REGULATION VS. DE- OR NO REGULATION & THE USUAL RIGHTWING LIES

Ever since the earthquake in Chile I've been waiting for someone on the news to make the point that the more powerful Chilean one caused only hundreds (what may still turn out to be thousands, though many of those more a result of the tsunami following the quake than the quake itself) of deaths while the Haitian one caused hundreds of thousands because the Haitian buildings were constructed without any government regulations or without their being enforced while the Chilean buildings were government regulated and therefore safer.

The news has pointed this out but never in terms of regulation vs. de- or no regulation. As I referred to in yesterday's post and TPW elaborated beautifully on, the Dems seem incapable of being succinct and to the point, as in "Here's what lack of regulation caused—over two hundred thousand dead—as opposed to regulation—hundreds dead!"

And now I read a rightwinger's defending the Chilean regulations as something coming from the father of deregulation and privatization Milton Friedman! But of course, it is a LIE. A lie that I am sure rightwingers will promulgate and within months if not days it will become an accepted "fact" on the right and an "opposing view" in the mainstream media, instead of A LIE, which is what it is and Naomi Wolfe articulates in her usual clear and logically reasoned way.