Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10
1
Infoshop News / Hurricane Florence Relief, Solidarity and Mutual Aid Guide
« Last post by Alternative Media Project on Today at 06:00:18 AM »
Hurricane Florence Relief, Solidarity and Mutual Aid Guide

Hurricane Florence devastated the coastal areas of North Carolina and South Carolina in September 2018. This guide is for people interested in organizing assistance for those affected and for those interested in supporting people and groups engaged in assistance.


The post Hurricane Florence Relief, Solidarity and Mutual Aid Guide appeared first on Infoshop News.


Source: Hurricane Florence Relief, Solidarity and Mutual Aid Guide
2
Infoshop News / Facebook Job Ads That Let Employers Exclude Women Are Clear Civil Rights Violation, Says ACLU
« Last post by Alternative Media Project on Today at 06:00:18 AM »
Facebook Job Ads That Let Employers Exclude Women Are Clear Civil Rights Violation, Says ACLU

"Facebook is violating federal civil rights law. Period." So declared the ACLU on Tuesday after announcing it has filed charges against the social media giant and ten other employers for illegally "excluding all women and non-binary" Facebook users from job advertisements.


The post Facebook Job Ads That Let Employers Exclude Women Are Clear Civil Rights Violation, Says ACLU appeared first on Infoshop News.


Source: Facebook Job Ads That Let Employers Exclude Women Are Clear Civil Rights Violation, Says ACLU
3
Infoshop News / The Mythology of Work
« Last post by Alternative Media Project on Today at 06:00:18 AM »
The Mythology of Work

Eight Myths that Keep Your Eyes on the Clock and Your Nose to the Grindstone


The post The Mythology of Work appeared first on Infoshop News.


Source: The Mythology of Work
4
'Her Worst Fears Are Coming True': Christine Blasey Ford Receiving Death Threats And Abuse from Kavanaugh Supporters



 
 
 



?In the 36 hours since her name became public Dr. Ford has received a stunning amount of support from her community and from fellow citizens across our country. "


When Christine Blasey Ford sent a confidential letter to Rep. Anna Eshoo alleging that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh had attempted to rape her when they were teenagers back in 1982, the 51-year-old psychology professor requested anonymity. And since changing her mind and deciding to reveal her identity, it has become painfully clear why she initially chose to remain anonymous: Ford has become the target of extreme harassment and death threats from wingnut supporters of Kavanaugh?s confirmation. And the situation is so bad that Ford (who works at Palo Alto University) has left her home in Northern California and hired private security, fearing for the safety of herself and her two teenage children.

An anonymous source told the New York Times that ?90% of people think she?s a hero and are extremely supportive of her, and 10 percent want her to die immediately. Her worst fears are coming true.?

In a September 18 letter to Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley (chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee), Ford?s attorneys, Debra Katz and Lisa Banks, described everything Ford is being subjected to. In addition to Ford being the target of death threats and what Katz and Banks described as ?vicious harassment,? the attorneys noted, her e-mail has been hacked?and she has been impersonated online

?In the 36 hours since her name became public,? Katz and Banks told Grassley in the letter, ?Dr. Ford has received a stunning amount of support from her community and from fellow citizens across our country. At the same time, however, her worst fears have materialized.? 

Georgetown University law professor Heidi Feldman, knowing what Ford is being subjected to, has launched a GoFundMe page to cover her security needs?and as of early Wednesday morning, September 19, the page had raised over $53,000 on her behalf. 

On the page, Feldman states, ?Due to death threats, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford (who uses ?Dr. Blasey? professionally) and her family have had to leave their residence and arrange for private security. Let?s create a fund to cover her security expenses, to do just a bit to make it easier for women in her position to come forward despite great risks. If we raise more than Dr. Blasey needs,  extra funds will go to women?s organizations and/or into an account to cover similar costs incurred in comparable situations.? 


p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial; color: #1a1a1a; -webkit-text-stroke: #1a1a1a; background-color: #ffffff}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial; color: #1a1a1a; -webkit-text-stroke: #1a1a1a; background-color: #ffffff; min-height: 12.0px}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
span.s2 {text-decoration: underline ; font-kerning: none; color: #0563c1; -webkit-text-stroke: 0px #0563c1}






Source: 'Her Worst Fears Are Coming True': Christine Blasey Ford Receiving Death Threats And Abuse from Kavanaugh Supporters
5
Infoshop News / When Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Hits Home
« Last post by Alternative Media Project on Yesterday at 06:00:43 PM »
When Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Hits Home

?As far as missing Native women and girls [goes] ? we have a sick level of permissiveness when it comes to missing relatives.?


