During the campaign, many people expressed outrage over Mitt Romney’s statement concerning the fact that almost fifty percent of the public do not pay pay income taxes. I well understood the anger, but I am a bit surprised that a video by the California Federation of Teachers has not produced the same outrage over its unfairness and frankly crudeness. The video shows a wealthy person urinating on the poor as part of a “Tax the Rich: An Animated Fairy Tale.” I readily admit that I am in the minority on our blog in opposing some of the tax increase proposals in this country and abroad as economically unwise. However, the demonization of the wealthy in this country has gone a bit far when a video of this kind is released by a major organization.
Real Clear Politics and a few sites ran a story on the urination scene, but the video below has the sound but not the image of actual urination. It is not clear if someone added the yellow image to the video or the producers removed the image. When you now hit on various sites that showed what they said was the image of the urination, a sign pops up that this is now a “private video.” I am unsure of what that means since the union reportedly put the video out to the public. However, there is no mention of the controversy that I could find on the union site.
The eight-minute video was written and directed by California Federation of Teachers’ communications director Fred Glass with voice over by Ed Asner. The mythical land describes rich evading taxes by investing in “Wall Street” — not quite mythical. “Don’t worry. This is good for you, too. Because it will trickle down from us to you.” You can still hear the sound of the rich man “trickling down” on the poor.
Viewers are urged to email their elected representatives to tell them to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to fund public services.
I happen to agree with the premise of raising revenues (though I oppose some of the tax proposals in this country and abroad). I am a long and vocal supporter for increasing funding for schools and teachers. However, I view this video as unfair and hyperbolic even without the yellow stream. The wealthy do pay considerable taxes and many support public programs and public causes. They also do pay the vast majority of taxes. Should they pay more in this economy. Yes, but it is grossly unfair to engage in this type of vilification. The video for example states that after the housing market crash the government printed money for “rich people” but they didn’t give any to “ordinary people whose houses and jobs were broken by the crash.” The video also states that after the collapse that rich people “love their money more than anything in the world.” That is simply outrageous. What would be the reaction to a business group releasing a video stating poor people do not care for other people and do not want to work? There would be justified anger and outrage, but the reaction to this video seems to be muted from the left. It is not enough to simply shrug and again blame the other side triggering such responses. Whatever the excesses of the other side of this debate, it does not relieve adults of being the obligations of accuracy and decency. As an educator myself, I am embarrassed to see any teacher’s organization engage in such attacks.
I am interested in whether the union did include the even more offensive image and removed it or whether it is claiming that conservative groups hacked their video. If it is the former, I do not believe that they have served the interests of teachers who generally strive to engage in reasoned and respectful debate. If it is the latter, I would love to know who added the yellow image and left the appearance that it was in the original video. The union itself has thus far said little on the controversy. [UPDATE: the original video is posted here and shows the yellow image. It would appear that the union has altered its own video though I cannot find any statement from it on this controversy].
The current video is shown below.
Nick S, how many recipes for eggplant do you have?
“From crazed minds come crazy definitions . . . ”
or perhaps
“Ayn Rand. When only selfish insanity will do.”
Perhaps this is Bron’s source?
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/socialism.html
Elaine, I’ve not read the book but it was a book picked by the chancellor of UW for students to read a few years back. Pollan came to town and had a discussion. Being Italian, my grocery cart has always looked red, green, purple, etc. w/ very little processed food. I shop and cook for our household. I do get concerned when I see my nieces and others allowing politics to determine what they eat. They’re all vegans and don’t get the protein they need. I’m told one can, but these kids are clueless..they’re just “vegan” because it’s politically correct and cool. I would not be so concerned if they were full grown, I believe in preparing your own meals, not letting corporations do it. I believe everything in moderation. I think for the most part “organic” is a huge fraud. If you know the farmer[there are many family organic farmers in Wi.] then you can be pretty sure you’re getting what you pay for[30-70% higher]. Most of the “organic” food purchased in the US comes from China. Don’t tell me those mofo’s don’t know “I can stamp organic and get 50% more..then it’s “organic” ha ha ha!” Common sense, moderation, eat like your grandparents ate…unless they were Irish.
And that’s a problem you’ve always had, Bron.
You make up or cherry pick definitions to suit your arguments. For example, you above definition is not that of socialism. It’s the definition of Communism. Communism is just as extremist and faulty an idea as laissez-faire capitalism. Socialism allows both self-determination and private property in most of its forms. It just doesn’t allow private parties to monopolize and control infrastructure deemed critical and necessary for society.
