Capitalist ideological cheerleaders have been subjecting us to years of bullshit about "emerging economies." Just about any despotic, corrupt, backward third world nation is suitable material for being hailed as "rapidly developing" with "tremendous potential." Could be some African kleptocracy with lots of oil, or a Persian Gulf sheikdom with a 14th century social structure and values- it's all good! (Hey, invest here now!!)
One of these tropes that we have been subjected to ad nauseam is the so-called "BRICs," Brazil, Russian, India, China. Supposedly these countries represent The Wave of the Future. (Brazil of course still has a huge majority of dirt-poor people, near-anarchic social conditions, massive destruction of the Amazon rain forests by rabid loggers and ranchers who murder anyone who gets in their way, and a host of other ills. Russia- Russia! Is that a joke? A nation with a shrinking population, a male live expectancy of 57 or 54 (it keeps dropping), an AIDS epidemic ignored by the government, and the world's worst alcoholism problem. Oh, and massive environmental pollution, vast areas destroyed by pollution and radioactive contamination. Did I mention the authoritarian regime headed by a former secret policeman, name of Vladimir Putin? (But he's ok, George Bush checked out his "soul" by looking into his eyes. And I always thought that was the retina in there!) China- ok, they're an economic powerhouse, and their oppressive one-party dictatorship is pretty clever and much better strategists than their idiot counterparts like the U.S. and Europe, which basically hand over their technological crown jewels (and what it doesn't hand over, China steals). Even Japan has been snookered and robbed by China. And did I mention the massive number of stock frauds perpetrated by Chinese hustlers in the U.S. stock markets? (The SEC didn't do squat to stop it, and still does what the SEC always does- bullshit symbolic actions to pretend it's regulating, just going through the motions.)
Now India is experiencing the world's largest electrical blackout by far. As if this writing, 22 of 28 regions are blacked out, leaving about 700 million people (more than half the entire population) without lights, transportation in many cases, and various essentials of living. (I just hope the hospitals have reliable backup generators. How much you want to bet many don't?)
Of course, the idea of India as being "modern" has been a ludicrous fraud all along. It shouldn't have taken this event to show it. The huge majority of the people there live in poverty- many in squalor. Their noxious "caste" system, a system of rigid, super-exploitive class imprisonment, is still in place. Vicious crimes against women- hurling acid in their faces, burning them alive, and of course rape- are routine, and routinely unpunished. Officials are thoroughly corrupt, and have a habit of assaulting and murdering citizens who speak out about it. (Rather, they have goons do their dirty work.) Naturally those crimes go unpunished too.
India has a tiny urban "elite," and a small class of rich people, and a bunch of English-speaking drones to staff their companies that service Western corporate interests. (Like providing terrible "support" for Western consumers of tech products.) A low-wage reserve pool of labor to "outsource" U.S. jobs- i.e. pull the rug out from under American workers- is India's actual attraction to the capitalist shills of the media and "investment" commentary. Most everybody else in India is a subsistence farmer or small trader, and there's a class of landlords lording it over most of the geographical area of the country.
More and more, the great New Age of Triumphant Capitalism after the defeat (really, the collapse) of the Soviet Union, is looking like a Potemkin village.
By the way, "advanced" Europe, Japan, and the U.S. aren't doing so hot the past few years. Spain has 25% unemployment. Media propagandists call this a "recession." Huh? Recession? None dare say the "D" word.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
How Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke Are Like Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, et al
The Penn State pedophile protectors Joe Paterno (dead "legendary" football coach) cashiered "University" President Graham B.Spanier (it's really a sports franchise/business masquerading as a university) and their other accomplices, like canned campus police chief Gary Schultz athletic director Tim Curley- the latter two facing criminal charges for lying to a Grand Jury, and failing to report the asssaults- are guilty of aiding and abetting serial child rapist Jerry Sandusky by hiding his crimes- not merely failing to report, but hushing them up. (A janitor who caught Sandusky in the act of one of his rapes had the good sense to keep his mouth shut, correctly intuiting that he would be fired if he reported it. And we know what happened when on another occasion an assistant coach caught Sandusky anally raping a boy- he told Paterno, who passed it along in a fuzzy manner to Curley, and a coverup when into train, which lasted for years.*)
Geithner and Bernanke did something similar with the LIBOR-fixing scandal by the megabanks whose servants and protectors they are. They kept quiet. They hushed it up. For years. But Geithner now points to a cover-his-ass email he sent to UK regulators, and thinks that gets him off the hook.
Bernanke, "explaining" at a Congressional hearing why he did nothing (and didn't even SAY anything PUBLICLY) says he had no authority to do anything about it! Of course, if he had merely made a PUBLIC STATEMENT about the fraud, or if Geithner had, that would have ended the game right there. Which they understood. Which is why they said nothing. Because their job is to aid and abet never-ending growth in profits for the biggest megabanks and oligarchic financiers.
In both scandals, aiders and abetters were effectively accomplices by throwing a protective blanket of secrecy over the miscreants.
*More sickening details: the criminal cabal at Penn State investigated Sandusky for molesting two boys in their showers in 1998. After that they paid the child rapist Sandusky handsomely to just go away. (But not too far away. He went on to rape at least 9 more boys in the same university showers, AFTER 1998, for which he has just been convicted.) The Freeh investigation uncovered the facts that Mr. Sandusky, upon his "retirement" after the 1998 investigation/coverup, received both an unusual compensation package AND a special designation of “emeritus” rank that carried special privileges, including access to the university’s recreational facilities. (Including his favorite rape spot, the showers.) Spanier, the president, approved a payment to Sandusky of $168,000. The silent janitor spotted him raping again in 2000. And who knows who else knew something- perhaps many people, who now protect their own reputations by keeping their mouths shut. ["Abuse Scandal Inquiry Damns Paterno and Penn State," NY Times, 7/12/12.]