The post When Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Hits Home appeared first on Infoshop News.


Source: When Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Hits Home
6
Conservatives Aren?t Afraid of Anita Hill Redux: They Know That Power Matters More Than Truth


Republicans aren?t worried the Kavanaugh hearing will backfire, because in 2018 the facts almost don?t matter


It was genuinely surprising, at least to most on the left, when the Republicans who run the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed to hold another hearing next week to assess the accusation of attempted rape made by psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford against Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee.

There's no way, of course, that Republicans are legitimately interested in getting to the truth of what happened between these two people 30-odd years ago. As Democrats have pointed out, if the committee majority really wanted to do that, it would authorize a thorough investigation rather than rush through a hearing. So the only plausible conclusion is that Senate Republicans believe this course of action will somehow be politically beneficial to them.

At first blush, that calculation seems ridiculous. The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee come off as a bunch of smug white men, and they've already started to say ugly things about Ford.  The likelihood that this hearing will become a spectacle of sexist condescension toward Ford is sky-high. Comparisons to the case of Anita Hill, who came forward during the 1991 confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas, are flying fast and furious.

But there's good reason to believe that Republicans don't care if they come across as villains. This gulf between how conservatives and liberals view both the situation today and the Hill-Thomas hearings of  27 years ago is highly revealing.  For liberals, empirical truth matters quite a bit. But for the right, the truth is irrelevant, or nearly so; the only thing that really matters is power.

The Hill-Thomas hearings illustrate this divide. Over the past couple of decades, a historical narrative about that event has hardened not just on the political left, but also in the mainstream media: That the treatment of Hill and the confirmation of Thomas was a travesty, and one that caused women to revolt and reinvigorated the feminist movement. Nowadays, Hill is largely received as a hero, and has recently been interviewed by John Oliver, profiled by Rachel Maddow and published as an expert in the New York Times.

But Republicans don't view that event as a stain on their party. They see it as a victory. In their eyes, it's irrelevant that Hill was almost certainly telling the truth. They got Thomas seated on the Supreme Court, building a conservative majority against unions, human rights and corporate regulations. The verdict of history and the truth itself don't matter. All that matters is the conquest and consolidation of power.

What conservatives understand -- and liberals continue to struggle with -- is that power often matters more than the truth. Given enough power, truth can be stifled, denied, ignored or stigmatized. Republicans know that with a five-seat majority on the Supreme Court, they can rule that up is down and black is white. Truth withers in the face of power like that.

In 2004, Ron Suskind of the New York Times wrote a piece about the George W. Bush administration that quickly became legendary in political circles for an infamous quote from an anonymous administration official. The aide sneeringly told Suskind he belonged to "the reality-based community," made up of people who foolishly "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality."

"That's not the way the world really works anymore," the aide added. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."

At the time, this quote was viewed as preposterous by many on the left, including myself. The utter failure of the Bush administration to will itself to victory in Iraq seemed to vindicate the belief that Republicans were drunk on hubris. Obviously, liberals are correct to say there are hard limits on how much reality can be denied. We generally don't see those who reject reality-based thinking declaring that they can fly and flinging themselves off buildings.

But on the whole, the conservative certainty that power will triumph over truth has a disturbing amount of, dare I say, empirical evidence to back it up. Donald Trump lies all day, every day, but he is powerful, so his opponents stand around, helpless to defeat him. Telling the truth and telling it again doesn't change the equation. Republicans control the reins of power. Republicans don't care about lies. Therefore lies win.

So liberals are right to perceive a strong chance that in the forthcoming Judiciary Committee hearing, Republican senators come across as a bunch of nasty misogynists, Ford reads as a sympathetic character and Kavanaugh comes across as a liar. Conservatives are right to think that it won't matter, because unless one or more Republican senators get cold feet, they have the power to seat Kavanaugh no matter what.

The hearing is there to provide cover. Even if Ford provides a compelling case or Kavanaugh is caught in a lie, it likely won't matter. Republicans will simply claim to believe that Ford is being untruthful or misremembering long-ago events, and the Trump base will claim to believe them.  All that really matters is creating short-term political cover to get Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. Even if Kavanaugh is guilty, even if he perjures himself and even if Trump is later found to be guilty of crimes, conservatives won't much care. Even if history eventually settles on the liberal side, as it did with Anita Hill, it won't matter. As long as they hold that Supreme Court seat, Republicans won't care how they got it.