Subsides aren’t in the best interests of the state. They are in the best interests of the subsidized. I would think that is obvious. Subsidizing the profits of the few on the backs of the many is manifestly inequitable.
And you’re arguing a straw man. Socialism isn’t just legal. It’s part of the Constitution in the forms of the General Welfare and Tax and Spending Clauses. The only true argument is what shade of pink we should be.
nick,
Have you read Michael Pollan’s book “The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals?”
*****
http://michaelpollan.com/reviews/were-living-on-corn/
In America, foods as diverse as Gatorade, Ring Dings, and hamburgers have their beginning with corn. Indeed, huge factories transform its kernels into an almost unimaginable array of compounds. To illustrate how pervasive corn’s influence is, Pollan gives us the example of the chicken nugget, which he says “piles corn upon corn: what chicken it contains consists of corn” (because the chickens are corn-fed), as does “the modified corn starch that glues the thing together, the corn flour in the batter that coats it, and the corn oil in which it gets fried. Much less obviously, the leavenings and lecithin, the mono-, di-, and triglycerides, the attractive golden coloring, and even the citric acid that keeps the nugget ‘fresh’ can all be derived from corn.”
So dominant has this giant grass become that of the 45,000-odd items in American supermarkets, more than one quarter contain corn. Disposable diapers, trash bags, toothpaste, charcoal briquettes, matches, batteries, and even the shine on the covers of magazines all contain corn. In America, all meat is also ultimately corn: chickens, turkeys, pigs, and even cows (which would be far healthier and happier eating grass) are forced into eating corn, as are, increasingly, carnivores such as salmon.
If you doubt the ubiquity of corn you can take a chemical test. It turns out that corn has a peculiar carbon structure which can be traced in everything that consumes it. Compare a hair sample from an American and a tortilla-eating Mexican and you’ll discover that the American contains a far larger proportion of corn-type carbon. “We North Americans look like corn chips with legs,” says one of the researchers who conducts such tests.
You might argue that there’s nothing wrong with eating such a corn-rich diet. But you are what you eat, and Pollan provides much graphic evidence that the American way of eating spreads illness, waste, and ecological devastation across the globe. As its title suggests, his book follows the makings–from farm to plate–of four very different meals. The first is a pure product of the industrial complex that feeds most of us–a McDonald’s meal eaten in a car. Next he examines an organic meal, then a meal prepared from ingredients grown on an ingenious farm called Polyface in the Shenandoah Valley. Finally Pollan relates the making of a meal made almost entirely of ingredients he himself harvests from the suburbs and hills of northern California, where he lives.
Gene H:
under my operational definition of socialism, that is exactly what it is.
“Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.”
Since subsidies are viewed in the best interest of the state, well you do the math.
If that is what we want as a society, then lets vote on it and I will accept the results if the majority of people want that for themselves. After all we live in a democracy and fair is fair. Maybe it wouldnt be so bad, you seem to think it is a good idea and you arent a bad guy.
“Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.”
Bron,
Would it be too much trouble for you to cite a source for that quotation. I’m asking because it doesn’t agree with any quote on socialism that I’m familiar with.
I may be wrong and you may indeed have a good source, but then have you heard about the definition of Libertarian economics:
“A system where the most powerful control society and make the weak act as their servants, in medieval times known as feudalism. The only people that have any rights are those with the power to enforce them.”
Ah, what’s in a definition? Is a rose only a rose?
Elaine M:
our system is very messed up. But then that is what happens when the government doesnt respect property rights. To take money from our pockets to subsidize anyone is immoral.
Elaine, Thanks. There are no industrial dairy farms in Wi., still mostly family. However, when I drive west through the El Paso area, eastern NM, and very SE Ca. I see these monstrosities..10’s of thousands of cows. Not a healthy way to get dairy.
nick,
Farm Subsidies Go To Farmers Right? Think Again
By Energy Interns on Jun 30, 2011
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/06/30/256539/farm-subsidies-go-to-farmers-right-think-again/
Excerpt:
“The fundamental problem with America’s farm programs: They mostly reward those who own the land, not those who farm it, or are most in need, or grow the healthiest food, or do the best job of protecting soil, water and wildlife habitat.”
No matter how many movies we see on the problems with our industrial farming system, most of us will always conjure the iconic image of a wholesome family farming the land when we think of agriculture. But your tax dollars may not be going to who you think.
A report by the Environmental Working Group, a non-profit that monitors federal programs, concludes that the U.S. government is sending hundreds of millions of dollars to people in urban areas of the country, some of whom have no direct connection to agriculture. According to EWG’s updated 2011 Farm Subsidy Database, $394 million last year went to residents of almost 350 cities with at least 100,000 people each.
