Archive for the ‘Progressivism’ Category

So I am sitting here in the shade of my garage, sweating buckets because summer has officially arrived, and feeling envious of my daughter and the neighbors because they are all sleeping in.  I started this post ready to complain about not having anyone stop by my garage sale when three or four cars in a row pulled up.  Sales are much slower today than last Sunday but I actually can’t complain too much.

I made a killing last week and I am too darned tired to run around dealing with a bazillion people today.  Yesterday was a pretty busy day.  Liam woke up early as usual and was raring to go.  Meghan got up only an hour after.  She had a soccer game at 10 and it was already very hot by then.  I always worry that she will end up with heat stroke one of these days no matter how much I try to keep her hydrated and cool. Her team lost but it was a valiant effort.  They played a team of all boys (is supposed to be a co-ed competitive league) most of whom were older and bigger (one kid my daughter nicknamed “The Mountain” was taller than our coaches).

Last time they played they beat us 4 to 0, even though my daughter literally ran circles around “The Mountain” and exhausted him.  My daughter only weighs 50 lbs and I can almost wrap my hands around her waist.  And she will always be tiny! Doctors estimating that she will be 5 feet or 5 feet 2 inches at most.  For all of that, she is a fierce competitor and fast as lightening.  Her instincts are good and her foot skills have been continually improving.  She is the team’s highest scorer and the second smallest person on the team.  I am so proud of her, but I am not sure if she knows just how proud I am.

After the last game the coaches and parents conferred and decided that the boys on the other team were a little too big to be in the 8 or 9 year old bracket ( the 5 o’clock shadow on “The Mountain’s” face was also a tell-tale sign).   So the coaches contacted the league but they said they were legitimate in spite of the fact that the league doesn’t verify birth certificates.  Facing them again yesterday was a fluke due to scheduling changes but we had learned in the meantime that “The Mountain” was 12 and a couple of the boys were 11.  They ended  beating us 2 to 0–our team played much better passing the ball, centering it, communicating well, and our goalie was outstanding.

Now, I am a good sport, a very good sport, and have tried hard to install that attitude and the concept of fairness in my daughter.  But yesterday as we watched the other team celebrating I thought how unfair it was and wondered how on Earth the parents and coaches of the other team could be be proud of winning every week against much younger, smaller players.  If my child was on a team like that I would remove them because it’s basically cheating.  And what values are they passing on to their kids?  That might makes right, that so long as you win the ends justifies the means, and if you can lie and get away with it you should?

Now I know that life is unfair, believe me I know from first hand experience.  And I actually despise the mamby-pamby, non-competitive youth sports leagues that gives a trophy to every child who dons a jersey.  I was playing competitive fast pitch softball at 5 years old, no silly T-ball for me.  I want my daughter to experience the ups and downs of winning sometimes and losing at others, because those lessons are invaluable. It makes them tougher and more adaptable.  It teaches them to dream but to have reasonable expectations.  And it motivates them to try harder next time.  But it only works if the playing field is level and they play by the rules.  Even then I know that unfair things happen, a bad call by the ref, an unseen shove and I expect those kinds of things , but the purposeful forming of an entire team of older kids, all boys in a bracket that they don’t belong in, I gotta say, is over the line.

But if I have learned anything about people it is that they will try to everything under the sun and hope to get away with it. Heck, even my yard sale today is a good example.  I am already selling things dirt cheap but I have people asking for things for free!  Is that cynical?  Probably, but it comes from a lot of experience of being on the receiving end of a lot of shitty behavior.

I think this concept of fairness, but in a competitive environment, and how the world should be is at the core of who I am.  It is what makes me a liberal and proud of it.  In Arizona I am surrounded by conservatives who claim to be more Christian, moral, just basically better than not only liberals but even the more moderate wing of their own party (want an example?  See the recent sniping at Mitt Romney by the evangelical base).   In truth, I have found many of them to be liars, reprobates, perverts, hypocrites, filled with hate, and as far from Christ-like as is possible.  I don’t deny we have some of those on the left, but what drives me also animates most liberals I know. We want a fair playing field or as close as we can come to it while also maintaining as much of our  basic liberties as possible. What’s so wrong with that?

Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long-shot.
Charlie Chaplin

So, I was watching an old episode of Family Guy last night (a favorite of mine) and in this particular episode Seth McFarland, creative genius behind the show, makes fun of BOTH Lou Gehrig’s disease and the sad but true tale of “My Left Foot“.    Please recall that this is the same genius who has gone so far as to make fun of fetuses left in the dumpster on Prom night (no doubt inspired by a sad, but true tale in the news)…this is evidence of just how far this comedian will go.

I actually find this funny in a kind of “laugh and weep at the same time” thing.  If you don’t, that’s fine. But I do and MANY Americans do too. Perhaps we feel so helpless in the face of such tragedy that we choose to laugh instead of cry. Maybe it’ something deeper, that we see a society that raises children to be so selfish, so self-centered that they don’t value their own children or take  any responsibility for them.  Or worse yet, we see a society so hell bent on the maintenance of abstinence and Christianist purity of the unmarried teen that we can only laugh/cry in despair when we see a teenager so determined to hide the shame of the birth, so afraid to communicate with her potentially judgmental parents, so unsupported by the father who was just as engaged in f*cking/creating the life as she was, that she feels the need to disconnect herself from the child, it’s incovenient birth and the shame she feels.  So disconnected that ultimately she wrapped this poor baby up in plastic and placed it in a dumpster and then proceeded with her Prom plans that evening.

Why do I mention such a horrible thing?  Because I want to illustrate how I as an individual view humor and hyperbole in our culture.  While I can heartily laugh at “Fetus Dumpster Baby”, I can also be offended by a comment on Twitter the other day about rape.  This is not hypocrisy.  I am discussing my sense of humor, often so dark it could blot out the sun, because it has bearing on my reaction to the comment of a political blogger/journalist.

The other day, Glenn Greenwald, a political pundit (I won’t credit him as JUST a blogger any more because he appears frequently on TV and other media) and online blogger for Salon decided to double down on a metaphor involving rape and President Obama on Twitter in response to a very cogent and lawyerly challenge by Imani Gandy regarding the NDAA and indefinite detention.  ABL argued that the President’s veto could not overcome the Congressional majority vote so he created a signing statement declaring that indefinite detention of American Citizens was NOT acceptable and would not be tolerated by this administration.  ABL’s argument was that it was the most he could do, given the obstruction by Congress.

Greenwald, on the other had, decided to ignore the signing statement and condemn Pres. Obama for signing the law (note:  a law he could NOT VETO or limit in any way OTHER THAN  in a signing statement).  On Twitter when ABL (aka, Imani Gandy) challenged him with the signing statement,  Greenwald did not immediately respond.  However, someone going by the Twitter account name of  @emptywheel said, “ABL, Obama could rape a nun live on NBC and you’d say we weren’t seeing what we were seeing”….

It is, essentially, an ad hominem attack on ABL to distract from the important point that Greenwald (of whom @emptywheel  is a fan) is trying so assiduously to avoid.  That point is that unless President Obama decided to become a dictator there was NOTHING he could do EXCEPT for issue a “signing statement”.  One would have hoped that this would be the end of it….but no, Greenwald decided to not only repeat @emptywheel’s assertion but also reinforce it.

Greenwald said in response to @emptywheel, “No – she’d say it was justified & noble- that he only did it to teach us about the evils of rape.”  He doubled down on the ad hominem attack, claiming that ABL would excuse President Obama of any action no matter how demonstrably evil it was.  It is an “ad hominem” attack because Greenwald considers any Liberal who supports Pres. Obama as a sycophant, an “obamabot”–and there is a pattern of behavior, statements from the last few years to support this conclusion.

Later still, a blogger that I  deeply respect, John Cole of Balloon, defended Greenwald reinforcing the “rape” metaphor saying it was hyperbole only and that people, particularly politicians and bloggers, do it all the time.    I posted a reply on his website (most likely not read by John Cole) about his opinion and it is directly related to this post.   My reply was that what is okay hyperbole for some people to say, is not okay for others to say (and that apologies were needed all around because each actor in that discussion had stepped over a line).  Which brings me back to my point:   What is hyperbolic AND okay in the U.S. and what is not.

Now you may be asking yourself why on God’s Great Green Earth would I connect Family Guy with Greenwald’s supposedly “hyperbolic comments?  Here’s why….in the U.S. we have a tradition of comedians, actors and other public celebrities making political statements.  However, the comedian is a breed apart.  In the U.S. a comedian (for the most part)* can say whatever he/she wants and so long as the audience laughs it  is okay.  We give a TON of leeway to comedians and I think that is all to the good.  Otherwise we wouldn’t have satire (e.g., The Daily Show, The Onion, The Colbert Report, etc).

The difference here is that Greenwald, or any other person in the U.S., doesn’t get the leeway given to a comedian.  If they want such a thing , then become a c0median but don’t, whatever you do, become a political pundit and blogger.  Greenwald, you’re no comedian and you didn’t mean what you said in jest…and because you were serious (and have repeatedly confirmed your seriousness on the issue), you do not deserve the license given to comedians.

If Louis CK wants to talk about rape in such a way, I’ll laugh because comedy about the things that make us want to cry is his job.  Greenwald is supposed to be a serious person who means what he says. This IS what makes what he said to ABL so wrong and so offensive IMHO.

If you don’t understand my point, go ahead and “pull an ostrich” until the next GOP candidate wins the White House.   Then see where our precious liberties are.  But even then I will laugh/cry at statements made by  comedians and condemn the same statements from the mouths of pundits like Greenwald, and rightly so.


*Note, there have been some things in the news lately about comedians saying things as jokes that piss people off and many people were quick to condemn them.  HOWEVER, most of the time, compared to just about every other nation on the planet….we let our comedians get away with quite a lot for the sake of comedy.

Digby posted an excellent piece on the difference between Liberals and Libertarians. I found the following a particularly insightful quote:

Which leads us to Ron Paul, a man whose detestable ideals are directly in opposition to those of liberalism–even if he happens, like a stopped clock, to end up in the right place a couple of times for entirely the wrong reasons.

Digby was writing in response to some conservative bloggers like Sullivan and Stoller that have accused Liberals who are against Ron Paul to be hypocrites because many of us agree that we should never have gone to war in Iraq and would have liked to pull out immediately and due to the fact that we often agree on Paul’s position to legalize drugs.  Digby right points out that just because Liberals come to the same  conclusion as Paul doesn’t mean we believe the same things.  We patently don’t and she explains this in  her usual excellent fashion.  Her post is worth the read.

The current political situation in the U.S. is perfect for playing a game I like to call “Where’s Ruprecht?” 1 TM Ruprecht is the guy with the cork on his fork and this “useful idiot” can be found all over the political map.

Let me describe the definition of “useful idiot” and put it in historical context.  Apparently, Lenin coined the term  when talking about capitalist dupes who “will sell us the rope with which to hang them”, i.e.,   dupes that, in order to make a profit, continued to deal with the Soviet Union and in the end harmed their own country and aided their enemies by supplying them with what they needed to compete with us.  Evidently the literal translation from Russian is actually “utter simpleton” but Americans got the gist of it and believed that “useful idiot” was the better translation.  How sadly correct we were and still are.

Later this term was used by conservatives to refer to liberals that would not acknowledge that the Soviet Union was a brutal, police state and continued to advocate normalizing relations with the USSR.  I’m sure there were people who genuinely believed, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that the USSR was not a threat to us.  And there were businessmen who cared little for the politics and more for the profit to be had.  Both types shot themselves in the foot and could be called “useful idiots”.  It has also been used to describe the relationship of African Americans as a voting bloc within the Democratic party by BOTH conservatives and extremists on the left.

And although it can refer to any duped group of persons that prop up another group and doing so isn’t in their on best interests, the term still seems to be mostly applied to liberals in the U.S.   It’s part and parcel of the entire image that conservatives have been hammering into the American subconscious for the last 40 years.  We see it every day being used against Pres. Obama.  He is supposedly weak on defense and a non-fighter in domestic politics.  He is supposedly elite because he is intelligent and educated.  He is supposedly naive or disingenuous….etc, etc, etc….

To see how this is being hammered into the public discourse and how these labels stick so well, do a search for +liberals and +”useful idiots” and you’ll get over 1.4 million hits, most of them conservatives sites applying the term to liberals.  Then do a search for +conservatives +”useful idiots” and you’ll get over 1.3 million hits, mostly of the same links as the previous search.  The level of vitriol in the conservative blogosphere and the media that they control and put out there out advertises, out shouts, out funds and generally out does the application of stigmatizing label attacks on the left–they are geniuses sociological manipulation and Americans are buying into it.

