Again DD must try to walk a 'dotted line' such that the economic side of politico-economic issues remains the dominant point of the discussion. I have to say that both articles make use of political catch phrases (in the former case 'corporate welfare', in the latter case 'the left'). However, this does not alter the validity of the economic points attempting to be made in either article. Therefore, from an economic and fairness standpoint, I could either allow both sides of the argument and discuss the economic aspects, or delete both sides of the argument and render it a 'taboo subject' due to excessive political content. But I cannot in good conscience allow one political-economic argument to stand while the opposing political-economic argument must be banned, because that WOULD politicize DD.To post such a book title is crossing the line into the politcal areana and going into propaganda territory.
Along the above lines, I would also point out that Boeing, Microsoft, Google, Citicorp, Genentech etc. also spend a large amount of money lobbying, as do various advocacy groups ranging from Greenpeace to the NRA, as do various industry groups from the Trial Lawyer's association to the Teamster's Union. In American lawmaking, 'money talks and bullshit walks' has been in effect since the 'modern' congress was formed in 1789. However it has only been in the last few years that campaign finance reform has driven the money battle squarely into the public eye i.e. the 529 groups of the last election cycle.Without getting into political bullshit, it's pretty obvious that corporations such as Exxon, Dupont, Union Carbide, GM are very real--and wield a tremendous amount of real power and political clout. In fact I would venture to say that I believe they exert far more influence than the average citizen is aware of--how could they not, considering the millions they spend lobbying Congress, and that's just what is public information.



Reply With Quote

Bookmarks