The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.

Thursday, January 16, 2014

Escape Income Inequity And Poverty Via Marriage! Seriously?

If I practice polygamy, does that mean I will become a Top 1% (er)?

Are we to believe that getting married will impact the following graphic representations? Moreover, is political/social Right actually posturing such?  I believe  Marco Rubio spoke the insane statement and at least one noted Right-Wing operative/mouthpiece has done same.

cbpp income inequality 2011.png
Poverty Rates for Adults by Gender, Race, and Ethnicity, 2010

We wonder if economist agree with the Right-wing talking-point?

Whenever I lower myself to peeping at CNN, I am overly cautious about exposure to Fred Zucker's recently hired: Ari Fleischer.

As we suffered the first few years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's first-term, we sat through daily lies from Fleischer as White House Press Secretary. Since we screed-ed on Fleischer last fall, we will simply link that piece to avoid redundant rehashing of our contempt for the man as a Right-wing demagogue with little to no credible substance. 
Just before Bush and Cheney charged into Iraq equipped with WMD lies and a completely manipulated nation, and allied "Coalition," Fleischer served up what one writer called the "WHOOPER OF THE WEEK."

An even more poignant example of Fleischer "Hire me, I will lie" model was captured by Crooks& Liars in September, 2010. 

Paul Begala Calls Out Ari Fleischer For The Lies He Told That Got Us Into Iraq
By Heather September 1, 2010

If these Bushies want to come on the air to attempt some turd polishing about why the Bush administration chose to invade Iraq, a country that was not a threat to us, then they should be treated the way Paul Begala treated lying propagandist Ari

Read much more

Fleischer has appeared all over CNN whenever the network wants a GOP opinion about any utterance or appearance related to president Obama.  His utility as a Right-wing fdunct8ionary spans well beyond paid television punditry.

Fleischer was intimately involved in the hire of the former Georgia State representative hired into Susan G. Komen as a key figure in a plan to eliminate Komen funding to Planned Parenthood. Komen's funding debacles eventually led to a drudging for the CEO of Susan G. Komen and embarrassment for conservative America. Another case of Fleischer involvement that went way south (excuse the pun) on conservatism.

Writing for the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Fleischer works to advance a fairly new GOP talking-point: "lift one's self out of poverty and gain income inequality by getting married." Did you notice the focus on women vs. men? How do impoverished men lift themselves out of poverty?  

The talking point is as ludicrous of consideration of Fleischer as a credible pundit and consideration Rupprt Murdoch's WSJ as fair and open. While the WSJ has always published as a conservative publication, since the Murdoch's purchase the international publication has been turned into nothing more than a Right-wing rag (especially the WSJ opinion pages and OP-ED articles).

The WSJ and Fleischer have actually taken print and internet publication to the level of a copy of the National EnquirerActually, printing or electronically publishing about marriage as a vehicle out of poverty is as low-information and demeaning to people of intellect as I have read in many years. Speaking the point is ridiculous enough; WSJ archiving (via print and electronically) speaks to the Murdoch "yellow journalism" model.

Of course, keyboarding propaganda and far right insanity for the WSJ always leads to another Murdoch property: Fox News. 

Greta Van Sustren provided the Fox News platform and Fleischer followed the script like a well-paid hired hand. 
Linked article and Van Sustren video....Media Matters

Media Matters excerpt (in case you did not follow the link above).
Wash. Post's Kathleen Parker: Marriage "Creates A Tiny Economy Fueled By A Magical Concoction Of Love." In a January 15 op-ed for The Washington Post, Kathleen Parker argued that "being unmarried is one of the highest risk factors for poverty" and argued that an increase in marriages "would help in the War on Poverty":
If I may. This is not a new idea but recently has fallen into disrepair if not disrepute, though it would help in the War on Poverty: Marriage.
More to the point, we know that being unmarried is one of the highest risk factors for poverty. And no, splitting expenses between unmarried people isn't the same. This is because marriage creates a tiny economy fueled by a magical concoction of love, selflessness and permanent commitment that holds spirits aloft during tough times.
In the absence of marriage, single parents (usually mothers) are left holding the baby and all the commensurate challenges and financial burdens. As a practical matter, how is a woman supposed to care for little ones and/or pay for child care, while working for a minimum wage that is significantly less than what most fair-minded, lucky people would consider paying the house cleaner? Not very well.
Obviously, marriage won't cure all ills. A single mother could marry tomorrow and she still wouldn't have a job. But in the War on Poverty, rebuilding a culture that encourages marriage should be part of the arsenal. The luck of the draw isn't nearly enough -- and sometimes old ideas are the best new ideas. [The Washington Post1/15/14]
Fox's Van Susteren: "Is Getting Hitched The Key To Getting Rich?" On the January 13 edition of Fox News' On The Record, host Greta Van Susteren asked, "Is getting hitched the key to getting rich?" She claimed that "a new strategy could take the wind out of President Obama's recent war on income inequality," and welcomed former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer onto the show to discuss his January 12 Wall Street Journal op-ed, which criticized President Obama's anti-poverty programs while advocating that policies addressing income inequality should focus more on "marriage equality" than economic restructuring:
Of course, we know Murdoch properties, especially Fox News and the WSJ editorial page, provide information to very specific segments of the population. Each news source counters news from more progressive media; often with degrees of information insanity that is hard to fathom. It would be easy to ignore Murdoch and Fox insanity by turning our backs while pretending it simply feeds 'derangement.' The danger of deranged information insanity should be obvious as it feeds the spread of a nation's descent into information deprivation and cognitive process limited to daily feeds from propagandist.
We are thankful Media Matters monitors Fox News with deep levels of scrutiny, analysis and reporting. 

No comments :

Post a Comment