Corporations Are Bad (Except Nike), Right?

Rick Tryon on September 10, 2018

 

________________________________________________________________________

If it’s so hip, edgy, cool and progressive for some to hate all those evil corporations out there then why all of a sudden is it so hip, edgy, cool and progressive to love the Nike corporation? In fact, shouldn’t every good, blue-blooded, anti-corporate Democratic Socialist actually have a special loathing for a multi-national corporation like Nike which has been caught using sweatshop labor and exploiting children to manufacture their products?

But no, Nike is now somehow heroic and righteous because their new highly paid spokesman is a rich ex-NFL player who knelt during the national anthem and dislikes Trump. How does that work?

For some, however, Nike appears to be the single exception, because all other corporations continue to be evil. Even right here in Great Falls it’s surprising how much I hear and read local progressives assuredly proclaiming that corporations are at the root of all of our problems – even while those same folks continue buying, using and consuming corporate goods and services like gluttons.

Even right here in Great Falls it’s surprising how much I hear and read local progressives assuredly proclaiming that corporations are at the root of all of our problems – even while those same folks continue buying, using and consuming corporate goods and services like gluttons.

So, in the spirit of good fun here’s something I wrote for someone or something-or-other a few years ago which is still apropos:

“Corporations are rich, evil, greedy, controlling entities that do no good and are destroying our country. I hate them.” opined the under-informed citizen on Facebook/Twitter (corporations) by way of his Apple/Microsoft (corporation) laptop while sipping his Starbucks (corporation) latte then getting in his Subaru (foreign corporation), filling up at BP (foreign corporation), driving while listening to his Sony (foreign corporation) mp3 player to EMI (foreign corporation) artist Paul McCartney on the road (paid for in part by corporate taxes) to his job at Green Energy Corporation.

Then for lunch picking up some McDonalds (corporation) and checking his DAD (corporation) stock and US Bank (corporation) savings accounts before going home to his house built with Building Materials Corporation of America products and financed by Home Mortgage Corporation, popping a Sony (foreign corporation) DVD into his Hitachi (foreign corporation) DVD player to watch Kung Fu Panda (DreamWorks Corporation) on his RCA (corporation) flat screen before opening his Westinghouse (corporation) refrigerator for some Ben & Jerry’s (corporation).

After brushing his teeth (Colgate Palmolive Corporation) and watching Colbert on CBS (corporation) he closes his eyes and thinks “yeah , I sure hate those useless corporations” before drifting off to sleep on his Sealy (corporation) mattress.

____________________________________________________________________——

 

Former GF Tribune Reporter Thinks Trump Supporters Are Inbred?

ECB Staff on July 9, 2018

 

________________________________________________________________________

Local readers continue to send us screenshots and reactions to Presidents Trumps recent visit to Great Falls. Some of the comments are positive and in support of the President while others are downright vile and vicious in their hatefulness. Here’s an example of both from the Tribunes own Facebook page:

 

What we find interesting here is that former and longtime Tribune “reporter” Peter Johnson associates himself with and “Likes” Jen Lynns ignorant and hateful suggestion that our fellow Great Falls citizens who attended the Trump rally are inbred. Really?

It is troubling, though not surprising, that Mr. Johnson is so cavalier in his willingness to identify with and display such open hatred and disdain for his friends and neighbors, folks who at one time trusted him to be an objective news reporter.

“It is troubling, though not surprising, that Mr. Johnson is so cavalier in his willingness to identify with and display such open hatred and disdain for his friends and neighbors, folks who at one time trusted him to be an objective news reporter.”

We don’t take issue with people who criticize and call to account elected officials at any level, in fact we highly encourage it and actively participate in it. But unfortunately the recent trend is to excoriate, demean, attack and insult regular local Great Falls citizens who voice any level of support for Trump or any other official in his administration.

We’ll conclude with these gems from our own E-City Beat Facebook page (you can read the whole thread here). Just look at the arrogance, hatred, and disdain dripping from local anti-Trump “resistance” member Christopher Horners repulsive comments.

