"Mechanical Band-Aids: Press wrestles with techno-optimism while BP seeks to stop oil spill[leak]," by Curtis Brainard

Source: www.cjr.org

Tom Usher wrote or added | Thanks to Rose Aguilar for putting this link in one of her comments.

This piece shows the mainstream corporate-shill media's history of fawning all over the mega-rich oil industry (for advertising revenue and who knows what else).

When the US wanted to start offshore drilling, I thought it was insane. I've been against it all the way. After each major spill or leak, I said, "Told ya so." However, people don't want to hear what will supposedly cramp their style or perhaps their stock portfolios with oil-industry corporations more than well represented — greed and selfishness trumps brains and environmentalism, meaning a higher quality of life that's actually sustainable for posterity; but who really cares about one's children and grandchildren and their children when there's stock appreciation and dividends to protect right now. Oh, and who wants to buy an electric car, even though the General Motors EV1 was a great car and was fed by solar panels on the garage roof?

What happened to the EV1? The oil industry bought the patent on the battery and won't let anyone use it. GM pulled the leased EV1's and crushed them all and all the ones sitting waiting for owners and drivers. Only a few of them escaped. It was too good to be true to imagine that big oil wouldn't sabotage the best thing to come along to reverse the disaster that has been the oil industry supplying (forcing) gas and diesel, etc., onto the public.

The US could pull the patent from the oil companies after a thorough investigation of the sabotage job that has cost us the Gulf of Mexico leak. The government could also do a crash program that rather than make an atomic bomb like the Manhattan Project, would create a great pollution-free, and very safe car. That would be socialism though, so we can't do what's better. We have to keep being stupid so we can keep being capitalists so the ultra-rich can continue widening the income gap. That's liberty!

Chris 'Pie Rate' McCabe: 'Free' market, for some........

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Oh thanks, i appriciate that!

      • Disqus generic email templateSpam