Geithner and Bernanke did something similar with the LIBOR-fixing scandal by the megabanks whose servants and protectors they are. They kept quiet. They hushed it up. For years. But Geithner now points to a cover-his-ass email he sent to UK regulators, and thinks that gets him off the hook.
Bernanke, "explaining" at a Congressional hearing why he did nothing (and didn't even SAY anything PUBLICLY) says he had no authority to do anything about it! Of course, if he had merely made a PUBLIC STATEMENT about the fraud, or if Geithner had, that would have ended the game right there. Which they understood. Which is why they said nothing. Because their job is to aid and abet never-ending growth in profits for the biggest megabanks and oligarchic financiers.
In both scandals, aiders and abetters were effectively accomplices by throwing a protective blanket of secrecy over the miscreants.
*More sickening details: the criminal cabal at Penn State investigated Sandusky for molesting two boys in their showers in 1998. After that they paid the child rapist Sandusky handsomely to just go away. (But not too far away. He went on to rape at least 9 more boys in the same university showers, AFTER 1998, for which he has just been convicted.) The Freeh investigation uncovered the facts that Mr. Sandusky, upon his "retirement" after the 1998 investigation/coverup, received both an unusual compensation package AND a special designation of “emeritus” rank that carried special privileges, including access to the university’s recreational facilities. (Including his favorite rape spot, the showers.) Spanier, the president, approved a payment to Sandusky of $168,000. The silent janitor spotted him raping again in 2000. And who knows who else knew something- perhaps many people, who now protect their own reputations by keeping their mouths shut. ["Abuse Scandal Inquiry Damns Paterno and Penn State," NY Times, 7/12/12.]
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Poliovirus Has Ally In Islamofascists
The deranged Islamic totalitarian medievalists who are taking over increasing areas of the world (they've just taken over northern Mali: see for example "Jihadists' Fierce Justice [sic] Drives Thousands to Flee Mali," NY Times, 7/17/12) are effectively allies with one of humankind's enemies, the poliovirus. The three countries where polio cases still occur (striking children) are Nigeria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. In all three cases, it's because Islamofascists block polio vaccination programs. (One excuse/paranoid delusional "reason" they do so is they think the vaccines are actually a secret plot to sterilize the population. Actually if someone could sterilize these maniacs it would be a good thing! Since they are traitors to the human race by allying themselves with our enemies, and since they viciously attack human rights whenever and wherever they can, they obviously need to be wiped out.)
The Islamofascists in Pakistan just shot an African doctor working for the UN in a polio vaccination program there. ["Gunmen Attack UN Vehicle in Pakistan, Wounding Polio Doctor," NY Times, 7/17/12.]
And of course the Islamofascists are vandals of civilization with a nasty habit of destroying our common cultural heritage. They do this in many ways, large and small. Two of their splashier acts of cultural vandalism occurred in Afghanistan, when they blew up the magnificant, giant Buddha statues, and now in Mali with the destruction of Islamic tombs. These barbarian scum have no respect for anyone or anything except their only extremely narrow, fanatical ideology and their power-mad leaders, no tolerance for anything or anyone slightly different from their demented selves, and no appreciation or respect for human rights or anything of value.
They are patently pernicious, deadly enemies of all humanity.
The Islamofascists in Pakistan just shot an African doctor working for the UN in a polio vaccination program there. ["Gunmen Attack UN Vehicle in Pakistan, Wounding Polio Doctor," NY Times, 7/17/12.]
And of course the Islamofascists are vandals of civilization with a nasty habit of destroying our common cultural heritage. They do this in many ways, large and small. Two of their splashier acts of cultural vandalism occurred in Afghanistan, when they blew up the magnificant, giant Buddha statues, and now in Mali with the destruction of Islamic tombs. These barbarian scum have no respect for anyone or anything except their only extremely narrow, fanatical ideology and their power-mad leaders, no tolerance for anything or anyone slightly different from their demented selves, and no appreciation or respect for human rights or anything of value.
They are patently pernicious, deadly enemies of all humanity.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Who's Guaranteed To Win The Summer Olympics? The Secret Police.
In the lead-up to the 2012 Summer Olympics, being held in London, we can already discern a clear winner: the secret police of "Great" Britain, and to a lesser degree their foreign partners, "other Western intelligence agencies." (Of which the CIA and FBI are first and foremost.)
Before the Olympics even begin, we're getting a steady stream of pro-secret police propaganda, planted by them in the corporate media, about foiled "plots" and "security preparations." The British domestic secret police, MI5, and overseas secret police, MI6, are assiduously working the UK media- with spillover into U.S. media, like the NY TImes- to burnish their image and position themselves ahead of the Olympics.
There are only 2 basic possibilities vis a vis "terrorism" at the Games: Number One, no "major terrorist incident" occurs, or a "plot" is "foiled," or only minor incidents occur. In that case, the gestapos will boast or their great prowess and competence, while also making the point that there is still Great Danger and thus a need for vigilance (and big budgets and lots of repressive powers for the secret police). This propaganda message will be dutifully transmitted to the public by their stooges in the establishment media, the reliable aiders and abettors of the
secret police state. (The secret police might even create some "plots" to "foil," for propaganda use. Years later, the "cases" can be quietly dropped, with little media notice. The losers will be the pawns who spent a few years in jail.)