The GOP has perfected the name calling business to such a degree that too many liberals have been afraid to proclaim themselves as such, hence the usage of “progressive” by many liberals today.  I don’t consider many so-called progressives to be the same as those of the Teddy Roosevelt era kind, but that’s another post best left for another day.  The refusal by several generations of liberals to even use the word in advocating their positions, in declaring their political philosophy or even using it in conversation in general  added to the MSM’s aversion to the accusation of “liberal bias” is proof enough of the efficacy of labeling.

But back to these so called “progressives”….I would actually label them as Ruprechts.   Liberals not buying into their self-sabotage generally label them as “Firebaggers”2.     Who are the other Ruprechts?  The Tea Party, and, of course, the wonderfully absurd and ever entertaining Herman “I can’t get enough of the ladies” Cain.

Since I love lists, here’s one of what all Ruprechts have in common.  

1.  Denial of proven factual reality – The Tea Party denies long established scientific principles such as Evolution and even go so far as to eschew the scientific method for “belief” or “faith” based knowledge.  For example, this extreme wing of the GOP wants to put Creationism on the educational curriculum in, wait for it…… classes….  The Firebagger’s deny the very real but separate and equal branches of the federal government.  For example, when President Obama wanted to shut down Guantanomo he had to request funding for it from Congress, because that’s their job–to assign the money–and they said no.  The Firebagger’s blamed the President for the subsequent failure to close Guantanamo.  Herman Cain…..well, his attempt to get the GOP nomination in 2012 is pretty much dead, but will he admit it?  Hell no!  Conclusion:  All of these Ruprecht’s can’t even see the facts much less make logical deductions from said facts.

2.  Acting against their own long term best interests  – The Tea Party votes for tax breaks for the very wealthy, when very few of them actually are the very wealthy.  Not only that, they believe despite all evidence to the contrary that “trickle down” economics work.  And to top it off they demand the taxes continue to be cut and government shrunk but don’t you dare touch their Medicare.  Mind-boggling, I know.  Firebaggers have been making noises about putting someone up against Pres. Obama in the primaries in spite of the fact that it has proven to be an phenomenally impractical and just plain bad idea virtually ensuring disaffectation and further infighting on the left for years to come at the precise moment when they need to unite to defeat the GOP.  Furthermore if any of the clowns from the right should get elected as President (literally any one of them including Romney) much of the hard fought progress made by Pres. Obama will be obliterated and we’ll be back in the “lost Bush years”.   No one truly on the left should EVER want that!  And speaking of clowns, good ole Herman should never have thrown his hat into the ring in the first place….but his megalomania wouldn’t let him hold back.  Now the skeletons and peccadilloes discovered as a result will follow him around forever and if not affect his business career, definitely will affect his personal relationships.  Conclusion:  Ruprechts would be better off not playing the role but they just can’t help themselves–for why that is the case, next item.

3.  Aiding the enemy – Some might argue that The Tea Party has actually aided the right, and they certainly have rallied the base enfusing it with renewed fervor.  But the truth is they’ve done a great job to disaffect anyone on the left and a lot of people in the middle because of their extreme views interlaced with the ugliest and shameful parts of the American psyche3.  In the end they will help us re-elect Pres. Obama and I personally hope their extremism continues for a good long while.  The same could be said Cain…let the circus atmosphere continue…it only makes the Democrats look better and better to the Independent voter.  On the left the Firebaggers are playing directly into the hands of conservatives and in some cases have actually collaborated with members of the GOP to oppose Pres. Obama on a number of issues.  If they try to primary the President or offer up a third candidate, they would likely siphon off votes similar to what happened in 2000 with Nader, partially causing the loss of the election and President Shrub’s 8 year long debacle.  As to why they do this?  Well some of the GOP/Tea Party are cons, playing a game and others are true believers…either way the result is the same.  Cain is simply a megalomaniac and with regards to the Firebaggers I am not entirely sure.  I believe that some are true believers in their cause (such as Glen Greenwald) and others are simply trying to make a buck (such as Jane Hamsher)….their increasing appearance on MSM outlets hand-in-hand with scum like Erick Erickson, Pat Buchanan, Andrew Breitbart, etc, doesn’t lend credence to their declarations of ideological purity.  Conclusion:  Ruprehts might actually be in on the con or they may actually be idiots, either way the result is the same…they end up getting conned along with the rest of us.

Now you know how to spot a Ruprecht.  Go out there and find some more!