Remember, Republicans didn't turn on Trump, despite more than a dozen accusers and at least two tapes of Trump confessing to the very behavior women say he subjected them to. Trump's power matters more than the truth about his behavior. That's why conservatives are so incurious about the truth of Brett Kavanaugh's behavior. It simply doesn't matter to them. All that matters is power.

 


Source: Conservatives Aren?t Afraid of Anita Hill Redux: They Know That Power Matters More Than Truth
7
Capitalist Economic Crises. It's Just a Frasier Moment.

It?s greed and fear

by Michael Roberts


Larry Summers is one of the world?s leading Keynesian economists,  a former Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, a candidate  previously for the Chair of the US Fed, and a regular speaker at the  massive ASSA annual conference of the American Economics Association,  where he promotes the old neo-Keynesian view that the global economy  tends to a form of ?secular stagnation?.

Summers has in the past attacked (correctly in my view) the decline of Keynesian economics into just doing sterile Dynamic  Stochastic General Equilibrium models (DSGE), where it is assumed that  the economy is stable and growing, but then is subject to some ?shock?  like a change in consumer or investor behaviour.  The model then  supposedly tells us any changes in outcomes.  Summers particularly  objects to the demand by neoclassical and other Keynesian economists  that any DSGE model must start from ?microeconomic foundations? ie the  initial assumptions must be logical, according to marginalist  neoclassical supply and demand theory, and the individual agents must  act ?rationally? according to those ?foundations?.

As Summers puts it: ?the principle of building macroeconomics on  microeconomic foundations, as applied by economists, contributed next to  nothing to predicting, explaining or resolving the Great Recession.?  Instead, says Summers, we should think in terms of ?broad aggregates?, ie empirical evidence of what is happening in the economy, not what the  logic of neoclassical economic theory might claim ought to happen.

Not all Keynesians agree with Summers on this.  Simon Wren-Lewis, the  leading British Keynesian economist claims that the best DSGE models  did try to incorporate money and imperfections in an economy: ?respected macroeconomists (would) argue that because of these problematic microfoundations, it is best to ignore something like sticky prices (wages) (a key Keynesian argument for an economy stuck in a recession ? MR) when doing policy work: an argument that would be laughed out of court  in any other science. In no other discipline could you have a debate about  whether it was better to model what you can microfound rather than  model what you can see. Other economists understand this, but many  macroeconomists still think this is all quite normal.? In other  words, you cannot just do empirical work without some theory or model to  analyse it; or in Marxist terms, you need the connection between the  concrete and the abstract.

There is confusion here in mainstream economics ? one side want to  condemn ?models? for being unrealistic and not recognising the power of  the aggregate.  The other side condemns statistics without a theory of  behaviour or laws of motion.

Summers  reckons that the reason mainstream economics failed to predict the  Great Recession is that it does not want to recognise ?irrationality? on  the part of consumers and investors. 
You see, crises are probably  the result of ?irrational? or bad decisions arising from herd-like  behaviour.  Markets are first gripped by ?greed? and then suddenly  ?animal spirits? disappear and markets are engulfed by ?fear?.  This is a  psychological explanation of crises.

Summers recommends a new book by behavioural economists Andrei Shleifer?s and Nicola Gennaioli, ?A Crisis of Beliefs: Investor Psychology and Financial Fragility.?  Summers proclaims that ?the  book puts expectations at the center of thinking about economic  fluctuations and financial crises ? but these expectations are not  rational. In fact, as all the evidence suggests, they are subject to  systematic errors of extrapolation. The book suggests that these errors  in expectations are best understood as arising out of cognitive biases  to which humans are prone.? Using the latest research in psychology  and behavioural economics, they present a new theory of belief  formation.  So it?s all down to irrational behaviour, not even a sudden  ?lack of demand? (the usual Keynesian reason) or banking excesses.  The  ?shocks? to the general equilibrium models are to be found in wrong  decisions, greed and fear by investors.

Behavioural economics always seems to me ?desperate macroeconomics?.   We don?t know why slumps occur in production, investment and employment  at regular and recurring intervals.  We don?t have a convincing  theoretical model that can be tested with empirical evidence; just  saying slumps occur because there is a ?lack of demand? sounds  inadequate.  So let?s turn to psychology to save economics.

