Napolitano is a Fox News corporate whore. I guarantee you he doesn't give a rats ass about corporations kicking people out of their houses. In fact, I know he doesn't. He supports bank foreclosures without the proper paperwork. He claims that everyone who's been foreclosed on is in default, but no one knows that. Plus, during the housing bubble the same reckless banks told people to spend their home equity because everyone thought real estate would stay high. Course, Napolitano doesn't care about fixing problems. He doesn't care about social justice. He just cares about "liberty" -- whatever that means these days.
I have to admit that's the one glaring weakness in the "libertarian" philosophy. It's well versed in government tyranny but what about when corporations trample on "liberty?"
Well, shit, T.C. That's quite a weakness. Seriously, liberals believe in "liberty and justice for all," whereas conservatives and libertarians believe in liberty and justice for rich people.
liberals believe in "liberty and justice for all," Can you name some prominent "liberals" who fit that description? Perhaps you're not referring to elected officials, for you'll find very few that meet anything close to that (Dennis Kuncinich comes to mind). As for Democrats in Congress, are these the same "liberals" who voted for the Iraq war? The same liberals who helped pass the PATRIOT Act? The same "liberals" who continue to support the war on drugs? There was one Senator who voted against the original passage of the PATRIOT Act, ONE! That was Russ Feingold, sadly defeated for reelection in the recent religious ritual on Nov. 2.Now, how about Judge Napolitano on some of those same issues? He opposes the war on drugs, opposes the endless wars, opposed and continues to oppose the PATRIOT Act, is against the TSA and their tyranny with ridiculous, intrusive and unconstitutional searches and body scanners at airports, illegal wiretapping, and of course I could continue. So please, define "liberal" and then find me some who have a better record than Napolitano on the most important civil liberties issues of our time. Now, I won't disagree with you if it is as you say on his support of the crooked banksters; if that is his position on the foreclosure mess, then he is wrong. Too many libertarians fall into what can sometimes be categorized as "vulgar libertarianism", which Kevin Carson described this way: Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term "free market" in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get the standard boilerplate article in The Freeman arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because "that’s not how the free market works"--implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of "free market principles."So, the Judge ain't perfect, no. But to just dismiss him as a "corporate whore" after all the good things he's done, including being one of the loudest voices against the government abuses of power under both Bush and Obama, is not only unfair, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Yeah, right.Liberals are for "liberty and justice for all."We must be living in a parallel universes 'cuz I don't see that. I always love specious "we're like this and they're like that" logic. Just because they don't address it doesn't follow they're what you say they are.
I don't define liberal and conservative based on, at any given moment, the people who are thought to carry those labels. I base it on the long history (a century or more) of those who have carried those labels. So here's my best description of an "end-member" liberal: Concerning the structure of government, liberals support a strong federal government with broad regulatory power and the power to enforce the Bill of Rights in every state. Concerning the economy, liberals support the worker and the union rather than management. Liberals also subscribe to Keynesian economics. They do not accept that there is a "natural business cycle" or a "free hand" that plunges nations into recessions and then lifts them out. Liberals believe that government can and should intercede in the macroeconomy in order to promote growth and employment, to prevent bubbles and busts, and to protect the vulnerable. They also support FDR's "Second Bill of Rights", which was unfortunately never debated in Congress. Concerning the culture war, well, these are the issues on which liberals and libertarians should agree (otherwise they are not libertarians), so I don't have to go into it.So, given that, I agree that Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich are among the few Democratic politicians that deserve the "liberal" label. I would also say that the "campaign version" of Obama represented that label nicely. It is tough to classify recent Democratic leaders because the nature of their jobs requires compromise and careful messaging, but the recent Democratic leaders that have actually fought for liberal causes include Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, John Conyers, John Dingell, Jim Clyburn, and John Lewis. I am delighted to confirm to you that, yes, my opinion of Napolitano as "corporate whore" is limited (thus far) to his support of crooked banksters over regular working folk. I did not know that Napolitano had those other opinions you cited, and on which I agree. Cool. How often does Fox let him talk about those issues?
If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.