Don’t be a “Koch sucker”
This is a follow-up to the previous post: 10 biggest douchebags of 2009. Please join us now for our awards ceremony red carpet after party. It’s time to get down and get funky.
So who is behind the Tea Party movement? One of the big players is Americans For Prosperity (AFP). Who is behind them? One of America’s richest billionaires, a man by the name of David Koch. According to Wikipedia’s David H. Koch page:
In 1984, Koch founded Citizens for a Sound Economy. Koch also funds Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group that has recently used new media technologies and other efforts to create opposition to U.S. President Barack Obama‘s proposed health care reforms.
Yep, if there’s one thing the rich want, it’s more “prosperity.” When will the dude have enough to get by on?
In the previous post I wrote a bit about who’s behind the tea party movement. Big companies like Exxon and Philip Morris. So how does that translate to a group like Americans For Prosperity? Let’s take a look at the influence of tobacco. According to SourceWatch.org:
AFP advocates pro-tobacco industry positions on issues like cigarette taxes and clean indoor air laws. The name “Americans for Prosperity” will sound familiar to tobacco prevention policy advocates, as Americans for Prosperity worked around the U.S. in recent years to defeat both smokefree workplace laws and cigarette excise tax increases.
Americans for Prosperity opposed a proposed Texas smoking ban in 2005. According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, “A proposed statewide smoking ban appears all but dead, supporters acknowledged Monday as they waged a frantic battle to bring the bill up for a vote in the Senate. ‘I think the bill is dead,’ said Peggy Venable, Texas director of Americans for Prosperity, which opposed the legislation, arguing that it is an intrusion on private-property rights.” The strategy of portraying smoking as a “property right” can be traced to Philip Morris which, in the mid-1990s, introduced bills in state legislatures nominally to protect property rights as a means of fighting smoking bans. Venable called the smoke-free measure a “reckless expansion of government” that “set a dangerous precedent.” Although Venable did not testify against the bill directly on behalf of the tobacco industry, the Houston Chronicle reported in 2007 that Americans for Prosperity had, in fact, been underwritten by tobacco companies in other states.
Americans for Prosperity opposes smoking bans by using slippery-slope arguments (“Where will it stop?”) and erroneous arguments that smoking restrictions are economically damaging.
Americans for Prosperity (AFP) also opposed an Illinois state tax on cigarettes in 2008, claiming it would eliminate jobs.
AFP opposed a clean indoor air law in Washington, D.C. in 2006.
AFP opposed a clean indoor air law in Kansas City, portraying the issue as one of personal liberty and economics rather than public health.
I think there are a lot of really sincere and good people in the tea party movement and even in groups like AFP. Unfortunately I feel that most of them don’t even realize how they are being used as pawns in a big game of chess. Their desire for social change is being funneled into a direction they don’t even know. That’s a bit sad. Some call them teabaggers. For foot soldiers in the AFP movement, the phrase Koch sucker might be slightly more accurate.
And that’s all I have to say about that. At least for now. 🙂
Hidden camera politics is the new creepiness
All’s fair in love and war, correct? Today’s new creepiness: Video camera “stings” by your political enemies.
Now for only about $200 you can own your own video camera surveillance hat complete with USB cable! Yes, it’s that easy! That makes it so accessible any wingnut can make a go of it!
When TV news used the hidden camera trick to catch bad guy mechanics unnecessarily charging to replace new oil filters, that was not so bad. Those guys needed to be stopped and the people with the cameras were motivated mostly by journalistic standards.
When it is your political enemies, though, all bets are off. They don’t have any obligation or desire to adhere to basic principles of journalism.