Monday, November 15, 2010

Monday, November 15, 2010

I think Wayne Madsen has some good sources, but sometimes your sources force you to publish nonsense in order to keep the information flowing. Firing a missile out of frustration is a pure neocon chickenshit move; on the other hand, it is clear the Chinese don't roll that way (and it sure wasn't the Chinese who clumsily tried to cover up the incident). And what possible motive would China have? China has all the cards. It is the United States that is weak and on the verge of complete collapse. A little gunboat diplomacy is just the kind of thing you'd expect from the neocons before the disastrous - for the United States - G-20 meeting. I don't think we've ever seen an Empire in such free-fall. Those Wars For The Jews don't come cheap, and the United States is so fucked up it is impossible to discuss the problem in polite company.

Speaking of the tragic inability of polite company to face facts, "Jewish outrage grows, but Beck digs deeper by approvingly citing flaming anti-Semite Mahatir".  Almost everything Beck does follows the standard Fox oligarch script, but every once and a while he goes weirdly rogue.  He repeats all the same lies about Soros that got Ezra Levant into such trouble in Canada (and hugely damaged the attempt to replicate Fox News in Canada, which is possibly how Beck got his bad information).  However, it is undeniable that Soros makes his money off currency speculation, and has probably caused more human suffering than any other living human being who isn't George Bush.  Since he gives a bit of guilt money to the Democrats we're supposed to ignore this.  By the way, Matahir and Soros are now pals.

Sensible analysis of the American election results:  "Money and the Midterms: Are the Parties Over? Interview with Thomas Ferguson":
"2008 had all the earmarks of a classic realigning election, as my old colleague Walter Dean Burnham describes them. In the wake of the financial collapse, it looked for all the world like voters were ready for, even demanding, major reforms. They had elected a Democratic President on a promise of "Change," with both houses of Congress solidly Democratic. That's why many people were thinking that Obama was going give us a modern New Deal. They really believed him when he promised change. Instead, Obama's failure on the economy has discredited the whole idea of the activist state. The dimensions of this failure were spectacular: he didn't move aggressively to combat unemployment, the economic stimulus was half as large as it needed to be, and he didn't deal with the mortgage crisis. So unemployment stayed way up, and many people remain in danger of losing their homes or are underwater on their mortgages, with the whole housing sector stalling out. To make matters worse, the administration lavished aid on the financial sector. The spectacle of the government aiding bankers, who turned around and paid themselves record bonuses, has just been unbearable for millions of people."
and:
"People who were hailing Obama as a new FDR were viewing American politics through the wrong lens. They were treating public policy as the result of the will of voters. But in fact, American political parties are mostly bank accounts. What you are told is the voice of the people is usually the sound of money talking.

Much of my research has been devoted to showing how both parties are dominated by blocs of large investors. The policy choices political parties present to the public on Social Security, macroeconomic policy, campaign finance reform, and indeed nearly every other policy area save a handful of hot-button "social issues" are basically dominated by big money. The consequences are disastrous: Neither party can level with the American people in crises. They cannot diagnose problems like the financial crisis with any honesty and they can't make any detailed case for why the policies they do sponsor would actually benefit ordinary Americans. What we get instead are pseudo-explanations, myths, and sometimes, obvious mendacity. Political discussions in the media, where they are not distorted by the plain interests of the concerns themselves, are dominated by denizens of the "think tank" and "policy institute" world. Most of these institutions are heavily driven by, surprise, surprise, big money in the form of donors. As Robert Johnson and I documented in our paper for last year's INET Conference, growing inequality in the United States complicates this dismal picture by converting regulatory agencies into recruiting grounds for would be millionaires via the revolving door, while at the same time permitting the financial sector to substitute virtually untraceable stock tips for direct contributions."
blog comments powered by Disqus