Possibility Number Two: there is a "major terrorist incident." Does that then prove the opposite, namely the incompetence of the secret police?
Not at all, you simplistic thinker you. It "proves" the need for yet more "resources" - money, and, especially more repressive power for the secret police.
That propaganda message will then be dutifully transmitted to the public by their stooges in the establishment media, those, yes, still reliable aiders and abettors of the secret police state.
It's heads they win, tails we lose.
And anyway, pity the poor secret policemen, because, as they are regularly quoted in the media saying, year after year, mantra-like, "we have to succeed every time, the terrorists only have to succeed once." I.e. expect terrorist attacks to occur, and don't blame us the guardians if they do. Thus does the media inoculate the public, with regular booster shots, against thinking the "security services" should be held responsible for their failures. (Much less for attacks they deliberately allow to occur, like the seminal 9/11/01 attacks that birthed the never-to-end War On Terror, which is the second never-to-end war on human rights being waged by the bourgeoisie, joining the War On Drugs. (Really, the war on getting high. There's certainly no war on the products of the pharmaceutical industry, which are frequently dangerous and/or ineffective and fraudulently and corruptly marketed.)
Now why does the establishment media so assiduously safeguard and promote the interests of the secret police? Well of course both media and secret police are arms of the same system. That is the most basic reason. While there are occasional conflicts, which sometimes even rise to the level of "scandal," for the most part they are allies, if somewhat wary ones. (By the way, the monstrous crimes of the secret police, programs of mass murder and torture, are never the scandals, but are in fact kept hidden, briefly noted, and buried in the memory hole. LIke the Phoenix mass murder program in Vietnam, overseen by one William Colby, who later was ironically drowned by his former colleagues for telling too much to Congress, in their eyes. Gangsters killing gangsters- it happens a lot in crime organizations.)
Typically for a power structure, the corporate oligarchy needs secret police organizations to guard and advance its interests domestically and globally. Note that notorious coups have occurred in the interests of large transnational corporations, such as in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973 (ITT unnecessarily tried to bribe the U.S. government to overthrow Allende), and so on. A secret police state keeps the populace in line, monitors any incipient resistance to their rule or to particular policies/crimes they carry out, infiltrates dissident groups and movements to misdirect, subvert, and destroy them, and generally acts to prevent the development of groups and movements that corporate capital finds noxious. Hence the need for a Total Surveillance State, to nip in the bud any germinating seeds of opposition and resistance.
Abroad, the secret police are part of the structure of force and violence to check, deter, and exterminate external enemies- whether or not those "enemies" realize they are enemies of the corporate oligarchy. (Naive democracy advocates and various labor and human rights workers and their lawyers frequently fall into this category and are exterminated. Oh, and academics who think bad thoughts. And "communist" church people- i.e. real Christians who understand Christ's gospel as meaning standing with the poor. And since U.S. power is the friend of the rich everywhere and enemy of the poor everywhere, this means they too have to be eliminated. And since most people on the planet are poor, being the enemy of the poor means that the U.S. is fundamentally an enemy of humanity. Wow, does that truth ever conflict with official propaganda!)
So why exactly should the establishment media, the voicebox of corporate oligarchy, not support ever increasing powers for their secret police? Is it not the interests of the oligarchy that the secret police serve? Well, sometimes the possibilities of the secret police trampling on bourgeois privileges (which are called "rights" or "freedoms" or "liberties," but they're really privileges, because only some people have them) makes elements of the propaganda system a tad nervous. So they try and draw lines with editorials "warning" the secret police not to go too far. It's rather like tectonic plates bumping up against one another, forces pressed together in intimate contact. Mostly there is gradual shifting, sometimes an abrupt movement.
One more, somewhat minor point. The expansion of secret police repression largely bypasses right wing terrorists. Such as the recent case in Germany, where a neoNazi group was allowed to murder Turks for a decade, and even a policewoman. The day after it all blew up, the German secret police were burning their files on the group! (Reports BBC. Didn't see that in U.S. media.) Or the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The government had advance notice from its informers, and allowed the bombing to occur, then covered up the extent of the conspiracy, pretending it was the doing of just two men. Right. Or the mostly free rein given to anti-abortion terrorists. There are numerous other examples that could be cited.
Before the Olympics even begin, we're getting a steady stream of pro-secret police propaganda, planted by them in the corporate media, about foiled "plots" and "security preparations." The British domestic secret police, MI5, and overseas secret police, MI6, are assiduously working the UK media- with spillover into U.S. media, like the NY TImes- to burnish their image and position themselves ahead of the Olympics.
There are only 2 basic possibilities vis a vis "terrorism" at the Games: Number One, no "major terrorist incident" occurs, or a "plot" is "foiled," or only minor incidents occur. In that case, the gestapos will boast or their great prowess and competence, while also making the point that there is still Great Danger and thus a need for vigilance (and big budgets and lots of repressive powers for the secret police). This propaganda message will be dutifully transmitted to the public by their stooges in the establishment media, the reliable aiders and abettors of the
secret police state. (The secret police might even create some "plots" to "foil," for propaganda use. Years later, the "cases" can be quietly dropped, with little media notice. The losers will be the pawns who spent a few years in jail.)
Possibility Number Two: there is a "major terrorist incident." Does that then prove the opposite, namely the incompetence of the secret police?
Not at all, you simplistic thinker you. It "proves" the need for yet more "resources" - money, and, especially more repressive power for the secret police.
That propaganda message will then be dutifully transmitted to the public by their stooges in the establishment media, those, yes, still reliable aiders and abettors of the secret police state.
