The media blather about the new capo of the Catholic Church continues, now that one has actually been named. We're hearing a lot of fatuous comments apparently designed to obscure the fact that nothing is different and no structural changes in that organization's practices and dogma are likely.
The new guy is being hailed in cherry-picked soundbites by mostly unidentified Catholics, who may be the proverbial "man in the street" or church apparatchiks. What is known already is that the Cardinals picked one of their own kind, a "conservative" who abhors gays, abortion, the concept of women priests, end of celibacy, or marriage for priests. (Gotta maintain that chaste image, reality be damned!) One particularly idiotic line I heard pushed in a radio broadcast implied he's some kind of "liberal" because he denounced priests who wouldn't baptize babies of unmarried women. Hey, that's just a business decision! He doesn't want to drive away customers!
At the same time, in China they're having their once-in-ten-years "leadership change" at the top of the oppressive "Communist" Party of China, the oligarchy that holds a monopoly on power without even the pretense of contested elections (such pretense being the kind of sham run by the PRI in Mexico for 75 years until their upset). Here too, nothing actually changes, despite the endless empty speculation as to "what it means" in the Western media. (Some of the yakkers are called "analysts," but with nothing to analyze, how can they be analysts?)
In the U.S., different Presidents make more of a difference, but again, nothing fundamentally changes. The U.S. remains a corporate oligarchy fronted by a two-party dictatorship which manages a global empire. A disguised empire, to be sure, but with bases in over a hundred foreign countries, and the self-arrogated right to choose governments for other nations, can any rational person deny it is imperialist?
Currently the Democrats and Republicans both agree that social services not just for the poor but for almost everyone has to be slashed to reduce deficits. The differences come down to a quibble over whether the rich will have to pay a little more in taxes, or nothing at all. The fact that Social Security runs a surplus, and will continue doing so for at least the next 20 years, is regularly ignored. The propagandists keep insisting the problem is mainly Social Security and Medicare, and the solution to the budget imbalance is to cut them. (Actually, with the U.S. government able to borrow money at rock bottom rates, the government should load up on debt at these prices, as Ford Motor company did, and use the money to invest in infrastructure, education, etc. Fat chance, obviously. The U.S. seems determined to self-destruct, long-term. It won't be the first empire to meet its demise through its own mad stupidity. What a waste, as America could contribute so much to humanity if it used its power for good.) The role of the gigantic military budget (I remember Carter increasing it 50% over 4 years, to $150 billion, and he's "remembered" as "weak" on "defense." Now when you add up all the hidden extras, and the two-thirds of the "Energy" Dept. budget that in fact is for nuclear weapons, it's almost a trillion dollars a year (1000 billions). And we're hearing histrionic moaning about what a disaster cutting it will be! Why, we'll practically be left defenseless!
And of course decades of slashing taxes for big corporations and the wealthy have something to do with all this. The 400 richest Americans hailed by Forbes collectively control about $2 trillion in wealth. Likewise public corporations have amassed trillions in cash on their books. (All that welfare they get from the government helps. And not having to pay much if any taxes. But look at all the jobs they're creating!)
Bottom line: in all these cases and others of "leadership change," the yakkers want to play to people's desire for change, with these cruel teases, raising false hopes. The changes are similar to a new CEO at a corporation. They mean very little.
Nothing will change until people put real pressure on the respective systems of repression- or abandon them, as Catholics have the option of doing with their "church." Unlike in so many centuries past, the Catholic Church no longer holds state power- although it holds something close to it in benighted lands like Ireland, where it still imposes its sick law on everyone, and various Latin countries, which also ban abortion among other outrages.
No comments:
Post a Comment