Distasteful, corrupt and venal dust:
«The war the young lieutenant is now fighting might have been the subject of John F Kennedy's address to West Point cadets in 1962, counsel that foreshadowed a deepening engagement in Vietnam. Kennedy spoke of the necessity to prepare for a conflict "new in its intensity, ancient in its origin - war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat, by infiltration instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy".»
[Philip Smucker/'Killing season' opens in the Afghan hills]
Note the (propagandistic!) words - back then, from a so-called 'All-American Hero.' All totally lying bulls**t.
They say one thing (sounds good!) - but do another (murdering for spoil.) That's *criminal* hypocrisy; read all about it here [re-citing; 5.4k *worth it* words]: killinghope/Blum/Parenti/Against Empire.
I have my own formalization of a practical and fair morality: do unto others etc., do no harm (slightly redundant but reinforcing) and mind your own business - plus a new bit: if transgressed against, return the 'favour.' (Note that religion is neither mentioned nor required.)
In the same vein, only just laws are valid, and force may only ever be deployed *in defence* of such valid, just law.
In a perfect world, we'd not need police - sadly, in a less than perfect world we do. If we had a less horrible world, those with criminal tendencies might be properly deterred by the likes of the good old English Bobby-type policing; I think you get my drift.
There's a new word, 'scalability;' as far as policing goes we just don't have it. Example, the scoff-laws the US and Israel; they 'get away' with their despicable murder-to-thieve crimes *only because* international law and the required policing are as good as absent. So we have an international community without effective cops, and filthy criminals rampant.
NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
There are many, many, more law-abiding types than crooks; *ALL* we have to do is unite and demand justice.
Yep, that'd do it.
At one point last week, the price of a barrel of crude oil -- which had risen as high as $147 last July and, with the global economic meltdown, hit a low of $32 in 2009 -- rebounded above $51. Prices at the local gas pump are expected to rise as well in the coming weeks. However, given a worldwide falloff in oil use, these price jumps may not hold for long. Still, cheap or not, oil and natural gas (as well as coal) are what drives global civilization, and that's clearly not going to change any time soon.
As an added bonus, following is an extract from a chapter of my thesis on US policy in the ME, this covers a little of the history of efforts to control oil. Given the topic it necessarily from a US perspective:
Early in the 20th Century oil was raised to the status of a vital military and strategic asset and a primary source of energy that would power economic growth. Navies began to convert from coal as the fuel for their vessels and the internal combustion engine led to the increasing development and use of powered military vehicles, such as trucks, armoured cars, aircraft and tanks. Such was the extent of these new uses of oil during World War I that a severe shortage of oil developed in 1917/18.
Britain had gained control of Persia’s oil reserves prior to the war and had made gaining control of other fields, even those as yet unproven such as in Mesopotamia, an aim of the Middle East campaign. The campaign continued through diplomatic, political and commercial methods after the war with France joining Britain in the quest for oil. Immediately after the war, the United States, as producer of 64% of the world’s oil and with access to Mexican reserves was not immediately interested in Middle East oil. However, by 1920 an awareness grew that growing domestic consumption would begin to deplete its existing sources and that major sources outside North America would soon be tied up by foreign interests. This was exampled by the comment of British oilman Sir Edward Mackay Edgar who commented in 1919 “All the known fields, all the likely or probable fields outside of the United States itself, are in British hands or under British management or control, or financed by British capital”. The US became involved in Middle East oil to protect its strategic interests and future industrial growth.
The basis for relations between the major powers in the division of Middle East oil reserves up to the outbreak of World War II was established by the Red Line accord of 1928. Despite protestations to the contrary, the interests of the local peoples do not seem to have been a primary concern, the well-being of the oil companies and the home economies taking priority. Also there were suspicions of the motivations between the participants, the British believed that given the possessive way in which the US treated its dominance of the Americas, that US claims to be promoting the principles of free and open trade were somewhat hypocritical. Likewise, the US believed that through the mandate system and thence in relations with the newly created states Britain was trying to perpetuate a quasi-colonial suzerainty. Given the circumstances of the contemporary situation in the Middle East, at least some of these claims are still being made.
