Our Vendors 

Issue: March 7 – March 13, 2012

March 7 - March 13, 2012-1

Inside this issue:

This week, StreetWise features the non-profit organization Chicago Access Network Television (CAN TV), giving “every Chicagoan a voice on cable television by providing video training, equipment, facilities and channel time for Chicago residents and non-profit groups. CAN TV’s five local, non-commercial channels reach 1 million viewers in the city of Chicago.”

“CAN TV is unique because of the openness, inclusiveness and accessibility of our services to everyone in Chicago,” said Executive Director Barbara Popovic. “Someone can come in and create a show without being a subscriber.”

To learn more about what’s featured in this week’s edition, please watch a video preview below, hosted by StreetWise Editor-In-Chief Suzanne Hanney. And please pick up your copy of StreetWise Magazine today!

Share

One Response to “March 7 – March 13, 2012”

  1. Chris Poulos says:

    Regarding “It was all Barney Frank’s fault”

    I appreciated the sentiment of the article, in so far as it illustrated the negative affects of privatization on the 99%. A simple fact to drive this point home is that only 20% of subprime mortgages were regulated by the community reinvestment act (CRA), which is the federal regulations right-wingers reference, obligating lenders to lend to traditionally risky markets. 80% of subprime mortgages were originated outside of the scope of the CRA. Or, in the unregulated market. The simple conclusion is that the right-wing and mainstream media has the story COMPLETELY wrong. The CRA did not drive the subprime crisis. The profit incentive of the financial sector and greed drove the the crisis.

    Though, I’d disagree with associating the interests of the 99% with the democrats (as a whole). Yes, there are some dems more intune with the interests of the 99%, but, by far and large, they particpate in the same system that has disenfranchised so many and adopted the same brutal blame-the-victim mentality as the right-wing. The Clinton administration’s reinvention of government and cutting out waste, to provide an example, was a euphamism for privatization efforts that benefited the 1% at the expense of everyone else. Examples: Changing Aid to Families with Dependent Children to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or the destruction of public housing to make way for a private market, unaffordable to a vast proportion of those in public housing. The profit generated from privatization efforts like these create a surplus of money that needs to be reinvested. The subprime mortgage market provided a lucrative outlet.

    All this to say, the 99% (from the homeless to the family struggling to pay their mortgage) should be weary to jump behind democrats. The large scale change we need will not be won in congress, it will be won in the streets. The Occupy movement is a perfect example. In a matter of months, this truly grass roots movements shifted how we talk about inequality (the 1% v. the 99%). Imagine if the homeless, the employed, the unemployed, homeowners, renters, students organized side by side. Rather than fighting over meager grant money (amounting to practically nothing), we could actually formulate demands for more human and equitable policies…AND those in power would have to listen.

Leave a Reply


Your Comment:

WordPress SEO