1.  If you don’t know who Ruprecht is you MUST watch the movie “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels” and if you can’t be bothered, you must at least watch this scene  Two con men take turns bilking lonely rich women out of their fortunes. The con men take turns playing the suave debonair seducer and the idiot with the cork on his fork, aka, Ruprecht.  Ruprecht is the useful idiot and in the movie the con man character played by  Steve Martin realizes that he is also a useful idiot in other ways as well because, well, that’s the nature of a con…sometimes the conner can become the duped.

2. For the uninitiated, Firebaggers tend to call themselves liberal and progressives, and represent an extreme view on the left that condemns President Obama no matter what he does and no matter how he does it. The name originated from a blog called Firedoglake by one of the chief complainers, Jane Hamsher. You might see them called Hamsherites as well.

3. I refer here to the widespread racism and religious bigotry exhibited during the 2008 Presidential election by Tea Party members, the dog whistles being used in the current GOP nomination race for 2012, age discrimination of the elderly who want their Medicare at all costs at the expense of the young and the future of the country, class warfare of the wealthiest Americans waged against the middle class, the refusal of the GOP as pushed by the Tea Party to compromise on anything with Pres. Obama even if it was an idea they formally advocated for, etc, etc…this list is endless.

We’ve been hearing it for decades now….the media in the U.S. has a liberal bias.  We’ve heard it so often from so many people that it has become an accepted norm. The only problem is, it isn’t true.  Or if it was true at some point, it is no longer true.  Here’s a prime example.

Today, as I was reading the news on Yahoo I found in the News For You section a link to an article entitled “Who’s Behind the Wall Street Protests?” that was written yesterday, Oct. 13, 2011.  Being aware that the movement Occupy Wall Street (OWS) was a spontaneous movement, a true grass-roots happening that started in New York and then spread around cities in the US and  now the world, I was curious.  The article by Reuters news agency doesn’t pull any punches.  They get right to the point.  They assert that OWS isn’t a grass-roots movement but is instead the creation of one George Soros.

For the uninitiated, George Soros is a Hungarian-born philanthropist who has called the U.S. home for many decades.  He frequently supports progressive-liberal causes and spends a great deal of money and time in those endeavors.  One of his main motivations comes from surviving the Holocaust as a young man.  Nothing like surviving senseless extinction at the hands of a fascist regime to make one value freedom and democracy, right?   To liberals he is a kind man who believes in the worthiness of liberal causes, but I don’t know anyone, who is very active in liberal politics, who has ever met him or received anything from him.  Many of us have, on occasion, joined with organizations that he has donated to such as and the Center for American Progress.   So many of our causes and our activities have indirectly benefited from his largess.

If you do  a Google search on Soros you will be overwhelmed with information….I found over 2.2 million hits for his name alone–which doesn’t include all the organizations and causes to which he is linked.   The reason isn’t because he’s wealthy, because there are plenty of very wealthy individuals in the U.S. that don’t get so many Internet mentions.  The reason isn’t because he donates to progressive/liberal causes….again there are many wealthy people that do that too.   No, the reason that George Soros is so talked about is because several important figures on the right in the MSM have decided to villify Mr. Soros as some kind of shadowy puppet master (e.g.,  Pres. Obama being cast as a “Manchurian Candidate” created by Soros, China, any and all enemies of the U.S. and any combination thereof) leading the country ignorantly to a Marxist state.  Although nothing could be further from the truth, media figures such as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Riley, Pat Buchannen, etc, etc, etc…..have been pushing conspiracy theories stirring up the passions and fears of their libertarian and evangelical base to the point that far too many people are now buying into the theory, including some mainstream news sources like Reuters.

So linked on a Yahoo News page that will be seen by millions of users in the U.S. and around the world is an article baldly stating that Soros is behind the OWS protests.  Their proof?  Three things.  1) Soros previously donated money to a liberal ad agency in Canada who first started calls for “occupation” protests in response to large banking and investment companies that crashed the world economy and still earn billions in profits.  This ad agency, called Adbusters, was the origin of the idea of OWS and the connection here is indirect as Soros is not the only donor to Adbusters and he didn’t donate money to them in support of this particular cause.  The article at least admits that is indirect.  2) Soros and the protesters “share ideological ground”.  Of course they do?!  Soros is a self-proclaimed supporter of liberal causes.  And so do I but that doesn’t mean that agree with everything that comes out of the mouths of OWS protesters nor does it mean that either Soros or  I want the destroy my country and install a Marxist state.    That’s like saying that if you share beliefs with a mass murderer, then you must be a mass murderer.  Well, I believe that there are some beliefs that Timothy McVeigh had that millions of Americans also supported……but very few of them would say that means they were in cahoots with McVeigh.  And 3) Rush Limbaugh said it.  That’s the incredible contribution to journalism offerred up by Mark Egan and Michelle Nichols, two reporters from Reuters.