In the post-World War II period a number of factors would cause the process of acquiring Middle East oil to become much more volatile and complex. Amongst these factors were the onset of the Cold War where denying the USSR. access to, much less control of, the oil reserves become a major concern for the West, the changing balance of power between the US and Britain, and the ever-expanding need for oil for military and non-military uses in the post-war economic boom. In the case of the US, the war generated massive expansion of its economy and the depletion of its own reserve made an imperative of gaining access to other sources of oil above and beyond the desires for commercial gain by US oil companies. The aspirations of the oil producing states for greater control of and benefit from their oil reserves, both as a result of natural aspirations and in light of the United Nations principles of self-determination, led to growing tensions between the oil companies and their home states and the oil producers. A major example of these tensions was the case of Iran where political manoeuvring between the concerned parties led in 1953 to the British and US backed coup which replaced the elected leader, Mossadegh, with the returning Shah. Iran became for twenty-six years a major US strategic partner in the region, propped up by US aid and support, including the training of Savak, the Shah’s brutal secret police. The decades of suppression of Iranian independence led to an extreme reaction in 1979 when a fundamentalist Islamic regime replaced the monarchy. This caused a major shift in the balance of power in the region which had serious ongoing consequences for the US and other foreign states.
Iraq had been receiving royalties of just 5% from its oil reserves and in response to a growing dissatisfaction and sense of injustice, nationalised its oil in 1972. Unlike some of its neighbours, and despite some of the less savoury aspects of the governing Ba’ath party, the wealth was shared relatively equally amongst its citizens and public infrastructure was amongst the most advanced in the region.
One of the developments amongst a number of oil producing states was the establishment of OPEC - Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which was designed to dominate the international oil market and thus price levels. Price increases could be made not only for the benefit of its members financially, but also as a political weapon. OPEC oil price increases in 1973 and 1979 caused great consternation in developed economies and made governments aware of the importance of oil to their economies and the dangers of price fluctuations and the future depletion of reserves. There were efforts made to economise on oil consumption as well as to find alternative energy sources. The seriousness of these efforts depended upon the political colour of parties and the nature of their electoral support.
The importance of OPEC has decreased since the oil shocks due to increased oil supplies from non-OPEC countries, such as Russia and in west Africa. Nevertheless, the onset of oil depletion is a matter of great importance and complexity. The complexity comes from factors such as determining what oil reserves remain, the ability to extract them in terms of projected economic or environmental cost and the likely amount of undiscovered reserves. An exposition of these factors can be found in Campbell and Laherre. They explain one factor that is a determinant on the viability of oil fields and the calculations of oil reserves, that is, the Hubbert curve. This postulates that once more than half a region’s crude had been extracted production would decrease. M. King Hubbert used this theory in 1956 to correctly predict that oil from the lower forty-eight US states would peak in 1969. By this method Campbell and Laherrere predict a permanent decline in the world’s oil production within the next ten years. Another proponent of this prediction is Gerald Leach who sets the date of declining production as 2010.
Of particular pertinence to this paper is that the world’s largest known reserves of oil are in the Middle East with Saudi Arabia having approximately 25% of known reserves and Iraq 11%. Iraq has many unexplored fields which could hold much larger reserves possibly matching or even exceeding those of Saudi Arabia. Iraq’s oil production has been limited by damage to its wells suffered in the 1991 Gulf War as well as by the restrictions imposed under the sanctions regime. The US, after deposing the Hussein regime, has proposed an end to the sanctions against Iraq to enable the oil revenues to be used to finance the reconstruction of Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the only other source of oil with spare capacity. Saudi Arabia is seen by many analysts as the key to world oil production, not only due to having the largest proven reserves but also due to having excess production capacity. With the onset of depletion these two states will become increasingly important for the continued access to oil, most particularly from the major oil consumer, the United States.