“Tammy Evans, Trump does collect stupid trash like you though…Another White Trash Falls Trump acolyte…Jon still works at Albertsons, and is in the underachievers party of Trump, lol, lmao You look like his mom, are you his mom defending your fat, stupid son.”

“I need someone to fetch me my groceries and do the shit work. I’m just glad it’s you and not me. Didn’t I see you in your pickup with that huge confederate flag driving down the street. Do you know how embarrassing it is to tell people I actually live in this ghetto town?”

Is this what we’ve come to, Great Falls?

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

The Danger Of Calling Fellow Great Fallsians Nazis

Rick Tryon on June 21, 2018

A Facebook friend of mine recently sent me this screenshot of a comment thread he was involved in just a couple of days ago. The Trump hater in this thread is also a Great Falls resident.

The last comment in the thread is particularly troubling. It appears it’s now just commonplace to label our fellow citizens and neighbors with which we disagree politically as Nazis. In just the last few days on national television I’ve heard otherwise intelligent folks compare the family separation tragedy on our southern border to concentration camps and the Holocaust. I’ve heard Trump referred to as Hitler and anyone who doesn’t participate fully in the unhinged hate-Trump orgy as Nazis and Brownshirts.

Among the several disturbing problems associated with playing the ‘Nazi card’ and comparing 21st Century American issues, social context, and contemporary politicians with Hitler and Nazi Germany are the following:

  • It ignores actual history. People who make such comparisons only prove their own historical ignorance.
  • Such comparisons dumb down and cheapen the real horrors of the attempted extermination of an entire race during the actual Holocaust.
  • It’s dangerous. The extreme acrimony and hatred have reached a boiling point and will result in violence if it continues unabated.

Why is it dangerous? Because when you point at those who support or voted for the President and paint them with the Nazi brush you turn them into the worst villains imaginable. Your neighbors, friends, folks standing next to you in the grocery store checkout, sitting next to you in the pew, even your own relatives are transformed into killers, torturers, monsters. Because they don’t hate Trump sufficiently?

It dehumanizes your fellow citizens, your fellow Montanans. And when you make them less than human, when you make them evil personified, then any kind of action against them seems justifiable. After all, the world is better off without those evil Nazis so it must be for the greater good to hurt them. To kill them. Who could blame you for hurting or killing a damn Hitler loving Nazi Brownshirt?

“After all, the world is better off without those evil Nazis so it must be for the greater good to hurt them. To kill them. Who could blame you for hurting or killing a damn Hitler loving Nazi Brownshirt?”

Don’t believe me? Just look at Peter Fonda’s despicable Tweets:

So if you’re a Trump Nazi family member or Brownshirt Cabinet official, or even staff, then it’s okay to whip you, strip you, poke you, rape you etc. Because, you know, Nazis deserve it.

Of course, most of those who oppose or who hate Trump and compare him and his voters to the Third Reich don’t intend to hurt others. But there are plenty of unstable folks out there who listen to the Nazi nonsense being spewed out by others and who could take such language as not just a justification but an invitation to harm others.

It also works the other way. How long will it be before some Trump supporter somewhere isn’t going to take being called a murderous Nazi with patience and civility. Think about it.

Time to tone down the rhetoric. We can do better. We must do better.

New Axios Poll: Tester In Trouble

ECB Staff on March 10, 2018

According to a new poll from Axios, Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) might be in a little bit of trouble this year.

Tester is getting pounded to the tune of 55-42 against the generic “Republican,” presumably Montana State Auditor Matt Rosendale.

From his shameless sycophancy to Big Pharma, to his flip-flopping on DACA, to his #Resistance-styled obstructionism that is to the left of even Chuck Schumer — Tester joined socialists Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as one of the lonely 18 “resisters” who voted to continue the failed Schumer Shutdown, even as Schumer himself voted to re-open the government — Jon Tester appears increasingly and remarkably out of touch with Montana values.

