Category Archives: Media

The Difference Between The Facts And The Truth.

Posted on by

Since President Obama’s Executive Order on immigration, various news organizations have been crawling all over each other to “fact-check” the president’s statements. Predictably, they found a number of things that were at odds with the “facts.”

What those news organizations fail to recognize is that the facts don’t necessarily represent the truth. So I’ll do their job for them. The truth is that illegal immigration, and the resulting influx of undocumented workers, has been a large problem for many years. As a result, President Obama has overseen the greatest expansion of border security in history in addition to an unprecedented growth in deportations. In addition to the “fence,” we now have 21,000 border patrol agents. We have at least one agent for every half mile of the border. Combined with slow job growth (as opposed to a slow economy), that has resulted in a net loss of illegal immigrants.

The fact is that many immigrants have crossed our southern border. The truth is that 40 percent of undocumented immigrants entered the US legally through our airports, bus stations, and seaports and they have overstayed their visas. Building a bigger fence and stationing more agents at the border will do nothing to stop these immigrants.

The fact is that an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants work in the US. The truth is that these workers do not take American jobs. They do the work that very few Americans will. For example, despite advertising for American workers to pick his fruit, a fruit grower in Georgia could not find a single American to do what undocumented workers will.

The fact is drugs are still being smuggled into our country illegally. The truth is that most of them are being smuggled into the US on airplanes, in freight cars, in boats. Few are being brought in by human mules.

The fact is that some criminals cross our borders illegally…drug smugglers, human smugglers and gang members. The truth is that these people represent a very small percentage of illegal immigrants.

The fact is that we pay to educate the children of illegal immigrants. The truth is that these children grow up to contribute far more to our society than their education costs. It is also true that illegal immigrants cannot receive food stamps and welfare benefits. Neither can they vote.

The fact is that many immigrants came across the southern border in search of a better life. The truth is that these immigrants had little choice. Many came to the US as refugees in the 1980’s when the Reagan administration was supporting dictators and death squads in El Salvador and Nicaragua. (Remember Iran-Contra?) Many were small farmers who were put out of business by our large corporate farms that dumped low-priced corn into Mexico and Central America as a consequence of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement).

The fact is that thousands of children recently crossed our southern border. The truth is that few tried to sneak across the border. Most simply turned themselves into Border Patrol officers seeking asylum from the violence in Honduras and El Salvador.

The fact is that our border security has greatly limited the number of illegal crossings. The truth is that is has also greatly limited the billions of dollars in trade between Mexico and the US. 6 million US jobs depend on exports to Mexico and the US receives nearly $9 billion per year in tourism from Mexico. Yet despite being on the border, thanks to SB1070, Arizona ranks 21st in exports to Mexico behind Wisconsin and Minnesota!

The fact is that millions of undocumented workers are employed in the US. The truth is that most of these workers pay federal and state income taxes, sales taxes and licensing fees. They also contribute approximately $7 billion per year in payroll deductions to Social Security and Medicare even though they will never benefit from these programs.

The fact is that we need comprehensive immigration reform. The truth is that Republican politicians have used the issue of immigration to promote racism and fear in order to be elected.

The fact is that President Obama acted alone in an attempt to solve the immigration crisis. The truth is that the US House of Representatives had more than 500 days to vote on the Senate’s bi-partisan comprehensive immigration bill, but Speaker Boehner refused to bring it to a vote. Republicans also refused to negotiate the issue with Democrats. The president was left with no other option than to act by Executive Order.

How Teapublicans Cheat. Let Me Count The Ways.

Posted on by

1 – Lies: People tend to think that all politicians lie. To some degree, that’s true. In order to make a point that can be used as a 20-second sound bite in the news, most politicians stretch the truth or take things out of context. But a recent study shows that Republicans lie much more than Democrats. And many of their lies have absolutely no basis in reality. By comparison, Democrats are more likely to simply stretch the truth than blatantly lie.

