the confusion...

I wasn't try to equate unions with corporations. While their are areas in which they operate in similar ways, there are also significant differences (which you pointed out). My point was just that the interests of the unions are not necessarily the interests of the public at large. I'll agree that they tend to be much more in line with the "general good" than corporations, but it's not always the case.

[pat_k]

25. "Interests of the public at large" can be a tricky concept. . .

The percentage of people who directly benefit (or who pay a price) is not a meaningful criteria. Some acts are easy to judge as serving or violating the principles we subscribe to as a nation. Others are not so straightforward.

What serves or doesn't serve the public interest is constantly being defined and redefined through political action, legislation, and legal challenge. Seeking the best ways to solve human problems, take advantage of economies of scale, and to work together for our common benefit is essentially the whole purpose of the institutions and principles we established in our Constitution.

The public interest is often served by actions that benefit only a few members of the public and extract a cost from many. Such actions are motivated by our common values or by indirect self-interest (there but for the grace of god go I).

For example, if this nation had committed the public resources necessary to restore, renew, and protect New Orleans from storms far stronger than Katrina (as a vast majority the electorate believes we were morally obligated to do) only a relatively small percentage of would have seen an effect in their own lives. Nevertheless, the act of making such a commitment serves the public interest (i.e., it serves our shared values).

When it comes to making our "rules," the particular rule Team X wants doesn't much matter -- whether or not we'll adopt the rule they propose will be determined through the "rule making" processes available. The first question that must be asked is "Should Team X be involved in defining the rules at all?"

If Team X is a Corporate entity or represents Corporate entities the answer is no.

If we are to maintain a Government of the people, for the people, and by the people, we must be crystal clear about what constitutes "people" -- and kick out the artificial entities.

If it doesn't have an actual voice, or if it isn't an association of actual voices, then it can't have a voice in making our rules.

[pat_k]

19. My two cents. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[EST]

6. When people get together and form an organization,

a couple of remarkable things happen. These are organic happenings, as in, because we humans are the way we are, these things are normal, unavoidable parts of the process.

Normally, we form organizations (governments, corporations, unions, etc) to perform a specific function or achieve a specific purpose.
During the maturation of an organization an interesting phenomenon develops--it grows an ego.

In this case, I am describing the the essential purpose of ego: the survival of the organization.
The organization, contrary to working itself out of a job and disbanding when its cause is finished, never finishes its purpose or finds other fatally important causes with which to justify its existence.

In order to avoid its own death, an organization demands more personnel, a bigger budget, more authority and more resources. Awful, horrendous crimes can be committed and excused in the name of survival.

Any such creation, even created for the most uplifting of purpose, eventually becomes about itself instead of the greater good and that, in a word, is evil.

People, especially the very best of people, have an annoying habit of identifying themselves as their organizations and thus they and their groups with the same mean vicious traits and blind spots.

Frustrating world.

[pat_k]

10. Corporate entity v. Association of people cannot be lumped into the . . .

. . .same bucket.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Senator]

7. It's People OR Profits ... not both and not equivalent

This is another of the "Grand Illusions" that the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy generates for self-preservation.

And no, stockholders do not have "interests" that are "represented" by the actions of CEOs and Boards of Directors. The stock certificates they own are products, just like a plate or a painting. The quaint old days of shareholder revolts on moral grounds are long past.

The "mess" of politics and money can be solved in 3 words: NO Corporate Participation.

And that means not in any way. No PACS, no lobbying, no contributions. There is no justification for a non-human entity to have any effect on a political system.

--

[WestSeattle2]

9. Hey! I love the Caff Man, don't cue stick him!....eom

[pat_k]

12. He's a good guy, but even the best. occassionally need

. . .to be hit with a cluestick!

[me b zola]

13. Exactly

I love Cafferty, but he is not w/o his flaws. A while back he did a great segment railing against the abuses to our Constitution, and the Congress members who enabled those abuses. The following day he did a segment condeming Dems for throwing LIEberman out. I wrote a letter telling him that he couldn't have it both ways.

[EvangelOphileBlican]

11. Lets look at that

Democrats take money from.
Lawyers = who defend our rights in court.
Teachers Unions = who bargain to help teacher and students.
Trade Unions = who negotiate safe working conditions and fair pay that benefit all workers.

Republicans take money from.
Oil and Gas company's = who profit from there monopoly on our natural resources.
Pharmaceutical Company's = who profit from our illness, age, and weakness.
General Contractors = who profit from exploiting cheap migrant labor.

[pat_k]

20. The differences just scream out don't they?

The failure to see the differences demonstrates the unbelievable depth and breadth of the "both sides" brainwashing. It's gonna take a lot of people armed with cluesticks to knock some reality into their heads on this (and in countless other areas).

[Gabi Hayes]

23. k

and a big DU welcome to EvangelOphileBlican for a great, succinct post!