Actually, the great behavourial economists that Summers refers to  also have no idea what causes crises.  Robert Thaler reckons that stock  market prices are so volatile that there is no rational explanation of  their movements.  Thaler argues that there are ?bubbles?, which he  considers are ?irrational? movements in prices not related to  fundamentals like profits or interest rates.  Top neoclassical economist  Eugene Fama criticised Thaler.  Fama argued that a ?bubble? in stock  market prices may merely express a change in view of investors about  prospective investment returns; it?s not ?irrational?.  On this point, Fama is right and Thaler is wrong.

The other behaviourist cited by Summers is Daniel Kahneman.  He has  developed what he called ?prospect theory?. Kahneman?s research has  shown that people do not behave as mainstream marginal utility theory  suggests. Instead Kahneman argues that there is ?pervasive optimistic  bias? in individuals.  They have irrational or unwarranted optimism.   This leads people to take on risky projects without considering the  ultimate costs ? against rational choice assumed by mainstream theory.

Kahneman?s work certainly exposes the unrealistic assumptions of  marginal utility theory, the bedrock of mainstream economics.  But it  offers as an alternative, a theory of chaos, that we can know nothing  and predict nothing.  You see, the inherent flaw in a modern economy is  uncertainty and psychology.  It?s not the drive for profit versus social  need, but the psychological perceptions of individuals. Thus the US  home price collapse and the global financial crash came about because  consumers have irrational swings from greed to fear.  This leaves  mainstream (including Keynesian) economics in a psychological purgatory,  with no scientific analysis and predictive power. 

Also, it leads to a  utopian view of how to fix crises.  The answer is to change people?s  behaviour; in particular, big multinational companies and banks need to  have ?social purpose? and not be greedy!
Turning to psychology is not necessary for economics. 

At the level  of aggregate, the macro, we can draw out the patterns of motion in  capitalism that can be tested and could deliver predictive power.  For  example, Marx made the key observation that what drives stock market  prices is the difference between interest rates and the overall rate of  profit. What has kept stock market prices rising now has been the  very low level of long-term interest rates, deliberately engendered by  central banks like the Federal Reserve around the world.



Of course, every day, investors make ?irrational? decisions but, over  time and, in the aggregate, investor decisions to buy or to sell stocks  or bonds will be based on the return they have received (in interest or  dividends) and the prices of bonds and stocks will move accordingly.  And those returns ultimately depend on the difference between the  profitability of capital invested in the economy and the costs of  providing finance.  The change in objective conditions will alter the  behaviour of ?economic agents?.

Right now, interest rates are rising globally while profits are stagnating.


The scissor is closing between the return on capital and the cost of borrowing.  When it closes, greed will turn into fear.
Source: Capitalist Economic Crises. It's Just a Frasier Moment.
8
Conservative Writer Slams Trump as a 'Small Man' ? and Says His Botched Presidency Makes the US Look 'Weak'



 
 
 



"A great country shouldn?t behave this way."


President Donald Trump's White House has been hit with a torrent of bad news in recent weeks and months, circumstances that, according to conservative writer Jennifer Rubin, have led him to try to "distract the country, recast the headlines and, most of all, incite his xenophobic base."

But instead of successfully changing the topic, Rubin argued in a new Washington Post column, these efforts make Trump ? and the entire country ? look weak.

 "A small man makes America look small," she wrote.

One of the most consequential steps Trump has taken in this regard is his effort to stifle American programs to receive immigrants. The State Department announced this week that the United States will accept no more than 30,000 refugees this year, a dramatic cut from previous years even as displacement continues to be a massive global issue.

"If evangelical Christians were sincerely focused on the plight of Christians in communist and Muslim countries, they would not be so quiet about how Trump?s lack of empathy harms their fellow Christians," Rubin noted.

She continued: "At present, it is left primarily to Democrats to argue that the Trump administration?s move is counterproductive, damages to our image abroad and weakens our ability to urge allies to take in refugees that are closer to their borders than to the United States. When we deny entry to refugees, we give comfort to their persecutors and dissuade them from giving us assistance (e.g., as spies or guides) for fear they will be abandoned after they are no longer useful."

Trump's attitude, Rubin argued, diminishes the country's view of itself as a moral leader in the world.

"A great country shouldn?t behave this way," she wrote. "Thanks to Trump, the message to the world is that the United States is too weak, afraid and poor to take in those fleeing persecution."






