The New Yorker is hardly journalism at work???? Obviously you do not read it, nor have you read the work of Jane Meyer. Nor have you read the article in the New Yorker, as the issue is less what Koch is up to and more the sucking up to him that WNET management did.
Seeing the "stop-specific-voters" attempts on the part of Republican majority states during the past election and still now trying to sneak the legislation into being - I am convinced that the current 1% and their cronies in power are determined to restore the country back to pre-1920-thereabouts voting and make sure that those they consider 'ignorant' (some of them are!) do not have any right to vote for anyone that is not in support of their agenda. We all know what happens when any group are the 'chosen ones' - they automatically begin to think of themselves as special, with God-given rights to the level they are at, and look down on anyone not in their group as not-deserving of the same consideration.
We probably would all be doing exactly the same thing ourselves, BUT that does not make it ok ! We need to make sure those who are foolish enough to think they are part of the chosen ones also (because they vote for them?) get an education asap in what the chosen ones are REALLY up to - you low-level Repubs will suddenly find yourselves with no rights
and it will all be entirely YOUR fault !!!!
I guess that is when the country types get their guns out and start fighting, and they will need to fight their own party, not the Dems !!
They are so dumb, they don't even realise who their enemies really are !!
Why invest in a service in which people like the Koch Brothers own a controlling interest? PBS is "public" in name only. The spillover to the affiliates who suckle from PBS and carry its programming is also corrosive.
Time to call your representatives, and your local PBS affiliates, and raise hell.
I know you must need a boogeyman and all, but you have to realize that not all of those things are the same. The Cato Institute has long had a poor relationship with the Ayn Rand Institute, because they don't believe the same things. The people promoting Ayn Rand are the Wall Street and Silicon Valley types and wannabes with delusions of grandeur, who believe they are heroes holding up the world, and haven't yet figured out that Michael Douglas's character in a certain '80s movie directed by Oliver Stone was supposed to be the bad guy.
I'm opposed to some basic tenets of libertarian philosophy, but as a whole, most libertarians are not that bad, compared to the people who still dominate the Republican Party. I'd prefer it to getting fundamentalist morality forced on me, a police state, or perpetual war to Americanize the world, to say the least.
Seriously, you're taking this rich guy and his brother, and making them the supreme evil responsible for all of the ills the U.S. faces, when I'm sure they probably have more than a few views that a lot of you agree with. The collective decisions of the very wealthy as a class, perhaps, but one or two dudes are not the problem you're looking for.
Pages