2 – Fear: Every election cycle Teapublicans raise issues intended to generate fear. In 2010, it was “death panels,” “dangerous criminals” crossing our southern border, our “out of control” national debt and ACORN. In 2012, it was again brown people entering our country illegally in addition to “Benghazi,” “Obamacare,” “bankrupt” Social Security and Medicare, election fraud, and the “takers” who make too little to pay income taxes. In 2014, it’s immigration, ISIS and Ebola. Be afraid…very afraid…and remember only Teapublicans can save you!

3 – Divisiveness: Teapublicans delight in turning different groups against one another. The “job creators” versus the “takers;” corporations versus environmentalists; the rich versus the poor; whites versus African-Americans and Latinos; pro-life versus pro-choice; men versus women; Christians versus Muslims; the old versus the young; the uneducated versus the educated; rural versus urban…the list is very long.

4 – Religion: Teapublicans have co-opted Christianity for political gain. Beginning with the anti-abortion movement, they have fomented paranoia (particularly in the South) that Christianity is under attack. They have led the devout and the gullible to believe that religious freedom only pertains to Christians. And contrary to Christ’s teachings, they are intolerant of others, especially the weak and the poor.

5 – Gerrymandering: In the early half of the 20th century, Democrats changed legislative and congressional districts to make it easier for their candidates to be elected. But as Republicans were elected in southern states, beginning in the 1970s, they took the art of gerrymandering to extremes. In states with Republican-controlled legislatures, they’ve created district maps that look like a Rorschach test. Areas with a preponderance of Democratic voters have been so divided they can no longer elect candidates representing their own views.

6 – Voter Suppression: In an increasing number of states, Jim Crow is back. In 2000, Florida’s governor, Jeb Bush ordered his Secretary of State to purge voter lists of felons. If a John Smith was a felon, all those named John Smith in the state were purged from the voting rolls. As a result, more than 10,000 voters in Democratic districts were denied the right to vote. In 2014, Teapublican-controlled legislatures have implemented strict voter ID laws intended to suppress the votes of minorities, college students and the elderly. In Texas alone, it’s estimated that 600,000 voters will be denied their constitutional right.

7 – Intimidation & Dirty Tricks: If Nixon and his campaign staff perfected political dirty tricks, the rest of his party must have been taking notes. For example, in many minority districts, the number of polling locations have been reduced and early voting times cut, making it more difficult to vote. Since 2004, some minorities have had to stand in line for up to nine hours to vote. In some areas, armed white Teapublican bullies calling themselves “poll watchers” have challenged minority voters with the intent to prevent them from voting .

8 – Dark Money: The Supreme Court cases which ruled that money equals free speech and that corporations have the same rights as individuals were initiated by Teapublicans. Why? They knew that the conservative court would open the floodgates of political contributions from corporations and billionaires benefiting Teapublican candidates. They have created an enormous network of non-profits with which to launder money and funnel it to Teapublican campaigns. To make matters worse, the three Republicans on the Federal Election Commission have blocked any and all attempts to control it. As a result, dark money groups have been able to run ads for candidates and attack their opponents without fear of reprisal.

9 – Absentee Voter Fraud: Though it has been proven that in-person voter fraud is virtually non-existent, fraudulent absentee ballots have long been an issue. In the 2000 presidential election, an estimated 10,000 unsigned absentee ballots were counted for Bush…more than enough to change the outcome of the election. Interestingly, the strict voter ID laws pushed by Teapublican legislatures do not cover absentee ballots. Wonder why?

10 – Dysfunctional Governance: Republican author P.J. O’Rourke famously said, “The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.” That has certainly been the case since 2011. Republicans in the Senate have used the filibuster to bring Washington to a standstill. They have blocked every Democratic initiative while offering few of their own. And the Teapublican-controlled House has done little else than vote more than 50 times to repeal “Obamacare.” The result is to make Congress less popular than cockroaches. Yet they stand to benefit from their sabotage because they can count on uniformed voters to vote for change, not realizing who is responsible for the problem in the first place.

