"You have to have capital markets in this country," Hollywood star Alec Baldwin said Tuesday at an Occupy Wall Street audience with wearechange.org.
Baldwin emphasized the risk of allowing Paulites to “shutter” the Federal Reserve, and he declined to support Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), but he kept an open mind about monetary policy:
In this crazy hill of beans world where 49 percent of Occupiers supported and continue to support the Troubled Asset Relief Program; where the notion of a Fed-free economy is held by both the news and opinion pages of the New York Times to be a heresy as intolerable as the heliocentric system; where French farce buffoons like Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke are solemnly portrayed as heroes by Baldwin’s fellow stars in white-knuckle HBO dramas, I give Alec Baldwin some credit for admitting he doesn’t know.
So why does the New York Observer call this appearance “Alec Baldwin SMACKDOWN on Ending the Fed on Occupy Wall Street”? This defining down of the entire Smackdown concept makes me wish the WWE would copyright the word.
There was a similar case earlier this month, when the American Spectator launched a smackdown of Baldwin’s breast cancer charity. The magazine discovered that known TARP beneficiaries had contributed to the fund. This is damning?
We don’t live in an ethical experiment. If we did, it would be the ethical equivalent of Kobayashi Maru because it’s effectively impossible for a contemporary American to avoid dealing with corporate welfare recipients. It’s absurd to claim that every American who expresses anger at corporate welfare has to opt out of the only banking system our rulers allow us to have.
And speaking of opting out, I’d like to alert Baldwin that the financial system whose health he is worried about is now literally using police to prevent people from getting their own money out of their own accounts: