When the United States first entered World War II, business owners were quick to suggest that the New Deal concept of "over time pay"- be canceled, so that it wouldn't look like the workers were cashing in on the pain and agony that the military was forced to endure. They were afraid it would look like the workers were war profiteers.
On the other hand, any suggestion that they run their businesses without any profit during the war was absurd because profits are the heart and soul of the capitalistic lifestyle that epitomized life in the land of the free, which was what the military was fighting to preserve, therefore depriving the companies helping the war effort of an honest profit would have been seen as making a mockery of what the war was all about.
To them making money as a business during the war was a patriotic example, but eliminating the extra cost of paying overtime during the war was a way of protecting the good names and reputations of the workers.
Democrats are from Venus; Republicans are from Mars (named after the god of war). The democrats want peace, brotherhood and choose to ignore the fact that in Switzerland they had five hundred years of peace and brotherhood and all it produced was the cuckoo clock. Republicans make money during war and develop products that are profitable after the war.
Democrats believe in equality. Republicans believe that those in the good ole boy network are equals but the workers are riffraff.
Democrats see that paying taxes is a way to help provide funds for community services. Republicans think that the more money they make, the less they have an obligation to do any "tithing"- for the good of everybody.
Democrats believe in telling the truth and playing by the rules. Republicans know that all is fair in love and war (i.e. there is no such thing as "war crimes"-) and politics.
Republicans believe in paying Rush Limbaugh millions to convince the small people that getting screwed by the Republicans is a great idea. Democrats are asked to give to charities, their friends who have just lost a job, relatives who can't pay for their medical needs, the church on Sunday, and the bums on the street and so they don't have a lot of spare cash to help fund those who speak for the common man. Those voices of the people, these days, have to scrape together the funds to pay for a voice that tells the truth and does not spout approved talking points.
If the Republicans are so tight-assed with their money, how can they rationalize paying conservative talk show hosts millions? Think it's because maybe they see it as easing the way to having the politicians sanction skimming billions from the public by various and sundry schemes and subterfuges?
Would it help if you thought of contributing to your favorite voice of the people as giving money to subsidize vigilante journalism? Doesn't that sound much better than "Citizens Coop for Truth"-? That makes it sound like a trendy effort urging that the PTA replace the local newspaper.
Doesn't Vigilante Journalism sound more macho and virile than "citizen journalist"-? Would you be impressed if the students in film school called themselves: "Citizen Film Makers"-? A rookie underground cult movie maker sounds so much more exciting.
When justice was lacking, citizens took matters into their own hands. The capitalist-owned media, during the Bush era, have been derelict in their duties. Sites on the Internets have tried to step in and do what needs to be done, but, often, they lack financial support from the audience that appreciates them most.
If the fat cats who own the media no longer want to be the advocate for the little guy, then perhaps it is time to use the term "Vigilante Journalist"- would indicate that those who participate in the effort are volunteers taking matters into their own hands and putting out the facts and issues into the market place that the newspaper publishers (Republicans?) don't want to feature lest it rile up the rather complacent citizens.
Back in the Sixties, the great underground newspapers spoke for the masses and attracted copious amounts of advertisers, thus pleasing both the audience and the publisher. These days it seems the public must be satisfied with what the newspaper publishers and TV network executives want them to hear and think.
Is there a term for "underground electronic media"-?
The next time your favorite source for countering the conservative propaganda mills has a fund raiser, think of what life would be like without any dissent. (Does the term "Party Rally at Nuremberg"- give you a hint?)