11 – Hate Radio: Since the end of the Fairness Doctrine, more than 92 percent of talk radio has been devoted to conservative hate. The constant drone of attacks against the government and Democrats has had the effect of hundreds of millions of dollars in political advertising promoting Teapublicans.

12 – Corporate Media: While the so-called “mainstream” media are not so blatantly political, they have contributed to the Teapublican cause by leading with crime and fear. They have blown the threat of Ebola out of proportion while ignoring issues that have a real impact on our citizens. Worse, they tell us what we want to know…which celebrity is screwing who…versus telling us what we need to know. The media’s willful ineptitude has played into the hands of Teapublican strategists by magnifying the issues of fear and divisiveness.

Yes, Democrats are guilty of some of the same things. But saying both parties do it is a false equivalency. Teapublicans have mastered the art of lying and cheating. Of course, they wouldn’t be so successful at it if not for Democratic incompetence. Though I believe that Democrats are generally better at governing, especially for ordinary working people, the party is woefully overmatched when it comes to marketing and communications. The party is so diverse that it has difficulty taking a stand on anything, except that they don’t like Teapublicans.

Worse, few Democratic candidates have the strength of conviction to stand up for what they’ve accomplished. One need only look at how Democratic incumbents have run away from their votes on “Obamacare,” the 2009 economic stimulus, and Dodd-Frank, despite the fact that these things were needed and highly successful.

A Simple Way To Reform Political Advertising.

Posted on by

Since the Supreme Court decisions in Buckley v. Valeo, Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC, there have been numerous initiatives to reform election campaigns. Most involve asking Congress to pass Constitutional Amendments that would control election finance or require publicly-funded elections. Though these attempts are admirable and necessary, I think they have little chance to succeed. Instead, I propose a much simpler way to reform political advertising that would not, in any way, infringe on the right to free speech.

All we need to do is hold political advertising to the same standard as advertising for products and services.

When a large corporation produces an ad for a product or service, it subjects the ad to legal compliance before placing the ad on television. That compliance process makes sure that any claims can be substantiated and defended in court. If the claims cannot be substantiated, the company may still run the ad at its own risk. (Indeed, even those ads that have passed legal compliance may be the center of a lawsuit.) But the company, the advertising agency, the writer and often the production company can all be held accountable for damages in ensuing lawsuits by numerous organizations such as the corporation’s competition, the Federal Trade Commission, the BBB, state Attorneys General and industry regulatory groups. This process ensures that ads tell the truth.

For example, when I began my career in advertising, I was recruited to write advertising for a product that promised to give your car better gas mileage and performance. Although I had been given a copy of an independent research report, I was still skeptical of the promises. So I asked the clients to sign an affidavit that the information I had been given was true. After the ads ran, the state Attorney General filed a multi-million-dollar lawsuit naming the company, the art director and me. Thankfully, when I presented the affidavit to the AG, the art director and I were dropped from the lawsuit. The lawsuit was settled out of court with the company agreeing to pay a large fine, to return money to customers who requested refunds and to cease sales of the product.

The system worked. But there is no such system for political advertising.

Political campaign committees have long been free to say and do whatever they want. If an opponent sues over false and misleading advertising, the issue seldom comes to court until after the election. By that time the damage has been done; the entity that is the campaign committee no longer exists and usually no longer has funds to pay any fines. Only rarely are individuals held accountable and, if they are, the settlements take place much later away from the public eye.

The Federal Elections Committee could easily solve the problem by demanding that candidates and campaign managers sign affidavits that the claims made in their advertising are true and not misleading. Ads could be submitted to the FEC and bi-partisan state election committees for compliance. More important, all of the individuals would be held liable even beyond the election. (Yes, the system might require more federal and state funding. But isn’t the process of choosing an elected representative more important than choosing a laundry detergent?)

This would make the standards for political advertising almost identical to the standards for product advertising. As a result, this system should impose no undue hardship for politicians.

As for dark money groups (PACS, Super PACS, 501c4s) funded by billionaires and corporations which now sponsor the majority of our political ads, they can be held accountable by a one word change in the IRS code governing non-profits. Instead of the code requiring that non-profit groups be “operated primarily for the promotion of social welfare,” the code should be returned to its pre-1959 wording which required that non-profits be “operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.”

The only real problem with this proposal is that Teapublicans simply don’t want to make changes. The FEC commissioners are split with 3 Teapublicans and 3 Democrats, and the Teapublicans have blocked every proposal to reform elections. They are content with dark money, with attack ads and with lies. In fact, they are quite good at it. Recent studies have shown that the preponderance of political lies come from Teapublicans. But aren’t these the same people who demand accountability from others? Adding an independent FEC commissioner would end the stalemates and make the FEC relevant again. These relatively minor changes would make all politicians accountable and likely make most political campaigns civil again. More important, it would make them more fair by requiring candidates to tell the truth and it would eliminate dark money from the process.

Who could be against that…other than liars and cheats, of course?

How Does The Koch Money Look In Your State?

Posted on by

In Arizona, it looks as vile and nasty as the people at the Koch refinery for whom I once worked. And I suspect it looks no different wherever you live.

If you watch the political ads as carefully as I do (I know, I know, that makes me sound like a masochist), you’ll see a disclaimer at the end of the ads showing who paid for them. In Arizona, the disclaimers on the nastiest attack ads tend to read: Paid for by 60 Plus…by American Encore…by Americans For Prosperity, etc. In addition, a large number of ads show they have been paid for by lobbying groups and ideological groups such as the National Realtors Association, the National Rifle Association and the US Chamber of Commerce.

These groups claim that their ad campaigns are not coordinated with the candidates (in fact, that would be illegal), but it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell them apart from the candidates’ own ads. The only real differences are that these ads tend to be nastier and they run a lot more often. Indeed, few of the Teapublican ads are actually paid for by the candidates or their committees.

In other words, the Supreme Court decisions that money equals free speech; that corporations have the same rights as people; that there are no limits on political contributions have done exactly what the five conservative justices wanted. Teapublicans no longer have to raise their own money. The corporations, lobbyists and billionaires give them all they need. Teapublican candidates no longer can be held accountable for vile attack ads. They can say, “I had nothing to do with it.” And if voters are so offended by the attack ads that they refuse to vote, Teapublicans benefit because only the most committed ideologues will vote, and they tend to vote Republican.

There are only two ways to fight this: 1 – Vote against Teapublicans. 2 – Keep electing Democratic presidents until conservatives are no longer the majority on the Supreme Court.

Further Evidence That Television News Is A Joke.

Posted on by

It was recently revealed that, before NBC News selected Chuck Todd to host Meet The Press, it tried to convince Jon Stewart to be the host. Yes, that Jon Stewart…the comedian. The same Jon Stewart who currently hosts The Daily Show.

That speaks volumes about the quality of television journalism today.

Stewart is one of the best interviewers on the planet…unafraid to ask tough questions; unwilling to settle for canned statements; determined to get at the truth. And Stewart isn’t the only example. Stephen Colbert and John Oliver are just as good. Unlike most TV “journalists” who have become lazy and partisan, these TV hosts are seeking the facts about government and politics in addition to laughs. After all, these things are often one in the same.

Like the legendary journalists of yesteryear…Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley…these are people who ask insightful questions; who demand real answers; who continue to press until the interview subject reveals something of consequence. Stewart, Colbert and Oliver are intelligent, informed and curious. They can use humor to draw information from their interview subjects. They are entertaining. More important, they are credible.

In other words, they represent everything that television journalism used to be and should be again.