It's heads they win, tails we lose.
And anyway, pity the poor secret policemen, because, as they are regularly quoted in the media saying, year after year, mantra-like, "we have to succeed every time, the terrorists only have to succeed once." I.e. expect terrorist attacks to occur, and don't blame us the guardians if they do. Thus does the media inoculate the public, with regular booster shots, against thinking the "security services" should be held responsible for their failures. (Much less for attacks they deliberately allow to occur, like the seminal 9/11/01 attacks that birthed the never-to-end War On Terror, which is the second never-to-end war on human rights being waged by the bourgeoisie, joining the War On Drugs. (Really, the war on getting high. There's certainly no war on the products of the pharmaceutical industry, which are frequently dangerous and/or ineffective and fraudulently and corruptly marketed.)
Now why does the establishment media so assiduously safeguard and promote the interests of the secret police? Well of course both media and secret police are arms of the same system. That is the most basic reason. While there are occasional conflicts, which sometimes even rise to the level of "scandal," for the most part they are allies, if somewhat wary ones. (By the way, the monstrous crimes of the secret police, programs of mass murder and torture, are never the scandals, but are in fact kept hidden, briefly noted, and buried in the memory hole. LIke the Phoenix mass murder program in Vietnam, overseen by one William Colby, who later was ironically drowned by his former colleagues for telling too much to Congress, in their eyes. Gangsters killing gangsters- it happens a lot in crime organizations.)
Typically for a power structure, the corporate oligarchy needs secret police organizations to guard and advance its interests domestically and globally. Note that notorious coups have occurred in the interests of large transnational corporations, such as in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973 (ITT unnecessarily tried to bribe the U.S. government to overthrow Allende), and so on. A secret police state keeps the populace in line, monitors any incipient resistance to their rule or to particular policies/crimes they carry out, infiltrates dissident groups and movements to misdirect, subvert, and destroy them, and generally acts to prevent the development of groups and movements that corporate capital finds noxious. Hence the need for a Total Surveillance State, to nip in the bud any germinating seeds of opposition and resistance.
Abroad, the secret police are part of the structure of force and violence to check, deter, and exterminate external enemies- whether or not those "enemies" realize they are enemies of the corporate oligarchy. (Naive democracy advocates and various labor and human rights workers and their lawyers frequently fall into this category and are exterminated. Oh, and academics who think bad thoughts. And "communist" church people- i.e. real Christians who understand Christ's gospel as meaning standing with the poor. And since U.S. power is the friend of the rich everywhere and enemy of the poor everywhere, this means they too have to be eliminated. And since most people on the planet are poor, being the enemy of the poor means that the U.S. is fundamentally an enemy of humanity. Wow, does that truth ever conflict with official propaganda!)
So why exactly should the establishment media, the voicebox of corporate oligarchy, not support ever increasing powers for their secret police? Is it not the interests of the oligarchy that the secret police serve? Well, sometimes the possibilities of the secret police trampling on bourgeois privileges (which are called "rights" or "freedoms" or "liberties," but they're really privileges, because only some people have them) makes elements of the propaganda system a tad nervous. So they try and draw lines with editorials "warning" the secret police not to go too far. It's rather like tectonic plates bumping up against one another, forces pressed together in intimate contact. Mostly there is gradual shifting, sometimes an abrupt movement.
One more, somewhat minor point. The expansion of secret police repression largely bypasses right wing terrorists. Such as the recent case in Germany, where a neoNazi group was allowed to murder Turks for a decade, and even a policewoman. The day after it all blew up, the German secret police were burning their files on the group! (Reports BBC. Didn't see that in U.S. media.) Or the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The government had advance notice from its informers, and allowed the bombing to occur, then covered up the extent of the conspiracy, pretending it was the doing of just two men. Right. Or the mostly free rein given to anti-abortion terrorists. There are numerous other examples that could be cited.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Governor Etch-a-Sketch Changes His Tune On "Obamacare"
It's great to be flexible. Let's you be as opportunistic as you wanna be.
Mitt Romney, the Republican President-wannabe, used CBS as a platform to suddenly complain that the Obama Health Care bill just given the green light by the Supreme Court constitutes an onerous "tax" on the sainted "middle class." As recently as two days ago, the position of him and his campaign was that it imposed a "penalty." [Romney, you see, didn't want it said that his virtually identical Massachusetts health care mandate imposed a "tax." And the GOP/reactionary attack on the law pre-Supreme Court ruling didn't take the tax tack because their offensive was premised on a Commerce Clause argument. Complaining it was a "tax" would have been hopeless as they'd have had to argue that Congress has no right to tax anyone! Reactionaries used to argue that when trying to overturn the Federal Income Tax a century ago, but apparently they're not ready to try and overturn taxation before they roll back the New Deal first.]
It was his own campaign manager who publicly characterized Romney's shifting positions on everything under the son as like an "Etch-a-Sketch." You just erase all the reactionary vomit he spewed to win the neo-fascists, religious fanatics, Confederates and racists who vote in GOP primaries, and dial in new positions to appeal to "the center," the political sweet spot in the minds of the U.S. punditry.