So, having read said piece of crap I thought I would investigate a little more.  I looked up Adbusters and found out that they did indeed originate the idea but not the actual protests of OWS.  Then I did a Google search on “Reuters wall street protests”  and the third result down was an article on Reuters site by the same authors that is entitled, “Soros:  not a funder of Wall Street protests” also published yesterday.  In reading the article they actually engage in some journalism and spoke to Adbusters who said that Soro’s had NOT given them money directly but they wish he would.  They had received money from a group called the Tides Agency which is directly funded by Soros.  Soro’s aides say he’s never even heard of them.  The ad agency indicated that 95% of their funding comes from individuals who subscribe to their magazine.  These revelations are buried in paragraph 14 of the story.  HOWEVER, the same reductionist logic that claims Soros IS behind OWS is right up at the top in paragraphs 2 through 4.

Still curious, I decided to see how Reuters reported on the funding behind another supposed grass-roots protest, the Tea Party.  I did a Google search for the following string:   “who is behind the tea party protests?” reuters

Guess what I found?  Nothing.  Not a single link or word about it.  Take out the Reuters and I get 5 results.  That’s it, 5 total. So I thought maybe its the phrasing… I took off the quotes and I found over 102 million results.  Now many of these links are to the sites and stories of actual Tea Party members.  And no doubt there are quite a few individuals who joined that movement with sincere beliefs and honest intentions because they love their country.  However, I find it depressing that the same search replacing “tea party” with “wall street” finds thousands of results with or without the term Reuters in the search string.  Then I did a search about the known (freely admitted) bank roll behind the Tea Party movement, the Koch Brothers of Koch Industries fame.  Then I found about 1 million hits…..half of what you get on George Soros.  And the types of links…progressive bloggers.  What kind of links do you get when you search for Soros….MSM links.  This is no coincidence.  Let me explain why by asking a question.

Who is Reuters anyway?  It is headquartered in London and was originally a news agency owned by Thomson Reuters.  In 2008 it was merged with The Thomson Corporation, an information business, known mostly for its higher education textbooks.*  Thomson is registered in Canada but has their headquarters in the U.S. (nice little tax maneuvering there I figure…..)  In recent years they have divested themselves of traditional media (i.e., textbooks) in an effort to concentrate on digital and online media.  The current CEO of Reuters is Tom Glocer and the current chairman is David Thomson (of the Thomson family that owns 70% of the company).

Who is Glocer and what is his angle?  Well he has been with Reuters since 1993, moving up the ranks until he reached CEO in 2001.  He lives in NYC, has a law degree and one can safely assume that he is filthy rich. **  As for David Thomson, filthy rich doesn’t even come close to describing his wealth, $23 billion at last count, ranked as #16 on the list of wealthiest families in the world by Forbes.  I won’t bother going into his royal title, the “3rd Baron Thomson of Fleet”.***

What possible motive could these fabulously wealthy, media magnates have that would encourage the mis-characterization of the OWS protests (she asks disingenuously)?  It couldn’t possibly be maintenance of the status quo, keeping the balance of power squarely on the side of corporations and the 1% could it?  Could it?

I mean all the evidence, of which the Reuters story is only one tiny, tiny piece, is becoming a mountain of evidence that the MSM is manipulating the American public to turn against their best advocates, themselves, and in the end vote against their own best interests.  I’m one of a few voices telling you not to believe it.   The Soros boogeyman isn’t real and the ones that are real, like Dave Thomson and Rupert Murdoch, who own most of the news sources are invisible to the average American.  Liberal media bias, don’t believe the hype.


*Full disclosure I have used many Thomson textbooks to teach computer programming courses over the years and have recommended them to other instructors as well.

**For you glibertarians and conservatards reading this, I’m not saying he didn’t earn it so don’t go there!

***I presume they aren’t referring to Fleet of enema fame (I couldn’t resist the scatological reference, I’m sorry!!!!)