The Supreme Court is, at least, partly responsible for the decline. Its decisions to equate free speech with money and corporations with people have unleashed a multi-billion dollar bonanza of political advertising for TV networks and broadcast stations. To make matters worse, most of the media are now owned by a few corporations. There are no longer impenetrable firewalls between programming, advertising and the newsrooms. For example, Fox “News” president, Roger Ailes, was a media consultant for Presidents Nixon, Reagan and Bush. To make certain that his Fox “News” hosts stay on message, he supplies them with a memo of GOP talking points at the beginning of each day.

In order to continue their financial windfall from political advertising, media owners are not inclined to rock the boat. They will not permit their news operations to report on the evils of dark money in politics or the buying of political favors for fear that they will lose their share of the money. And it’s not just television journalism that is failing.

A similar phenomenon has taken place in radio and print. More than 90 percent of the hosts of radio talk shows are right wing hacks who are peddling hate. Newspapers have long delivered a partisan slant to the news (often the newspapers’ leanings are indicated in their mastheads, i.e. The Republic, The Democrat, The Independent, etc.) and news magazines are struggling financially. As a result, some of the best investigative journalism today is being done by freelance reporters and what were formerly entertainment magazines…Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, Vanity Fair, etc.

It’s ironic that, in the so-called “Information Age,” we are facing a crisis of knowledge.

Allison Lundgren Grimes’ Campaign A Perfect Example Of Party Incompetence.

Posted on by

I’m not referring to Grimes herself, to other Democratic candidates or to the rank and file Democratic volunteers. It’s the so-called strategists who demonstrate the most incompetence. They collect millions in fees while seldom venturing outside of Washington, DC. They create cookie-cutter ads for their candidates. They ignore the principles of their own party platform. They cower at the first attack from Republicans. And they are so cautious as to harm their own cause.

In the case of Grimes, she had a legitimate chance of being elected until the strategists got a hold of her. It’s obvious that they advised her (and other Democratic candidates) to avoid mentioning the president’s name. They told her to run away from “Obamacare,” even though the program was highly effective – especially in Kentucky. They told her to hedge her answers to any questions about the accomplishments of the Obama administration. They told her to avoid any sound bites that could be used against her by the opposition.

Ironically, she provided McConnell’s campaign exactly what they wanted by following the strategists’ advice and refusing to answer the question of whether or not she voted for Obama. Instead of her own statements, McConnell was gifted the pundits’ reactions to her reticence. Now, as a reward for following their advice, the Democratic strategists have pulled their advertising buys in Kentucky.

Without following the strategists’ advice; by proudly standing behind the Democratic accomplishment of providing tens of millions with access to affordable health care; by standing up for the president who led us out of an economic meltdown worse than the Great Depression; by speaking up for the people she hopes to represent she may easily have won.

Certainly, she should win. In a year when the attitude of the majority of voters toward Congress is to throw the bums out, she is running against the poster boy of Congressional obstruction. McConnell is the do-nothing leader of the most do-nothing Congress in history. If the Democratic leaders can’t come up with a strategy to defeat McConnell, they have no right to call themselves strategists.

Let that be a lesson to future Democratic candidates.

Liberals Are Missing The Point About The Affleck-Maher Debate.

Posted on by

On Real Time with Bill Maher, the two celebrities and author Sam Harris had a lively discussion about religion and, specifically, about Islam. It seemed that Harris and Maher intended to make the point that Islam is like other religions, except that a surprising percentage of its adherents in the Middle East have extremist views.

Setting aside US involvement in the radicalization of the children of Western Pakistan with textbooks intended to incite them against the Soviets, Harris and Maher have a legitimate point. Many Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Yemen and elsewhere believe that apostates (anyone who chooses to leave Islam) should be killed.

Not even the most radical members of other religions believe that.

Yet, though Maher and Harris are atheists, they were not, as Ben Affleck and others seem to believe, condemning all Muslims. I believe that they were condemning the misguided views of some Muslims. Unfortunately, Affleck never gave them a chance to elaborate on their point. Instead, he lashed out at them as though they were unjustly prejudiced.