Given how square, stiff, and mechanical Romney is, I think Mr. Etch-a-Sketch is an apt sobriquet.
taboo-truths.blogspot.com jasonzenith.blogspot.com
Mitt Romney, the Republican President-wannabe, used CBS as a platform to suddenly complain that the Obama Health Care bill just given the green light by the Supreme Court constitutes an onerous "tax" on the sainted "middle class." As recently as two days ago, the position of him and his campaign was that it imposed a "penalty." [Romney, you see, didn't want it said that his virtually identical Massachusetts health care mandate imposed a "tax." And the GOP/reactionary attack on the law pre-Supreme Court ruling didn't take the tax tack because their offensive was premised on a Commerce Clause argument. Complaining it was a "tax" would have been hopeless as they'd have had to argue that Congress has no right to tax anyone! Reactionaries used to argue that when trying to overturn the Federal Income Tax a century ago, but apparently they're not ready to try and overturn taxation before they roll back the New Deal first.]
It was his own campaign manager who publicly characterized Romney's shifting positions on everything under the son as like an "Etch-a-Sketch." You just erase all the reactionary vomit he spewed to win the neo-fascists, religious fanatics, Confederates and racists who vote in GOP primaries, and dial in new positions to appeal to "the center," the political sweet spot in the minds of the U.S. punditry.
Given how square, stiff, and mechanical Romney is, I think Mr. Etch-a-Sketch is an apt sobriquet.
taboo-truths.blogspot.com jasonzenith.blogspot.com
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Destroyers Of Greek Economy Rewarded With Election "Victory"
That would be the "New Democracy" rightwing party. They ruled Greece before Pasok (the "socialists") took over, handing Pasok a bomb that exploded in Pasok's faces. "New Democracy" practiced financial and accounting fraud on a massive scale. Yet instead of being put in jail, they're now forming a "new" government, with the same old Establishment gang (themselves, Pasok, and a trick-party (called "Democratic Left") ostensibly to Pasok's left that exists to steal votes from the actual leftists of the "extreme" "hard left" "far left" "radical" (as the capitalist media characterizes them) Syriza party.
Even a former Greek finance minister pointed out how New Democracy created the crisis with its venal behavior in a BBC interview after the "victory." So it's no secret- except in the U.S. (and) Greek media.
"New Democracy" won its great "victory" with 29.7% of the vote. (Syriza got 26.9%- so they really got creamed by "New Democracy!") The New York Times, like the capitalist media generally, hailed this "victory" with the deceptive headline "Greek Voters Choose Party Supporting Bailout," plastered across most of the top of page A1 on June 18th. A large photo of the "New Democracy" boss, Antonis Samaras, accompanies the headline. It shows him grinning and making a fist. If you examine the "crowd" in the photo, you see it consists almost entirely of news photographers and bodyguards. (The BBC reported that there was no victory rally, no one was there. The Times chose to deceive with the photo and headline.)
Low turnout, under 30% if the votes, doesn't sound like "Greek Voters" chose "New Democracy,"
The Financial Times is willing to be more honest, as it's aimed at a capitalist elite that needs a more realistic view of the world than the NYT is willing to provide. Its headline on the story (same day) was "Samaras scrapes to Greek win." Precisely.
By the way, the sleazy Samaras caused the previous Pasok government to fall by refusing to go along with the "bailout/austerity" plan. Now he claims he'll "renegotiate" the terms a bit, by asking for more time to pay up. There is still an adamant refusal by all parties to admit the obvious, that GREECE IS BANKRUPT, and has been for some time. (Thanks especially to "New Democracy" fraudulent bookkeeping the last time they were in power.) Their "victory" can be chalked up in part to the Greek media's scare campaign against Syriza, coupled with the Greeks' desire to stay in the eurozone (an impossibility, although even Syriza promised to retain the euro).
"New Democracy" does get an extra 50 seats in Parliament for coming in first, under the screwy rules of Greek "democracy." ("Democracy" in the west is code for "bourgeois class dictatorship.") The same gang that destroyed the Greek economy is now supposedly going to rescue Greece. Good luck with that, Greek people.
Oh, and what's with this business of saying that an economy with 22% unemployment (the admitted rate), that is making people work without pay, that is running out of medicine, that can't even feed mental patients anymore (BBC interview with a Greek mental hospital administrator 6/20), and that's been shrinking for five years now, is in a "recession"? That's a depression. Dishonest asshole capitalist propagandists.
taboo-truths.blogspot.com
jasonzenith.blogspot.com
Even a former Greek finance minister pointed out how New Democracy created the crisis with its venal behavior in a BBC interview after the "victory." So it's no secret- except in the U.S. (and) Greek media.
"New Democracy" won its great "victory" with 29.7% of the vote. (Syriza got 26.9%- so they really got creamed by "New Democracy!") The New York Times, like the capitalist media generally, hailed this "victory" with the deceptive headline "Greek Voters Choose Party Supporting Bailout," plastered across most of the top of page A1 on June 18th. A large photo of the "New Democracy" boss, Antonis Samaras, accompanies the headline. It shows him grinning and making a fist. If you examine the "crowd" in the photo, you see it consists almost entirely of news photographers and bodyguards. (The BBC reported that there was no victory rally, no one was there. The Times chose to deceive with the photo and headline.)
Low turnout, under 30% if the votes, doesn't sound like "Greek Voters" chose "New Democracy,"
The Financial Times is willing to be more honest, as it's aimed at a capitalist elite that needs a more realistic view of the world than the NYT is willing to provide. Its headline on the story (same day) was "Samaras scrapes to Greek win." Precisely.
By the way, the sleazy Samaras caused the previous Pasok government to fall by refusing to go along with the "bailout/austerity" plan. Now he claims he'll "renegotiate" the terms a bit, by asking for more time to pay up. There is still an adamant refusal by all parties to admit the obvious, that GREECE IS BANKRUPT, and has been for some time. (Thanks especially to "New Democracy" fraudulent bookkeeping the last time they were in power.) Their "victory" can be chalked up in part to the Greek media's scare campaign against Syriza, coupled with the Greeks' desire to stay in the eurozone (an impossibility, although even Syriza promised to retain the euro).
