By MARC MCDONALD
Rush Limbaugh has caused another controversy with his latest comments. UPI reported Friday that Limbaugh said that riots at this summer's Democratic National Convention in Denver would be "like a dream come true."
The Fat One was reported as saying that "There won't be riots at our (the GOP) convention."
Well, maybe not. (Although I know of a lot of Republicans who are angry and upset that the "liberal" John McCain is on the GOP ticket).
But what I objected to most with Limbaugh's latest OxyMoron nonsense were the other statements he made Friday. For example, Limbaugh claimed that, unlike Democrats, Republicans "don't riot."
Hmmm, I guess the drugs have turned The Fat One's brain into mush (or made it even mushier than it was before).
As I recall, Republicans don't hesitate to riot, when it suits their purpose.
Does anyone remember the GOP rent-a-mob rioters in Florida in 2000 who disrupted the Gore-Bush vote counting process? Those Brownshirts played a role in the theft of the election and the installation of the Bush Crime Family.
As far as Limbaugh's comment Friday that Republicans "don't kill our children," I really have to wonder about his mental state these days. Granted, Limbaugh likely isn't up on what's going on in Iraq. In fact, he doesn't seem to be aware of what war is all about (no surprise there: Limbaugh was a chickensh*t coward who ran away from serving his country during the Vietnam War).
After all, Limbaugh's hero, Bush, is the one who ordered a war based on lies that has killed over 4,000 of America's soldiers (most of them young people).
So, yes: the Republicans do have the blood of a lot of children on their hands. Not to mention the thousands of Iraqi children who have been slaughtered in this nightmare of a war.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: these NeoCon extremists scare me a hell of a lot more than Al Qaeda ever could.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Despite Record Low Poll Numbers, Bush Still Bullies Wimpy Democrats
By MARC MCDONALD
George W. Bush is one of the most unpopular presidents ever. He has record low poll numbers. He is a lame-duck president.
Given his seemingly weak position, how does Bush continue to bully the Democrats? Good question.
The fact is, these days, Bush is actually less compromising than ever. And the wimpy Democrats continue to roll over for Bush.
Take the looming showdown on Capitol Hill over Bush's war funding. As the Associated Press pointed out, Bush has promised to veto any bill that exceeds his pending $108 billion request for war funding.
This is actually a tougher line than Bush took last spring, when he accepted $17 billion in domestic funding as part of a $120 billion war funding measure, AP notes.
The extra spending the Democrats have proposed includes $12.7 billion in funding to extend unemployment benefits. Bush has also signaled he'll oppose increased funding for GI Bill benefits for veterans.
So not only does Bush expect the Democrats to rubberstamp his war funds request, he's not even willing to compromise on the spending bill this time around.
AP notes that the GOP is actually eager to "battle with Democrats over add-ons to the war funding bill." So not only is Bush bullying Democrats, but his fellow Republicans continue to solidly support him as though he were enjoying robust approval ratings.
How can the clout of an unpopular lame duck like Bush actually be rising these days? The only reason I can come up with is that the Democrats have shown themselves to be such pushovers, that Bush knows he can get away with bullying them. If there's anything that emboldens a bully, it is wimpy behavior.
George W. Bush is one of the most unpopular presidents ever. He has record low poll numbers. He is a lame-duck president.
Given his seemingly weak position, how does Bush continue to bully the Democrats? Good question.
The fact is, these days, Bush is actually less compromising than ever. And the wimpy Democrats continue to roll over for Bush.
Take the looming showdown on Capitol Hill over Bush's war funding. As the Associated Press pointed out, Bush has promised to veto any bill that exceeds his pending $108 billion request for war funding.
This is actually a tougher line than Bush took last spring, when he accepted $17 billion in domestic funding as part of a $120 billion war funding measure, AP notes.
The extra spending the Democrats have proposed includes $12.7 billion in funding to extend unemployment benefits. Bush has also signaled he'll oppose increased funding for GI Bill benefits for veterans.
So not only does Bush expect the Democrats to rubberstamp his war funds request, he's not even willing to compromise on the spending bill this time around.