 

Related Stories


Source: Conservative Writer Slams Trump as a 'Small Man' ? and Says His Botched Presidency Makes the US Look 'Weak'
9
Another billionaire abandons the Trump Nightmare. Obama Made Him Do It.

The Source of Les Wexner's billions
Richard Mellor
Afscme Local 444, retired

The Huffington Post reported yesterday that Les Wexner, the Ohio billionaire who owns what Forbes describes as a ?global real estate empire
that includes Victoria's Secret and Bath and Body Works? and is worth some $4.7 billion, is done with the Republican Party.

In 2015, Wexner handed over $500,000 to the Jeb Bush campaign for president but like most of the top bourgeois in the US, having two parties to choose from, they often donate to both to ensure one of their candidates gets in. Wexner also donated $2.8 million to ?With Honor? a super PAC that doles out cash to candidates from both capitalist parties. What a deal, you can?t lose----until now. The title of the super PAC is confirmation that the old adage that there is honor among thieves is spot on.

As this blog has pointed out many times, the US is in a severe political crisis as the two parties that have dominated US society for a hundred and fifty years or so are in turmoil and in danger of splitting.  Putting it bluntly, the era of the domination or dictatorship of the two parties of capital is coming to an ignominious end.

?I?m no longer a Republican?, Wexner announces to the legislators of both parties that are supposed to represent his interests, and that he ?won?t support this nonsense in the Republican Party? anymore.  The nonsense he?s referring to is the Predator in Chief Donald Trump and his administration as well as the right wing evangelicals who have infiltrated the party.

The more strategic sections of the US capitalist class are extremely worried that Trump is undermining the institutions of capitalism to the point where civil unrest will emerge sooner than later. The problem with Trump is that he does not abide by the ?Honor Among Thieves? rule. He is a traitor to his class in that sense and threatens the relative equilibrium and social cohesion necessary for profit taking to continue unabated.

The capitalist class uses racism as a useful divide and rule strategy and need to keep a healthy tension around that issue in society. They need it to prevent working people from banding together against them, after all, most workers recognize that we all have very much the same interests and when our interests are threatened there is a natural tendency for us to seek class allies, to unite. They do not want racism to break out in to open race warfare, history has taught them that this can be very expensive, destructive and unprofitable. They are forced to use racism to defend themselves against the more populous working class but they need to control it.

Trump?s trade war and his international behavior is also a threat. The US bourgeois are very well aware of what the Smoot Hawley tariffs did. It is likely Trump?s recent threats to China will be met with retaliation and this could really hurt sections of the US capitalist class as we have seen with Harley Davidson, the auto industry and certainly the US apparel market. US workers are also going to be feeling the pinch further as other countries retaliate and this worries Wexner. The Wall Street journal recently attacked Trump for daring to suggest Harley Davidson should lose money (profits) by bringing production on shore. This is second only to communism as far as sacrilege goes----suggesting such a thing to capitalists.

Wexner?s decision is what I want to emphasize here. The motive for his decision was Barack Obama?s visit to the state. ?I was struck by the genuineness of the man; his candor, humility and empathy for others,?, Wexner says. They?ve got no shame these people, saying anything about anyone that ensures their interests, social power and lifestyles are protected and Obama has proven to the US ruling class that he is a solid guardian at the gate. In addition, he is educated, intelligent, cultured; as is Michelle Obama. They have class. Obama is the consummate bourgeois politician.

Wexner  owns a 30-room, mansion on a $47 million 336 acre estate, according to Wikipedia. He has one of the largest private yachts in the world. He is a Zionist and Jewish. As a much more strategic and thoughtful member of the US elite and as a Jewish American he is rightly concerned about Trump's Nazi and Fascist base. There were Nazi fliers dumped at the Jewish Synagogue just around the corner from where I live. This has not happened all the years I?ve lived here. As the only electoral option these days Wexner turns to the Democrats and Barack Obama who served the US capitalist class well for 8 years and proved himself a reliable ally as he rose among the ranks as head of the Harvard Law Review and a Senator before becoming president.

So I ask my working class friends that praise the Democratic Party as the way forward, that put all the ?I love Obama memes? on Facebook do you really believe politicians like him and his party are capable of solving the horror of urban and rural poverty, homelessness, declining living standards and the never-ending crises we find ourselves in today?  Do you  actually believe people like Wexner and his pal Obama actually have our, (workers) interests at heart?