"New Democracy" does get an extra 50 seats in Parliament for coming in first, under the screwy rules of Greek "democracy." ("Democracy" in the west is code for "bourgeois class dictatorship.") The same gang that destroyed the Greek economy is now supposedly going to rescue Greece. Good luck with that, Greek people.
Oh, and what's with this business of saying that an economy with 22% unemployment (the admitted rate), that is making people work without pay, that is running out of medicine, that can't even feed mental patients anymore (BBC interview with a Greek mental hospital administrator 6/20), and that's been shrinking for five years now, is in a "recession"? That's a depression. Dishonest asshole capitalist propagandists.
taboo-truths.blogspot.com
jasonzenith.blogspot.com
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
U.S. Media Down On Russia For Using U.S.-Style Repression
Add this one to the Annals of U.S. Hypocrisy: The American corporate media (propaganda system) has been running a campaign for several years now highlighting repression in Russia. Funny thing is, so much of what they tut-tut about is the same as U.S. domestic repression methods. In fact, in some cases the U.S. was there first, so arguably the Putin regime got the ideas for the methods from the U.S. example.
On June 11, the New York Times (the maestro of the U.S. propaganda system from which the rest of the corporate media often takes its cues) put smack on the top of the front page an article about Russian police rounding up protest leaders in advance of protests. (Posted online as "Raids Target Putin’s Critics Before Protest.")
Hello, Sulzbergers and company! The U.S. police have been doing that for years now every time there's a progressive protest organized against one of the insufferably self-important meetings of national bosses ("world leaders" in their obnoxiously conceited jargon). G-8, G-12, G-20, G-X, NATO, WTO, whatever the hell it is, the cops bust into the houses of organizers, round them up, steal their computers, cellphones, placards, protest puppets, materials, and oftentimes charge them with bogus crimes, including "terrorism." Part of the NY Times article also pointed out that some of those arrested faced heavy sentences. (But nowhere near as heavy as the sentences faced by people branded "terrorists" by U.S. "authorities.")
Most recently, in Chicago, the "terrorism" rap was dropped on people preemptively arrested.
Today (June 12th) the NY Times cheerleads for the Russian protests on its website, including a large photo of the protesters. ("Putin Opponents Defy Kremlin Efforts to Muffle Protests".)
The U.$. propaganda system is also assiduous about pointing out repressive laws aimed at protesters in Russia. They're quite a bit less attentive about noticing the same sort of laws in the U.S. For example, the new caudillo of Chicago, the loathsome and vulgar Rahm Emanuel, (who is celebrated for habitually abusing people by yelling and cursing at them!) instituted new, repressive statutes to smash the protesters coming to his town for the recent NATO summit just last month. The propaganda system treated us to video of Rahm and his mate hugging and smiling with Obama and his mate upon the arrival of the latter. We also got the local political rulers announcing the arrests of dangerous "terrorists" (protesters) to stifle the protest. Not covered was the systematic repression and police violence meted out to those who dare to find something objectionable about NATO.
Likewise new repression laws in Tampa Bay, Florida, in preparation for crushing demonstrations aimed at the GOP convention to be held there also are ignored by the U.$ media.
Reading the details of the awful new laws in Putinland, I see they are no worse- indeed are milder than- the various U.S. laws aimed at crushing unwanted dissent in the streets.
Then there's the very very low key reporting of the Canadian Harper regime's anti-demonstrator laws, for example in Montreal, where protest has been effectively outlawed. Protests require police permission in advance- something the U.S. media finds highly objectionable in Russia, not in Canada. (The loathsome NPR "news" is part of this anti-Putin propaganda campaign, ostensibly on behalf of Russians' right to protest. Wish NPR was one-quarter as concerned with our right to protest. Don't get me wrong, Putin is a scumbag authoritarian in my book. The hypocrisy and double standard is the issue here. Say, does Russia imprison people without trial or even charges for years, like Israel does, or for life, like the U.S. does? Has it assassinated thousands of people with killer drones in the last few years? Just asking.)
The pattern throughout the 20th and 21th centuries has been for the U.S. media to cover repression abroad in proportion to the degree of unfriendliness of relations the U.S. has with the country in question. Where the U.S. is itself responsible for the most horrible atrocities and mass murder, such as in Central America in the 1980s, there is a total blackout. Instead one is told that a friendly "democratic" (Orwellian language there!) regime is fighting a "communist insurgency." (Which apparently always includes lots of professors, students, unionists, poor peasants, women and children, and so on.) And of course since it is a matter of ideological dogma that the U.S. is just the freest country on earth, there cannot be reporting of repression here, since by definition repression in the U.S. is impossible.
Here's another article from the NY Times, from November 17th, 2011: "With a Russian in a Tajik Jail, Moscow Aims Its Reprisal at Migrant Workers." This covers the entire top half of page A14. Somehow the Times considers the plight of Tajik migrants to be a major issue. The Times moans that the "roundup" of 300 Tajiks "has underscored the vulnerability of the millions of migrant laborers who work and live in Russia, often in squalid conditions."
Of course, the U.S. rounds up and deports hundreds of thousands of Latinos yearly. Wonder how vulnerable that makes them feel. And of course many, especially farm laborers, "work and live...often in squalid conditions."