Blue wave, anyone?

Fake News – Great Falls Tribune

Gregg Smith on May 24, 2017

From a front-page, AP story in the Tribune this morning on Trump’s budget: “The Trump administration’s budget plan for 2018 assumes that a mix of sharp spending and tax cuts can both shrink the deficit and fuel economic growth of 3 percent a year — a level it hasn’t achieved in more than a dozen years.” [Emphasis added]

“First, the budget isn’t being cut. Indeed, Trump is proposing that federal spending increase from $4.06 trillion this year to $5.71 trillion in 2027. Second, government spending will grow by an average of almost 3.5 percent per year over the next 10 years.” Dan Mitchell

Hmmm. Someone isn’t telling the truth.

Bozeman, Montana: Sanctuary City?

ECB Staff on February 13, 2017

How spineless.

Bozeman will not become a sanctuary city.

This evening, the Bozeman City Commission instead passed a mayoral proclamation declaring Bozeman a “safe, welcoming, and inclusive community,” to the chagrin of a handful of residents. The proclamation reads:

WHEREAS, for more than twenty years the City of Bozeman has passed Resolutions declaring itself to be a welcoming community, an inclusive community and a community that values

diversity; and

WHEREAS, one of the primary functions of our City is providing safety for all; and

WHEREAS, the difficulties and uncertainties of present times have created concerns about our community’s safety and resolve;

THEREFORE, I, Carson Taylor, Mayor of the City of Bozeman, hereby state and proclaim that our City continues to welcome all, continues to be an inclusive community, and continues to thrive in the diversity of experience and backgrounds that populate our City; and I specifically reaffirm that one of our primary purposes is the safety of all persons within our City, and I pledge that the City will continue to protect the safety of all people, regardless of their status.

This sweeping, all-encompassing statement was not meaty enough for some community activists:

‘I recognize that this City Commission is trying to do the right thing by this proclamation, but I find it too bland and insufficient to meet the needs of my heart,’ said organizer Margarita McLarty. ‘And I know that I am not alone in this community.’

‘I want more,’ she continued. ‘I want a community dialogue. I want to see us step up and deal with the issues that are happening now in the country.’

McLarty and several other speakers told commissioners they’re disheartened by the Trump administration’s efforts to crack down on immigration enforcement and want to see the city take a strong stance in opposition.

She and tens of other sanctuary city advocates showed up in force at last week’s commission meeting, urging the city to make the partially symbolic declaration, that would have affirmed the city’s commitment to supporting residents regardless of their immigration status and limited city law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

McLarty makes a compelling argument: she has a voice, and a heart, and it has needs. How dare local law enforcement cooperate with federal agencies. Moreover, who cares if the Trump administration defunds the City? Surely, the citizens and legal residents of Bozeman would make due somehow. Taking a symbolic stand for illegal aliens undocumented migrants, at the behest of “tens of people,” is infinitely more important, and would better serve the community, than would continuing to receive heaps of money from the federal government.

Say what you will about some of the “gadflies” who attend City Commission meetings in Great Falls — they’ve got nothin’ on Bozeman.

Reflections On DeVos, Arntzen, And Public Education

Philip M. Faccenda on February 3, 2017

A philosopher once said that we are really three quite different people; the one we see as our self, the one others see, and the one we really are. All very different and the first two are merely reflections.

The recent discourse concerning the Q & A session between representatives of the Great Falls Public Schools and the newly elected Montana Superintendent of Public Instruction, Elsie Arntzen, was not congratulatory, or welcoming. The event seems to be a spot-on reflection of the discourse surrounding President Trump’s Secretary of Education nominee, Betsy DeVos, who has been ripped nationally as Arntzen has in Montana.