The United States formalised relations with Saudi Arabia in 1945 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt met King Abd al-Aziz Ibn Saud. Although the details of this meeting have been kept secret it is believed that Roosevelt promised the King protection in exchange for privileged access to Saudi oil. Although Saudi light crude is valued in the US due to its suitability for sophisticated applications such as aircraft fuel, there are other benefits from access to Saudi and other Gulf States oil reserves. One is the continued access to reasonably priced oil for US trading partners such as Japan and Europe and thus the continued well-being of the triad underpinning the international economy, particularly as viewed from a US perspective. A further benefit is that much of the revenue received by the Gulf states returns to the US and other western states in the form of investment and, in particular for the US, Saudi arms purchases. This last item has had mixed results in that extravagant Saudi arms acquisition has caused an imbalance and growing debt in their economy. The US has “propped up” unrepresentative regimes in the Gulf, to the extent of leading the coalition that prosecuted the 1991 Gulf War to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait and protect Saudi Arabia’s oil fields from possible capture by Iraq. Concern for the loss of influence and access to oil should the Islamic Revolution in Iran spread across the region had previously led the US to support Iraq against Iran in their long and bloody war from 1980-88, to the extent of allowing US companies to supply Iraq with technologies, agents and components for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The export of such items by the US and other western states has been the subject of much media attention as well as a Congressional inquiry in 1994. Continued US involvement and interference in the politics of the Gulf can have deleterious effects as outlined by Mamoud Fandy, long before September 11 :
Uncritical U.S. support for autocratic Gulf monarchies and their human rights abuses have weakened both U.S. policy and the oil regimes. It undermines U.S. policy by demonstrating the hypocrisy in American rhetoric about democracy and human rights and weakens the regimes by creating the perception among Gulf subjects that their countries are being ruled in the interests of an outside power.
There is another reason some assert for US interest in influencing at least, if not dominating , access to Middle East and other oil reserves, that is the denial of oil to its perceived enemies. Declassified documents reveal a policy of denial of oil to the Soviet Union in the early Cold War years. In 1949 the US developed plans to destroy Middle East oil fields if there was a threat that the Soviet Union would capture them. Radiological weapons were considered and rejected as explained in NSC 26/3, dated June 29, 1950:
'Denial of the wells by radiological means can be accomplished to prevent an enemy from utilizing the oil fields, but could not prevent him from forcing “expendable” Arabs to enter contaminated areas to open well heads and deplete the reservoirs. Therefore, aside from other effects on the Arab population, it is not considered that radiological means are practicable as a conservation measure.'
Bizarre as this scenario might seem it illustrates the lengths to which the US has contemplated going to protect its strategic interests as embodied in the continued access to oil at economically sustainable prices for itself and its allies and trading partners and the denial of oil to its perceived enemies. Energy security continues to be a basic element of US policy as detailed in the so-called Bush Doctrine. The depletion of the world’s oil reserves only adds urgency and emphasis on this aspect of US strategic policy.
The Great Game continues, as Pepe writes:
What happens on the immense battlefield for the control of Eurasia will provide the ultimate plot line in the tumultuous rush towards a new, polycentric world order, also known as the New Great Game.
Our good ol' friend the nonsensical "Global War on Terror," which the Pentagon has slyly rebranded "the Long War," sports a far more important, if half-hidden, twin -- a global energy war. I like to think of it as the Liquid War, because its bloodstream is the pipelines that crisscross the potential imperial battlefields of the planet. Put another way, if its crucial embattled frontier these days is the Caspian Basin, the whole of Eurasia is its chessboard. Think of it, geographically, as Pipelineistan.
Further instalments as they appear. As well as other relevant material.
Glenn Greenwald on the issue.
"Loving Our Enemies, the People of Iran"
Now let us keep track of developments.
.. give me the s**ts ...
.. so much for 'free speech'
[this slug added 090326,1907 to g00se the g00gle-b0t]
When Richard Tonkin dropped his ugly, hateful t**d on our doorstep, some of us were gobsmacked, others outraged - some a bit of both and then more.
But something funny came out of it (no, not funny "Ha, ha" but funny peculiar); one could say that I became outraged all over again. (Yeah, and looping again - as usual.)