The treatment of Chinese dissidents is another example of galling U.S. hypocrisy. The NY Times and the rest of the corporate media have made celebrities out of Chinese artist Ai Wei Wei, and of the blind lawyer who was just allowed to come to the U.S. Now I think the Chinese treatment of them is despicable, but it's a lot milder than how many U.S. dissidents are treated. Elmer Pratt was framed up by the secret police (FBI) for murder and imprisoned for 30 years until the system admitted it was a bum rap. The FBI framed up Leonard Peltier with bogus ballistics "evidence" from its "crime lab." (The name is accurate if you interpret it to mean a lab that commits crimes.) Apparently the bourgeoisie are determined that he will die in prison. An FBI bomb almost killed Judi Bari, whose "crime" was opposing logging of old growth forests. (The CIA seems to have taken her out with breast cancer.) There are countless thousands of other examples. Judging from U.S. media attention, it seems that the rate of political murder in Russia is comparable to that in the U.S. (Of course you don't learn of U.S. state murders from the corporate propaganda system.) That includes murder of journalists too. (Danny Casolaro springs to mind.*)
In the case of China, the U.S. uses "human rights" as a prybar to try and force China to be more "open"- to penetration by foreign capital. Do they really care so much about some artist or lawyer? They don't seem to care about such people when their buddy-regimes in Honduras and Colombia murder them.
Another example: the extreme repressiveness of Saudi Arabia gets very light and infrequent treatment in the U.S. media. I think the reasons are obvious. Iran, on the other hand, is one of those nasty devil countries.
Obviously, when "coverage" is so obviously biased, and so blatantly follows hidden political and ideological agendas, it cannot be called "news." This is the realm of propaganda. Thus the U.S. corporate media should not be analyzed as a journalistic enterprise, but as a propaganda one. The critical flaw in much media "analysis" and "criticism" is precisely this fundamental misidentification and misunderstanding. (The Ben Bagdikian school of Acceptable Media Criticism is a seminal example of this.) This basic error in turn leads to all kinds of bogus alibis for the corporate media's crimes, distortions, coverups, and lies. "Laziness," "two sides to every story," "credulousness," "advertiser pressure," "time constraints," and other such tactical explanations are put forth. While of course these have some validity, most of the time they obfuscate the real explanation for the media's behavior, which is ideological and political, and stems from its role as propaganda organs for the U.S. economic and political system. A system of rule of big capital by an Imperialist nation, masquerading as a "democracy" that fancies itself an avatar of freedom and defender of human rights. The fact that an empire founded on slavery and genocide, that consistently commits massive crimes against humanity, can pull off such a brazen propaganda coup, attests to the power of the Big Lie. If there's a Hell, Goebbels must be looking on in grudging admiration.
*Think that's a paranoid crackpot conspiracy theorist delusion? Well then add ruling class poohbah Elliott Richardson to your list of "nuts." He believes Casolaro was murdered. See his NY Times op-ed, "A High-Tech Watergate," paragraph 19.
On June 11, the New York Times (the maestro of the U.S. propaganda system from which the rest of the corporate media often takes its cues) put smack on the top of the front page an article about Russian police rounding up protest leaders in advance of protests. (Posted online as "Raids Target Putin’s Critics Before Protest.")
Hello, Sulzbergers and company! The U.S. police have been doing that for years now every time there's a progressive protest organized against one of the insufferably self-important meetings of national bosses ("world leaders" in their obnoxiously conceited jargon). G-8, G-12, G-20, G-X, NATO, WTO, whatever the hell it is, the cops bust into the houses of organizers, round them up, steal their computers, cellphones, placards, protest puppets, materials, and oftentimes charge them with bogus crimes, including "terrorism." Part of the NY Times article also pointed out that some of those arrested faced heavy sentences. (But nowhere near as heavy as the sentences faced by people branded "terrorists" by U.S. "authorities.")
Most recently, in Chicago, the "terrorism" rap was dropped on people preemptively arrested.
Today (June 12th) the NY Times cheerleads for the Russian protests on its website, including a large photo of the protesters. ("Putin Opponents Defy Kremlin Efforts to Muffle Protests".)
The U.$. propaganda system is also assiduous about pointing out repressive laws aimed at protesters in Russia. They're quite a bit less attentive about noticing the same sort of laws in the U.S. For example, the new caudillo of Chicago, the loathsome and vulgar Rahm Emanuel, (who is celebrated for habitually abusing people by yelling and cursing at them!) instituted new, repressive statutes to smash the protesters coming to his town for the recent NATO summit just last month. The propaganda system treated us to video of Rahm and his mate hugging and smiling with Obama and his mate upon the arrival of the latter. We also got the local political rulers announcing the arrests of dangerous "terrorists" (protesters) to stifle the protest. Not covered was the systematic repression and police violence meted out to those who dare to find something objectionable about NATO.
Likewise new repression laws in Tampa Bay, Florida, in preparation for crushing demonstrations aimed at the GOP convention to be held there also are ignored by the U.$ media.
Reading the details of the awful new laws in Putinland, I see they are no worse- indeed are milder than- the various U.S. laws aimed at crushing unwanted dissent in the streets.
Then there's the very very low key reporting of the Canadian Harper regime's anti-demonstrator laws, for example in Montreal, where protest has been effectively outlawed. Protests require police permission in advance- something the U.S. media finds highly objectionable in Russia, not in Canada. (The loathsome NPR "news" is part of this anti-Putin propaganda campaign, ostensibly on behalf of Russians' right to protest. Wish NPR was one-quarter as concerned with our right to protest. Don't get me wrong, Putin is a scumbag authoritarian in my book. The hypocrisy and double standard is the issue here. Say, does Russia imprison people without trial or even charges for years, like Israel does, or for life, like the U.S. does? Has it assassinated thousands of people with killer drones in the last few years? Just asking.)