Do you think the shoot-from-the-hip comments and condescending narrative directed at both women just might have some to do with their similar pro-voucher, pro-charter schools, and most importantly, pro-choice education positions? Do you think just maybe the NEA and the MEA have leveled their sights on Elsie and Betsy? One important feature is the emphasis and the substance of the word public when referring to education in our state as well as nationally. There is a not so new paradigm that suggests that the government’s program of public education for our children may not be the only, or the most successful methodology. When a country spends the most money per student on public education, yet ranks 29th in the civilized world in educational achievement, its structure probably ought to be up for review.

If pro-choice, charter schools, and vouchers have shown positive results, why not let this shift universally seek its level? The answer seems obvious; public education is a big business. Any move to divert taxpayer funds from the public education business is viewed as a threat to those running the business.

The truth is that parochial schools have been around since the beginning of our country’s history and the best colleges and universities are private institutions, many of which were founded based on religious principles. Why, then, should parents and students be financially penalized for exercising pro-choice educational freedoms when it concerns their children?

No matter the venue, existing and new educational methodology must be positively responsive to the new world we live in. It is well established that education on all levels must advance two basic important tasks, creativity and innovation. Without a strong emphasis on these, our children will not successfully meet the demands of the 21st century marketplace and our country will be at a significant disadvantage in the new world economy.

Yes, and how we design our schools can affect the education outcome we must achieve. Gone is the cellular and static concept we have duplicated in the past — encouraging movement, sensory stimulation and interdisciplinary study is the future. To do this, working together with open minds is absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, the left’s assaults on DeVos and Arntzen are instructive of knee-jerk partisanship, and ultimately, a willingness to place agendas above policy while shamelessly using our children as political pawns.

Lock Her Up?

Gregg Smith on January 17, 2017

President Trump should direct the FBI to immediately refer all of its currently held evidence to the Department of Justice for consideration of the prosecution of criminal charges related to her private email server and any, related obstruction of justice allegations. Further, he should direct his law enforcement agencies to renew their investigation of this entire situation, including Madam Secretary and any of her associates who may have been involved.

I fully admit that I am no fan of Hillary Clinton. Frankly, I am not a huge (“Yuuuuuge?”) fan of President Trump, either. But this is not about some sort of weird revenge against Hillary Clinton; this is an important necessity to demonstrate to all US citizens that justice is applied fairly in this country to all citizens.

My personal belief is that there is a very, very small group of people who would have been able to do what Secretary Clinton did without facing federal charges, or at least the serious possibility of them. If you listen to Director Comey’s list of ‘sins’ from his July 5, 2016, press conference where he indicated he would not be pressing charges, it is clear that there was at least a reasonable possibility of federal, criminal culpability. I have read a great deal about Director Comey’s suggestion that she could be exonerated (or not prosecuted) due to a lack of “intent” that the statute does not require, but I am not in a position today to state whether he was right or not. What I will say, though, is that difficult legal decisions in a high profile, federal case should be made by the lawyers at the Department of Justice, not by law enforcement officers at the FBI.  The FBI investigates potential crimes; the DOJ decides whether to prosecute them.

Donald Trump proclaimed often and loudly that he would “lock her up.” He made this promise because he either believed she was guilty of a federal crime, or it was a shameless pander to the rest of us to try to win the election. Only one choice leaves our President with any honor: he believed it to be true, and he will investigate and prosecute because he sincerely is on the side of the ‘little guy.’

He would demonstrate that he recognizes that if one of us did what Secretary Clinton did with classified information on her private email server (which we now know was apparently “hacked” by the Russians in their alleged attempts to “hack the election”), we would not walk free without so much as a charge. I can think of a high school kid who received more punishment for posting allegedly inappropriate thoughts about girls on the internet. Could any of us get away with this, all while publicly lying and denying? I do not believe so. A failure to investigate and, if warranted, prosecute, would demonstrate that there is a very, very small group of people in this country who are, essentially, above the law. This includes high level, politically influential people on both sides of the aisle and, probably the very wealthy.

But it sure doesn’t include us.

And that’s not right.