If one were to google the exact last 12 words (double-quoted) of 'good' old Tonker's s**ty little comment, one would get, as well as 'not much,' a rude message via and courtesy of google - obviously at the instigation the ADL (see bottom of the google-linked message). Well, well; imagine that! Long story short - google (like where Tonks 'works') is into pro-Z censorship!
Time to switch search-engines, I think.
'Help somebody!' It's the thought that kept rising to the fore in my mind as I begun to hear breaking news, urgent reports revealing what our fellows faced. Fanned by furious winds, fires roared and ripped through bush and building, burning across paddocks of dry, dead grass, exploding through forests, engulfing all in its path. It rained embers, spreading the hellish inferno so quickly, so far and so wide. Smoke blinded and choked, smothered and suffocated. Flames, vast walls of flames, fast moving columns of fire ... please forgive me for not continuing to describe in detail how they wreaked havoc. We need not dwell on the horrors they inflicted upon hundreds of human beings and thousands of animals.
I listened, alarmed. I felt impelled to help. I felt frustrated. As the fires burned, I could not help somebody by being on the frontlines . I was not in a position to do so. I could not help somebody in the way a person with the skill of a fire-fighter would, trying to tame a firestorm or the way a medic would, tending to the injured; I am not one of those so skilled.
We'll all stand tall, tall, tall
We wouldn't let each other
Tumble and fall, fall, fall
Now let's reach down together
And lift somebody up, up, up
Give a little love and kindness
It won't take much, much, much
After the fire, scorched earth. Shelters now cinder, all around ash. Scarred landscapes, shattered lives. So much work to do to together to recover and rebuild.
Lend a hand and open up your heart
It's all up to me and you
We gotta get ready for the moment of truth.
Love Is Life
It does not serve the people to discharge duties now as if its just another day in the office, acting in a manner that is detached, officious, bureacratic. To the fore now must come the flexibility that is born of empathy and compassion. We have to care, to create solutions, to overcome obstacles. To help people through this setback in life, we have to draw upon our capacity for love, for imagination, for achievement.
February's firestorms, which burned out 4,500 km² and destroyed thousands of structures, have made an estimated 7,500 people homeless (at least for in the short-term). Our best work by way of recovery will be informed by an understanding of what it is like to have been through a traumatic event, to have escaped with your life and little else, and to face a great need to regain some, if not all of the utility of most of the material things lost.
Have you ever seen a flower
Tryin' to bloom in a dry barren land
But then comes a sweet spring shower
Just to lend a helpin' hand
Like the love of you and I
All at once it came alive
You brought love
And your love is life
Fan the Fire
There is a folk wisdom: Fight fire with fire. It conveys two meanings. One is its first, literal meaning. We can starve a fire of material to burn, and make it easier to put out, by burning material in a controlled way. The other is a figurative meaning. If you 'fight fire with fire' in a conflict or a contest, you use the same methods or 'weapons' as your opponent.
What made the firestorm on 7 February so very destructive was the combination of various forces. In combination, extraordinary climatic conditions, a persistent drought, and an exceptional heat wave affecting south-eastern Australia, created high fuel loads that were tinder-dry. On that day various fires were (probably) sparked by lightning, arson, discarded cigarette butts. In combination with these, the intense heat wave and high winds -- a howling hot northerly -- fanned the flames into firestorms of terrible ferocity. It incinerated all in its path.
Dare we now fan flames? And in which direction? We have many decisions to make.
Do we decide to turn upon those whose 'tree-change' lifestyles may have been the better, more sustainable in different circumstances or a different place, but are now clearly revealed to be maladaptive and unsustainable in contemporary circumstances in that bush on those hills? I think not. I think we discuss the lessons learnt and apply them, but let's not over-react. Greens did not cause these fires. People living 'greener' did not cause these fires.
Do we decide to fan flames of discontent, of dissatisfaction with wasteful and wrong ways of living in spite of - rather than within - the natural limitations of our land and environment? Yes, but it would seem the time for heading off catastrophe is past. We need to ensure we stop doing more damage, repair and remediate what can be, but most importantly, for our safety and survival we must learn to to adapt. We need to adapt to a climate that has changed, to an environment that is damaged, to a worsening situation.