The pattern throughout the 20th and 21th centuries has been for the U.S. media to cover repression abroad in proportion to the degree of unfriendliness of relations the U.S. has with the country in question. Where the U.S. is itself responsible for the most horrible atrocities and mass murder, such as in Central America in the 1980s, there is a total blackout. Instead one is told that a friendly "democratic" (Orwellian language there!) regime is fighting a "communist insurgency." (Which apparently always includes lots of professors, students, unionists, poor peasants, women and children, and so on.) And of course since it is a matter of ideological dogma that the U.S. is just the freest country on earth, there cannot be reporting of repression here, since by definition repression in the U.S. is impossible.
Here's another article from the NY Times, from November 17th, 2011: "With a Russian in a Tajik Jail, Moscow Aims Its Reprisal at Migrant Workers." This covers the entire top half of page A14. Somehow the Times considers the plight of Tajik migrants to be a major issue. The Times moans that the "roundup" of 300 Tajiks "has underscored the vulnerability of the millions of migrant laborers who work and live in Russia, often in squalid conditions."
Of course, the U.S. rounds up and deports hundreds of thousands of Latinos yearly. Wonder how vulnerable that makes them feel. And of course many, especially farm laborers, "work and live...often in squalid conditions."
The treatment of Chinese dissidents is another example of galling U.S. hypocrisy. The NY Times and the rest of the corporate media have made celebrities out of Chinese artist Ai Wei Wei, and of the blind lawyer who was just allowed to come to the U.S. Now I think the Chinese treatment of them is despicable, but it's a lot milder than how many U.S. dissidents are treated. Elmer Pratt was framed up by the secret police (FBI) for murder and imprisoned for 30 years until the system admitted it was a bum rap. The FBI framed up Leonard Peltier with bogus ballistics "evidence" from its "crime lab." (The name is accurate if you interpret it to mean a lab that commits crimes.) Apparently the bourgeoisie are determined that he will die in prison. An FBI bomb almost killed Judi Bari, whose "crime" was opposing logging of old growth forests. (The CIA seems to have taken her out with breast cancer.) There are countless thousands of other examples. Judging from U.S. media attention, it seems that the rate of political murder in Russia is comparable to that in the U.S. (Of course you don't learn of U.S. state murders from the corporate propaganda system.) That includes murder of journalists too. (Danny Casolaro springs to mind.*)
In the case of China, the U.S. uses "human rights" as a prybar to try and force China to be more "open"- to penetration by foreign capital. Do they really care so much about some artist or lawyer? They don't seem to care about such people when their buddy-regimes in Honduras and Colombia murder them.
Another example: the extreme repressiveness of Saudi Arabia gets very light and infrequent treatment in the U.S. media. I think the reasons are obvious. Iran, on the other hand, is one of those nasty devil countries.
Obviously, when "coverage" is so obviously biased, and so blatantly follows hidden political and ideological agendas, it cannot be called "news." This is the realm of propaganda. Thus the U.S. corporate media should not be analyzed as a journalistic enterprise, but as a propaganda one. The critical flaw in much media "analysis" and "criticism" is precisely this fundamental misidentification and misunderstanding. (The Ben Bagdikian school of Acceptable Media Criticism is a seminal example of this.) This basic error in turn leads to all kinds of bogus alibis for the corporate media's crimes, distortions, coverups, and lies. "Laziness," "two sides to every story," "credulousness," "advertiser pressure," "time constraints," and other such tactical explanations are put forth. While of course these have some validity, most of the time they obfuscate the real explanation for the media's behavior, which is ideological and political, and stems from its role as propaganda organs for the U.S. economic and political system. A system of rule of big capital by an Imperialist nation, masquerading as a "democracy" that fancies itself an avatar of freedom and defender of human rights. The fact that an empire founded on slavery and genocide, that consistently commits massive crimes against humanity, can pull off such a brazen propaganda coup, attests to the power of the Big Lie. If there's a Hell, Goebbels must be looking on in grudging admiration.
*Think that's a paranoid crackpot conspiracy theorist delusion? Well then add ruling class poohbah Elliott Richardson to your list of "nuts." He believes Casolaro was murdered. See his NY Times op-ed, "A High-Tech Watergate," paragraph 19.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Incorrigible Killer Obama Won't Stop Murdering Hondurans
Bad enough the U.S. supported the Honduran coup, and a regime that keeps murdering citizens there. Now Obama has unleashed DEA death squads in Honduras to assassinate "drug smugglers," and like all death squads, they aren't too discriminating about who they actually kill.
Having murdered a bunch of poor villagers, which they then lied about and claimed were "drug smugglers," Obama isn't backing off an inch.
[See "Despite Deaths in Honduran Raid, U.S. to Press Ahead With New Antidrug Policy," NY Times, 5/31/12. Only it's not "new." Nixon also unleashed U.S. assassins on drug dealers, using CIA hitmen like Lou Conein.]
So to Afghans, Pakistanis, Yemenis, Somalis, now add Hondurans to the list of targets on Obama's death list. (Teenage girls too. Sweet, Barack! What a cool dude you are!)
Gunmen identified as "Honduran naval troops." Note typical death squad face masks.
State criminals hide their identities as standard operating procedure. (Much as U.S. police cover their badge numbers and name tags prior to attacking demonstrators.)
Gunmen identified as "Honduran naval troops." Note typical death squad face masks.
State criminals hide their identities as standard operating procedure. (Much as U.S. police cover their badge numbers and name tags prior to attacking demonstrators.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)