The fact is, they treat all religious zealots the same. Maher and Harris think that the followers of all faiths are blinded by superstition and mythology – just watch Maher’s Religulous if you doubt that. But the data shows that they have a point when it comes to Islam. It appears that a greater percentage of Muslims tend to support violence against non-believers than those who are followers of other faiths.

Certainly, Christians, Jews and other faiths have their share of violent nincompoops. But the data seems to show that there is a larger problem with Islam. That’s not Harris’s and Maher’s fault. The fault lies with those who support extreme and violent views, along with those who refuse to denounce such views. If Muslims want to end Islamaphobia, they must speak out against violence…all violence. Too few Islamic leaders have been willing to do so and, when they have, it has not been with a powerful voice.

To be clear, Islam is no worse or better than any other religion which teaches that its followers are inherently superior to non-believers; that it is the only true path to salvation. Indeed, there was a time when Christianity went through a phase similar to that which Islam is going through now. The Church once tortured and killed thousands of innocents for heresy. The difference is that it occurred in the Middle Ages.

The Real Threat From Ebola.

Posted on by

Fox Noise Channel and other right wing media pundits have cranked up the scare-o-meter, and it has nothing to do with Halloween. In fact, it has more to do with the upcoming mid-term elections. They want us to believe that we’re all going to die from Ebola-carrying terrorists from ISIS, aka ISIL. And, of course, they’d like you to believe that it’s all Obama’s fault.

Never mind that the only things that ISIS and Ebola, thus far, have in common is that they both originated halfway around the world and that President Obama has ordered the US military to help combat them. Aside from that, they’re worlds apart. ISIS is in Syria and Iraq in the Middle East. Ebola is infecting Liberia and Sierra Leone in Africa.

Infectious disease experts continue to reassure us that Ebola is not easily communicable; that protective garb, alcohol, soap and access to health care can stop it in its tracks; that other viruses, such as some types of influenza pose a far greater threat. However, the experts have pointed out that other countries like Canada and the United Kingdom are far better-equipped to deal with the spread of Ebola. Why? Because they have universal health care.

Some say that, if Ebola was able to gain a foothold in the US, it’s likely that the approximately 40 million Americans who still lack affordable access to health care would ignore the early symptoms, afraid to spend the money to seek medical care. The same is true for another 20 million or so who have low-paying jobs and insurance with high deductibles and large co-payments and can’t afford to lose time at work.

And where do most of these people work?

In restaurants where they prepare and serve your food. In retail stores where they take your payments and dispense change and/or receipts. In schools where they are surrounded by children.

I trust the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) when they say that they will stop Ebola in its tracks. But, in the unlikely event that they are wrong (and the scaremongers at Fox are right), we will have the best case yet for what the president and Democrats really wanted instead of Obamacare…nationalized health care.

You’ve Gotta Hand It To Conservatives.

Posted on by

Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the GOP employed the Southern Strategy which was designed to employ racism in order to gain votes from long-time southern Democrats. It worked. As a result of the strategy, Republicans were able to win the White House in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988.

It took Southerners to break the GOP hold in 1976 and in 1992.

But after the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush, the GOP lost Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. Seeing that demographics were aligning against them, conservatives employed an equally disturbing strategy. Sure, they continued to appeal to racists after Democrats elected the nation’s first black president. But they based their new strategy on six pillars:

1 – Government obstruction
2 – Corporate political donations
3 – Erasing limits on political donations
4 – Voter suppression
5 – “Model” legislation designed to implement right wing ideology at the state and local levels
6 – The use of conservative-dominated radio and cable TV to relentlessly attack Democrats

These strategies are now almost fully in place. Since 2009, Teapublicans in the Senate have blocked nearly 400 bills and dozens of appointments. The Teapublican-controlled House attempted to shut down the government. The conservative-dominated Supreme Court ignored decades of precedent to rule that money equals free speech; that corporations are people and therefore entitled to contribute to political campaigns; that the Voting Rights Act is no longer needed; and that individuals and corporations should be allowed to spend unlimited amounts on politics.