Do we decide enough is enough, and no longer set ourselves divided into diametrically opposed camps? Do we do something altogether different, avoid the trap of a never-ending blame game, and focus on adapting to what we face now and in future, remediating what can be, setting upon a sustainable course to curb the frequency of future emergencies?
Yes, yes ... playing histrionic blame games is pointless. Playing blame games gets us nowhere, turns us inside-out, sends us running in vicious cycles. It discourages us from gaining the understanding needed to solve a highly complex and poorly understood problem. Let's not play blame games. It is far better to be focused on the future than dwelling on, and getting stuck back in the past.
Instead of pointing fingers, do we look to creating an extraordinary combination of positive forces? Say we invest our energies and set about intensifying feelings of community connectedness, can we create stronger, more resilient communities, and thereby assist people to both head off and cope well with events that threaten them harm?
To me the answer to this last question is certain: Yes, we can. And the work I now do in concert with so many others will certainly test the hypothesis. Besides, what harm could be done by building stronger interconnectedness and interdependence between us whatever future we face? None, as far as I can see.
ohh it's a shame
I'ts a shame, it's a shame
The flame of love is about to die
Somebody fan the fire
The flame of love is about to die
Somebody fan the fire
Love is dyin' today
Somebody fan the fire
The flame of love is dyin' i say
We gonna fan the fire, come on along
Little children starving in a foreign land,
Talk about it brother
Man afraid to shake his brother's hand (fan the fire, fan the fire)
Woman in trouble callin' but nobody cares (fan the fire, fan the fire)
People denied the rights that are truly theirs (it's a shame).
It is a myth that all the Australian bush has completely adapted to regular fires. The ecological effects of fire vary according to the season, frequency, intensity, scale and patchiness of burning in a landscape. Bushfire in Australia has both negative and positive effects on the ecosystems in this land. Ecosystems become severely affected when fires are too hot and large. Regenerative fires generally are of a less intense nature than that we have just witnessed.
The February fires have been devastating to a number of wildlife populations. It is feared endangered populations of gliders, owls and lizards are among the dead. For those that have survived, the recovery process will be long and slow. The homes of much of the fauna of our land are lost and they are not going to be readily rebuilt. We cannot rapidly reconstruct a native forest.
Yet people will see our native bushland mostly healing itself after after these fires, regenerating and bouncing back to teem with life once more. Some Australian flora requires a combination of heat and smoke to release seeds. The heat, smoke and ash of the February fires will provide triggers for germination of many, if not all plant species. Many fauna populations will rebound. People will see this and think all is right. It will not be all right. Not all species will come back strongly. It is likely that some will not come back at all.
The explorer, Thomas Livingstone Mitchell, in his 'Journal of an Expedition into the Interior of Australia' (published in 1848) observed the interrelation of the land and the people indigenous to it: "Fire, grass, kangaroos and human inhabitants seem all dependent on each other for existence in Australia, for any one of these being wanting, the others could no longer continue."
Whilst not suggesting that we all should now start to live exactly as the indigenous people did in the 1800s, I am a firm believer in the need to recognise, and then act in accord with the fact, that sustainable co-existence in this country must be founded on a harmnious interdependence between elements: earth, wind, fire, water, mineral, vegetable, animal, etc.
I find seeds of hope within the resources now being applied to promote and progress the recovery and reconstruction of individual homes and whole towns. I see that what is being done now, and what we will come to do in the weeks, months, and years ahead, may bring about a positive change with lasting effect. As we recover and prepare to rebuild in this environment, we've the opportunity to learn about and better understand the nature of it. With better knowledge of the land and its ecosystems we can make this opportunity one in which we shape and adopt new ways of living within the limits of these lands. We can seize the opportunity to better promote what is balanced, sensible and sustainable.
Come on down and lend a hand
Need your love, to save the land
This World Today
It is in our hands, this world today. We must answer this: In what state will we leave it as legacy to our children, and their children, and theirs, and so on?
