There are not many things in politics more depressing than the spectacle of
elected governments trying to raise additional tax revenue through
casinos and lotteries. Well, why not brothels? Why not?
Why not legalize marijuana and tax it like cigarettes and monopolize
distribution? What exactly
is the obstacle to this idea? It sure as hell isn't really a moral obstacle.
They all do it-- Democrat and Republican, Conservative and Liberal, left and right,
reactionary and radical: bring on the slot machines!.
It's a cheap tax, and the victims never complain. And no one
quite cares very much about the lives destroyed by gambling addictions, or
the simple trashiness of the spectacle: weary, worn out drudges in Depends, hoping
that something, anything, will invest a moist moment with glamour or glitz..
Not when there's glorious revenues to be had. Not when there are
public buildings to be named after me. Not when there are pictures in
the newspaper of me holding a giant check and the beaming faces of
underprivileged children receiving their due.
August 1, 2010
What if a high school (or middle school) didn't give grades, didn't have a structured
curriculum, and allowed students to design their own courses? I think most people will
read that and say, "Obviously it can work or you wouldn't ask that question." Then they
will tell you, "but I don't believe in it".
St. Ann's Website.
And that's pretty well where it is. Most people don't believe it. The same way most people
refuse to believe that the crime rate has been declining for 10 years.
Here's a New York Times
article about the school, and a lengthier article about the visionary founder.
It is very telling that the panels of experts
summoned by TV news programs to discuss the Wikileaks issue are uniformly
representative of old media. Here is a Washington Post reporter, here
is a New York Times reporter, here is CBS News, here is the Wall Street
Journal. Like a Greek chorus: bad, bad Wikileaks! How irresponsible!
Do you people now realize how much added value we mediators of news events provide you?
And then, with a straight face, one of them commends the
New York Times for taking the story to the government first! To make
sure they weren't going to cause any trouble?
What the hell is
going on here? We count on the reporters to be informed about
the issues and speak to us as an independent voice. And here they get an interesting
story about the extent to which the U.S. has over-stated it's successes
in Afghanistan, and they can't decide for themselves whether or not it
should be reported. So who do they ask? The government.
The Wikileaks documents reveal, among other things, that the government
has misrepresented the activities they are conducting on behalf of the tax
payer. Fox News bleats: we don't want to know! And those
who do want to know should be criminalized.
They all just demonstrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, exactly why we
need Wikileaks. In God's name, we desperately need some
journalists out there who aren't in the toxic embrace of government or big
business.
The New York Times has admitted that they were taken to the cleaners on
the weapons of mass destruction issue in Iraq. Absolutely taken to the
cleaners. They issued solemn editorials endorsing the invasion
of Iraq. It only took them two years to realize they had been duped.
And now, having not learned a blasted thing, here they are
again, trying to be "responsible", and completely abandoning their duties as
journalists.
In two years, or five, will they finally admit that Afghanistan is a lost cause?
All Contents Copyright
© Bill Van Dyk
2010 All Rights Reserved
Font: Verdana