Concurrently, conservatives realized that it is easier to sneak bills through state legislatures than through Congress. So they began an all-out attack on groups that traditionally fund Democrats, such as labor unions. They have also pushed ideological legislation through ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and similar groups that gave us such ideological bills as Arizona’s racist SB 1070 and legalized discrimination laws such as Arizona’s SB 1062.

As a result of these efforts, corporations now have more power and influence on government (at all levels) than ever before. There has been an avalanche of corporate money from the Koch brothers and others financing political advertising disguised as “issue” ads. There are virtually untraceable millions of in political spending to influence elections. And tens of thousands, if not millions, of minorities, the elderly and the poor will be denied their right to vote in this and future elections.

The tactics have even succeeded in pushing aside dozens of moderate Republican politicians. To make matters worse, Democrats seem to have no real strategy to combat these strategies. And, with few exceptions, Democratic candidates seem to think the best way to be elected is to run away from their party’s principles and pretend they’re Republicans.

Many Problems, One Cause.

Posted on by

Every single day, I receive emails and letters from dozens of organizations seeking help: The Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, Oceana, Greenpeace, Walk Free, UNICEF, Care, Oxfam, Doctors Without Borders, Mercy Corps, No Kid Hungry, Food and Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, ACLU, Everytown for Gun Safety…the list goes on and on.

While each of these organizations are focused on meeting separate and specific needs, they all have one thing in common. The problems they have been created to solve are all caused by greed…the greed of large corporations, the greed of politicians, the greed for power and profits.

For example, 80 percent of all antibiotics are used by factory farms to ensure they don’t lose their investment in poultry, hogs and beef cattle. Our rivers and oceans are polluted by the run-off of chemicals from corporate farms. Bee colonies are being destroyed by the makers of pesticides. Our beaches and oceans are polluted by off-shore oil drilling. Our fresh water aquifers are polluted from the fracking of oil and gas companies. Our forests are being denuded by large lumber companies. Entire mountains have been decapitated by coal companies. Our reefs are being destroyed by cruise ships and large corporate fishing factories. Natural grain crops are being replaced by genetically modified “Frankenfoods” created by chemical companies. Our air is polluted by factories and carbon-burning power plants. Our streets are filled with people carrying guns pushed by the NRA and gun manufacturers. Our skyrocketing poverty is caused by greedy corporations paying below-subsistence wages. Our governments run deficits as the result of corporate giveaways and tax write-offs. All of these things are enabled by a Congress with politicians elected by large sums of money from billionaires hoping to avoid taxes and corporations hoping to avoid regulation. And the issues are under-reported by corporate media conglomerates that are more intent on advertising revenue than telling the truth.

The result of our runaway corporate society is a planet in dire trouble. Hundreds of species of animals and plants are plummeting toward extinction. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are causing new, untreatable infections. Pollutants in our air, water and food are causing chronic diseases such as asthma, autism, and birth deformities. Oil profits and weapons exports have led to a perpetual state of war. Increased gun sales and weakened laws have led to unsafe streets and mass shootings. And carbon pollution is changing our weather, melting our ice caps and increasing our sea levels.

There is only one way to solve our growing collection of problems. We must elect politicians who understand the cause of our problems; who are not financed by corporations and billionaires; who are more interested in solving problems than getting elected.

How can you tell the difference between one politician versus another? Look at their lists of donors and endorsements. (If their websites don’t list the donors, call their campaign office and ask.) Look at the disclaimers at the end of the commercials. If the ads aren’t paid for by the candidate’s campaign committee or political party, vote for the opponent. Or failing all of that, vote for the candidate who slings the least mud.