In this new world
Love, peace of mind
Should be our thing
Let man join hands
The old and the young
And let every heart
Now beat as one
In this world today.
[this post has been moved to webdiary_not-so-libre.]
.. might be what you get ...
.. but that may not be quite what you expected
Preamble: Addressed to our newest member, also any seeking truth & justice, etc. and how we might get them.
We now know that we the people - yes, some are sheople - are being constantly propagandised. In fact, it's propaganda (a deliberate distortion of reality - when not outright lies) which is one of the main things turning people into sheople (another thing is the natural tendency to sloth, yet another the insidiously encouraged selfishness). Some laugh about (dumbed-down!) sheople, some of those laughing wickedly - the wicked ones are obviously either doing the lying, or benefiting from the lies, or both.
This theme (truth vs. lies) should never be trivialised - like when it became necessary (for the propagandists) to deploy "All politicians lie!" on account of Howard's filthy, in the worst case warmongering lies becoming Oh, so totally obvious - even to the most dumbed-down of sheople.
The theme of truth vs. lies is part of the larger tapestry of truth and justice vs. lies, theft and murder - at which point we have to deploy one of the expressions made infamous by the B, B & H troika's worst offender; Q: Are Xxx with us, or agin' us? - Where the 'Xxx' here are deliberate, premeditated liars.
Lies are deployed to deceive - it's one reason to cite the definition, so we all understand both the mechanics and the gravity.
An obvious 'worst case scenario' is when lies are deployed on the way to murdering theft - as in the illegal invasion of Iraq now morphed into an equally brutal occupation (murder for oil), and the 60+ year depredations of Israel against the now criminally dispossessed former legal owners of most of the land Israel occupies, Israel's neighbours or in fact just about anyone who resists Israeli-Zionist criminality (murder for land and water).
Now, Ern, we come to your "free speech" and the MSM (mainstream media.) Here we also come up against the hoary old idea of 'expectations,' and how realistic they are (or were, if revised - or sadly shattered.) My own expectations of the MSM *were* that they were "news agencies," i.e. their job was to inform us - as citizen-voters need to be. A special case of the MSM are the publicly financed broadcasters AusBC and latecomer SBS. Coming to my violated, realistic expectations; in plain text: I did *not* expect to be lied to (do you?)
Well, how silly, how utterly naïve! (Ah, ha ha ha!) Everybody lies - or at least those trying to cheat us, steal from us do ...
The MSM (plus publicly financed broadcasters) turn out to be corrupt and venal - their 'news' is sold to us, we the people-sheople, under false pretences; a lot of the 'news' we get has already been bought and paid for by (vested interest) villains, and equally obviously, many (most?) of these villains are of the Zionist persuasion.
Their 'news' is laced with lies and propaganda; in the case of publicly financed broadcasters, we the sheople are actually paying them via our taxes to lie to us. Now, just how "free speech" is that?
There's more to come of course (seemingly endless battle) and whereas you are (partly) correct with your idea that the MSM can make or break a government - the Whitlam tragedy still sears - it is not simple.
PS You pose a good question, Q: Is there "an alternative to suicide?"
A: One thing is perfectly clear, doing nothing is not a viable option.
The question then becomes, Q: How to become most effective?
A1: Ah! Start with insisting on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, perhaps?
A2: In blogging, endlessly arguing with any lying blog-troll once recognized is pretty pointless - but worse, continuing such a dialogue enables the troll to keep pressing his/her/its lying agenda - see Lakoff (Don't Think of an Elephant!) Another thing is that lying trolls, by nature, are simply not interested in facts - quite obviously, facts are just too inconvenient for trolls, since the acts (here murder for spoil) under consideration are mostly criminal. Always more of the same will only get you ever more same-old same-old, so: (1) identify any liar, (2) say so loudest, then (3) terminate all discussion with him/her/it.
 sheople = sheep + people. Some prefer 'sheeple,' but that's just a bit too animal - all as usual and of course IMHO.
 lie2 —n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. —v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive. give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [POD]
.. after peeling an onion ...