The fact is, you can be a city slicker in Miami Beach or Beverly Hills and collect farm subsidy payments. All you have to do is have an ownership interest in some Iowa farmland. While 60 percent of American farmers must get along without a dime in federal subsidies, the so-called farm “safety net” benefits a narrow band of the wealthiest agri-businesses and absentee land owners and the lobbyists who ensure that the subsidies keep flowing.
“Freedom to Farm” was a program passed in 1996 to reduce government subsidies to farmers and allow more flexibility in what they planted. However, with a slump in commodity prices, the government continued passing emergency supplements that have increased subsidies and benefited absentee “farmers.”
Our govt subsidizes ag products that are bad for us [corn, dairy] instead of products good for us [fruit, green, yellow red vegetables]. Personally I abhor all subsidies and all corp. welfare, but if we are going to subsidize why not healthy stuff, not the stuff that kills us.
The plutocracy faces a frightening future, like the NAZI’s who are still hunted down to this very day for what they did the better part of a century ago.
Bron,
Too bad you don’t know what the word socialism means. What you are complaining about is corporate welfare, not socialism. The state doesn’t own the orange farming industry. Corporations and individuals do. A subsidy is not socialism. Nothing is being held in common for public benefit.
Bron,
Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?
Revised August 13, 2012
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
Excerpt:
Two other categories together account for another fifth of federal spending:
Safety net programs:
About 13 percent of the federal budget in 2011, or $466 billion, went to support programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship. Spending on safety net programs declined in both nominal and real terms between 2010 and 2011 as the economy continued to improve and initiatives funded by the 2009 Recovery Act began to expire.
Elaine:
but I do agree that subsidies to business need to end. Paying orange growers to promote orange juice consumption with tax payer money is wrong.
And that title about corporate socialism destroying is spot on, socialism does destroy, in all its many forms.
Elaine:
59 billion on social welfare? Huh? The charts I have looked at say that social welfare spending is around 53% of the budget.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2007spendingbycategory.png
From AJR, April/May 2012
Flunking the Test
The American education system has never been better, several important measures show. But you’d never know that from reading overheated media reports about “failing” schools and enthusiastic pieces on unproven “reform” efforts.
Fri., March 30, 2012.
By Paul Farhi
Senior contributing writer Paul Farhi (farhip@washpost.com) is a reporter for the Washington Post.
http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=5280
Excerpt:
Have the nation’s schools gotten noticeably lousier? Or has the coverage of them just made it seem that way?
Some schools are having a difficult time educating children – particularly children who are impoverished, speak a language other than English, move frequently or arrive at the school door neglected, abused or chronically ill. But many pieces of this complex mosaic are quite positive. First data point: American elementary and middle school students have improved their performance on the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study every four years since the tests began in 1995; they are above the international average in all categories and within a few percentage points of the global leaders (something that few news reports mention). Second data point: The number of Americans with at least some college education has soared over the past 70 years, from 10 percent in 1940 to 56 percent today, even as the population has tripled and the nation has grown vastly more diverse. All told, America’s long-term achievements in education are nothing short of stunning.
As the son and husband of schoolteachers, I can’t say I’m unbiased on this subject. But as a journalist, I can’t help but see the evident flaws in some of the reporting about education – namely, a lack of balance and historical context, and a willingness to accept the most generic and even inflammatory characterizations at face value. Journalists can’t be faulted for reporting the oftentimes overheated rhetoric about educational “failure” from elected officials and prominent “reformers” (that’s what reporters are supposed to do, after all). But some can certainly be faulted for not offering readers and viewers a broader frame to assess the extent of the alleged problems, and the likelihood that the proposed responses will succeed.
Check out some of the 544 articles that mentioned “failing schools” in January; they constitute an encyclopedia of loaded rhetoric, vapid reporting and unchallenged assumptions. In dozens and dozens of articles, the phrase isn’t defined; it is simply accepted as commonly understood. “Several speakers said charter schools should only be allowed in areas now served by failing schools,” the Associated Press wrote of a Mississippi charter school proposal. The passive construction of the phrase is telling: The schools are failing, not administrators, superintendents, curriculum writers, elected officials, students or their parents.
The running mate of “failing schools” in education stories is “reform.” The word suggests a good thing – change for the sake of improvement. But in news accounts, the label often is implicitly one-sided, suggesting that “reformers” (such as proponents of vouchers or “school choice”) are more virtuous than their hidebound opponents. Journalists rarely question the motives or credentials of “reformers.” The Hartfort Courant hit the “reformer-failing schools” jackpot when it reported, “Like most people seeking education reform this year..the council wants policies that assure excellent teaching, preschool for children whose families can’t afford it, and help for failing schools.”