It is inconceivable that Wexner hasn?t talked to Obama like his class colleagues have and are urging him to step forward and help end this nightmare that is Trump and co. Help the other capitalist party in to power. Wexner?s praise of Obama has nothing to do with Obama possessing humility or empathy. And humility, empathy and a love for the poor are not the qualities necessary for one human being to accumulate $4 billion. In fact, they would be a hindrance. Obama hasn?t shown too much empathy for Iraqi?s, Yemeni?s Afghani?s and the poor of this country. The elite in this country are in crisis and some of them are becoming desperate and fearful of civil unrest due to Trump?s brutal approach as that capitalist strategist and free market guru pointed out in an article we published here. Fear, that?s what?s drawn Wexner to Obama. He?s gone to one person they know works for their collective well being.

I will end with this. If someone tells me they are not hopeful but we have to stop Trump elect Democrats and then turn to our problems, in other words the lesser of two evil argument, I respect and sympathize with the argument, but I believe it is a flawed one. There is no way out along this road.

Also, that such an historic event as the US with its brutal racist history electing a black president is so overwhelmingly emotional for some black folks I can understand and sympathize with that. I had a good friend of mine admit they didn?t think he would bring much change but having a respectable powerful black man and black family in the White House, was so important for her son to witness, that?s why she voted for him. A successful person that looks like him.

These are just some thoughts that I had after reading this news.

I have written enough about racism, political alternatives and how being political is not simply putting a piece of paper in a ballot box every four years that I don?t need to repeat it here. The reader if they care to do so, can read the archives on this blog.

Source: Another billionaire abandons the Trump Nightmare. Obama Made Him Do It.
10
Desperate Ted Cruz Launches Absurd Attack on Beto O'Rourke: He's 'Going to Ban Barbecue Across the State of Texas'



 
 
 



Cruz's attacks on his opponent are getting dumber and dumber.


Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) was clearly not expecting a competitive Senate race. It is evident in how bizarre and unpolished his political attacks have become as he tries to fend off his Democratic challenger, El Paso Rep. Beto O'Rourke.

According to the Austin American-Statesman, at a campaign stop on Sunday, Cruz tried out a new line: elect Beto, and all your barbecue will be replaced with tofu:

Appearing at a packed campaign event at Schobels Restaurant in the South Texas town of Columbus on Saturday, Cruz said, ?When I got here someone told me that even PETA was protesting and giving out barbecued tofu, so I got to say, they summed up the entire election: If Texas elects a Democrat, they?re going to ban barbecue across the state of Texas.?

?You want to talk about an issue to mobilize the people, and I?m talking everybody,? Cruz said to appreciative laughter. ?So I want to thank PETA and I do want to tell PETA you?re going to have to disclose to the FEC that by coming and protesting and giving away tofu, that you have given an in-kind contribution to my campaign by demonstrating just how bad things can get.?

This jab is childish, not to mention silly given that O'Rourke is, pretty visibly, an avid meat-eater. It is also a little strange for Cruz to be mocking tofu at a time when soybean farmers ? who produced 5.25 million bushels in Texas alone last year ? are gravely threatened due to President Donald Trump's tariff war.

But this is not a one-off attack. Cruz has largely been running a culture-war campaign, in which he is trying to argue that O'Rourke would be out of step with Texas values.

Cruz recently claimed that O'Rourke would bring "tofu, silicon, and dyed hair," to Texas, obviously implying he would make Texas more like California ? again, a strange line of attack against someone whose family has lived in Texas for four generations. And he has also sought to attack O'Rourke for his impassioned viral video in which he supported NFL players' right to take a knee for civil rights.

Texas has not elected a Democrat to statewide office in 24 years, but polls have repeatedly found the Senate race within a few percentage points ? due in part to O'Rourke's massive grassroots funding operation that has outraised the incumbent senator, and statewide tours that have brought him to all 254 counties in the Lone Star State. Cruz is one of the most infamous right-wing partisan firebrands in the Senate, and is broadly disliked by even his own GOP colleagues, which may well have fueled interest in the race further.

Last week, after much wrangling, Cruz and O'Rourke finally agreed to a series of three debates leading up to the election, the first of which will take place this Friday at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.






 

Related Stories


Source: Desperate Ted Cruz Launches Absurd Attack on Beto O'Rourke: He's 'Going to Ban Barbecue Across the State of Texas'
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10