.. I'm doing it; perhaps you could too
Following a tip from a friend (g'day!), I started with one article, then began back-tracking. I'm still doing it (i.e. reading it all) - because I think it's worth it; perhaps you should start on it too ... if so, I can help, by outlining the path. Although I usually despise this format, I present it 'newest 1st,' since that was (largely) the order of discovery:
02 Mar 2009
Floyd Unmasked: A Savage Purveyor of Violence
27 Feb 2009
Feudal Gestures: Bailout Lords and Their Modern Peons
February 26, 2009
It's Time to Break Up the Big Banks
The Geithner Put
February 23, 2009
What "Nationalize the Banks" and the "Free Market" Really Mean in Today's Looking-Glass World
The Language of Looting
February 19, 2009
Fucking Raping You to Death: The Real Fun Begins
February 13, 2009
Welcome [Simon Johnson] to the Journal
February 8, 2009
What happened to the global economy and what we can do about it
High Noon: Geithner v. The American Oligarchs
with 37 comments
Note that I had previously referred to the Hudson in my prima facie; the above cascade explicates a different theme. I intend to do a follow-up or revise this article (tempus fugit!) - but I thought I'd let anyone else in on it straight away ... just wanna get the facts out, soonest.
.. hope it doesn't spoil your day ...
.. like two 'little' A-bombs once did for so many hapless 'collaterals'
Sorry - but not too sorry, for mentioning the war (WW2), here's a possible reason why even that was not so simple ... but to provide a tiny bit of 'closure' here, recall that most of the A-bomb victims really were civilian. If the normative 'wo/men in the Japanese street' could possibly be ascribed any 'collective guilt,' it could only be because they 'allowed' themselves to be propagandised - just like our own sheople allow themselves to be propagandised today, over the 2003->now Nuremberg-class aggression against Iraq by B, B & H, say (murder for oil). Or possibly worse, the 60+ bloody years' long slaughter of the now sadly dispossessed therefore ex-legal owners of Palestine by Israel (murder for land & water). (When we talk of worse/worst, recall that the mainly US led invasion of Iraq may have led to the death of 1mio+, and the vicious Israeli genocide against the Palestinians has dispossessed an entire nation. Contrast to the screams over a single murder or brutal robbery in the so-called 'civilised West.') These US & Israeli war crimes cannot go unpunished - or we, as so-called moral humans are nothing more than barbaric rubbish. Not really sorry at all, for harping on these themes. Now something different, but also starting just after WW2:
February 27 - March 1, 2009
Obama and the System
The Economy and the Big Picture
«In 1948 George Kennan, one of the chief architects of post-war US foreign policy, famously stated the chief object of US policy in the post-war era: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population. ... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity... ” US foreign policy during the last half of the 20th Century conforms closely to Kennan’s statement of that policy’s core object.»
What Pace doesn't mention is that Kennan advised "The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts" to maintain that (unjust!) disparity, or later Nixon declaring the US bankrupt on August 15, 1971, and 'cleverly' substituting oil for gold; in one single (foul!) stroke setting the world up for perhaps the ultimate dual rip-off of a world reserve fiat currency 'backed' by oil.
What Pace also doesn't mention is the profligate 'printing' of that fiat currency of late, or the artificially low interest rate regimes - and then, there were/are the tax-cuts some lackeys keep screeching for (more often than not aimed at the already rich beyond avarice fat-cats, à la Bush2), and some evil treasurers implement, like Costello's halving of the CGT. Printing money, low interest rates, CGT tax-cuts all equal *asset bubbles!* - and that's what we got; as one of many bubbles, Aus house-prices doubled, starting pretty-well immediately after Costello's CGT cut.
Anyway and long story short, looks like we've got an economic collapse well underway (hardly news).
Some of you, dear readers, may know some of this, and how lots of working people have been marginalised - and terrified - by contracting and general out-sourcing, part-timing, casualisations, cheap labour imports, all of the sly (and filthy!) neo-liberal stuff - but you may still have been puzzled as to what's really going on. The cited counterpunch/Felice Pace article attempts to explain - some, but not all; nevertheless some of it is quite novel.