One reason schools seem to be “failing” so often in news accounts is that we simply know more than we once did about student performance. Before NCLB, schools were measured by averaging all of their students’ scores, a single number that mixed high and low performers. The law required states to “disaggregate” this data – that is, to break it down by race, poverty and other sub-groups. One beneficial effect of the law is that it showed how some of these groups – poor children and non-English speakers, for example – lag children from more privileged backgrounds. But rather than evidence of a “crisis,” this new data may simply have laid bare what was always true but never reported in detail.
What or who was responsible for the poorest performing schools? Quite often, news media accounts have pointed the finger at a single culprit – teachers. In late 2008, Time magazine featured the District of Columbia’s then-School Chancellor Michelle Rhee on its cover wielding a broom to symbolize her desire to sweep out underperforming instructors. The magazine endorsed her approach not just as prudent but as scientific: “The biggest problem with U.S. public schools is ineffective teaching,” wrote reporter Amanda Ripley, citing “decades of research.” This view – a favorite of wealthy education “reformers” such as Bill Gates and real estate developer Eli Broad – was also a theme in the critically adored documentary “Waiting for ‘Superman,'” which featured Rhee.
But like “failing schools” and “crisis,” the phrase “ineffective teachers” has become media shorthand (it appeared 136 times in news accounts during January alone, Nexis says). And given the many factors that affect learning, it also looks like scapegoating. NPR’s Tovia Smith, for example, concluded her story in early March about a program that holds back third graders who are having trouble reading this way: “As another academic put it: This policy flunks kids for failing to learn, but given how widespread the problem is, maybe it’s the school that should flunk for failing to teach.”
The notion that education is in “crisis” – that is, in a moment of special danger – is another journalistic favorite. While few reporters ever mention it, anxiety over the nation’s educational achievement is probably older than the nation. Zakaria’s concern that American students aren’t being prepared for the modern workforce echoes the comments of business leaders at the turn of the century – the 19th century. Then as now, they worried that schools weren’t producing enough educated workers for an economy undergoing rapid technological change.
Nor are the fears that international competitors are bypassing us without precedent. Five months after the Soviet Union launched the Sputnik satellite in October 1957, Life magazine contrasted the rigorous academic workload and extracurricular activities of a Moscow teenager (physics and chemistry courses, chess club) with the carefree lifestyle of a Chicago schoolboy (sock hops and soda shop dates with his girlfriend). The cover line: “Crisis in Education.” Cold War worries gave way to fears that Japan was gaining on us in the 1980s; the Reagan-era education reform manifesto “A Nation at Risk” warned that “a rising tide of mediocrity” was threatening “our very future as a nation and a people.”
“The idea that we have a crisis in American education, that there is pervasive failure, starts with policy makers,” says Pedro Noguera, the eminent education researcher and New York University professor. “This is the line we hear in D.C. and in state capitals. There are certainly areas in which we’re lacking, but when you report it that way, it doesn’t at all acknowledge the complexity of the situation [and] where we’re doing quite well. The discussion is quite simplistic. I’m not sure why exactly. My suspicion is that the media has trouble with complexity.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/us/winners-and-losers-in-texas.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Texas awarded 19 billion in incentives to business while at the same time cutting the education budget by 4.6 billion. Talk about welfare for the rich……………
Elaine, I taught in Wi., which is as you know, the Mecca for teacher’s unions. We are different people, in a different region, w/ different world views and different backgrounds. I believe we’re both being honest in our assessments. I’ve interviewed too many people, who I knew were being truthful, have entirely different accounts of the same incident, to be surprised by our divergent views on this.
OTOTOTOTOT
Read Russ Baker’s book on the Bush Family. Chockful of nuts and no pun intended. The Texans are still protecting their oil depletion allowance. The defiency in our budget is paid by us of course.
Texas is a Republic, and always has been IMHO. They’ve been regarding us as a large colony to exploit for centuries. And they assassinated JFK with their own branch of the CIA and US Arny Intelligent Bn.
Bush arranged the Watergate thingy to get Nixon kicked. Then he went from RNC chair to CIA chief to prevent any leaks from the CIA trail.
Read the book, MikeS reviewed it.
Lots to learn about how things work.
Why this book, just now with the teachers and all else discussed here?
Because it gives a framework showing the underlying network.