AP notes that the GOP is actually eager to "battle with Democrats over add-ons to the war funding bill." So not only is Bush bullying Democrats, but his fellow Republicans continue to solidly support him as though he were enjoying robust approval ratings.
How can the clout of an unpopular lame duck like Bush actually be rising these days? The only reason I can come up with is that the Democrats have shown themselves to be such pushovers, that Bush knows he can get away with bullying them. If there's anything that emboldens a bully, it is wimpy behavior.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Sign The Petition: Ask Air America To Give Sam Seder A Daily Show
.
A lot of us were disgusted and disappointed when Air America recently suspended the progressive talk radio goddess Randi Rhodes (she later quit the network and has now moved over to the Nova M radio network).
But in any case, Randi's departure opens up a key slot on Air America's daily 3-6 p.m. EST schedule that we think ought to be filled by the brilliant Sam Seder. (If you've never heard his program, you're missing out on some of the most intelligent talk radio on the airwaves). Currently Seder's insightful program only airs weekly on Air America (Sundays, 4-7 p.m. EST).
Go here to sign a petition to urge Air America to give Seder a daily slot in their schedule.
A lot of us were disgusted and disappointed when Air America recently suspended the progressive talk radio goddess Randi Rhodes (she later quit the network and has now moved over to the Nova M radio network).
But in any case, Randi's departure opens up a key slot on Air America's daily 3-6 p.m. EST schedule that we think ought to be filled by the brilliant Sam Seder. (If you've never heard his program, you're missing out on some of the most intelligent talk radio on the airwaves). Currently Seder's insightful program only airs weekly on Air America (Sundays, 4-7 p.m. EST).
Go here to sign a petition to urge Air America to give Seder a daily slot in their schedule.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Pentagon Institute: Iraq War "A Major Debacle" With Outcome "In Doubt"
By MARC MCDONALD
A report released Thursday describes the Iraq War as "a major debacle" in which the outcome "is in doubt."
Who published these harshly critical words? An anti-war group? Some obscure left-wing blog? The Huffington Post? Code Pink?
Uh, no: actually this sharp criticism came from none other than the National Defense University, a leading Pentagon military educational institute.
One wonders how the Bush White House (as well as its allies at Fox News and HateWing radio) will spin this story. No doubt, they will either ignore the story, or attack or smear its authors.
To which I say: Good luck with that.
Bush will have a tough time trying to debunk this stunning report. After all, as McClatchy Newspapers noted, "the report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins, a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations."
The report's opening sentence says it all: "Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle."
Watch out for major NeoCon spin control in the weeks ahead. And look out for the Republicans to throw a major hissy fit. I suspect they'll also be angry at McClatchy for simply publishing this story in the first place.
Here's the McClatchy Newspapers story on the Pentagon institute's report:
By Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott, McClatchy Newspapers
The war in Iraq has become "a major debacle" and the outcome "is in doubt" despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute.
The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions.
The report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins, a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations.
It was published by the university's National Institute for Strategic Studies, a Defense Department research center.
"Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle," says the report's opening line.
At the time the report was written last fall, more than 4,000 U.S. and foreign troops, more than 7,500 Iraqi security forces and as many as 82,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed and tens of thousands of others wounded, while the cost of the war since March 2003 was estimated at $450 billion .
"No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on service personnel and materiel," wrote Collins, who was involved in planning post-invasion humanitarian operations.
The report said that the United States has suffered serious political costs, with its standing in the world seriously diminished. Moreover, operations in Iraq have diverted "manpower, materiel and the attention of decision-makers" from "all other efforts in the war on terror" and severely strained the U.S. armed forces.
"Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there (in Iraq) were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East," the report continued.
Read the rest of the McClatchy story here. Go here to read the Pentagon institute report.
A report released Thursday describes the Iraq War as "a major debacle" in which the outcome "is in doubt."
Who published these harshly critical words? An anti-war group? Some obscure left-wing blog? The Huffington Post? Code Pink?
Uh, no: actually this sharp criticism came from none other than the National Defense University, a leading Pentagon military educational institute.
One wonders how the Bush White House (as well as its allies at Fox News and HateWing radio) will spin this story. No doubt, they will either ignore the story, or attack or smear its authors.
To which I say: Good luck with that.
Bush will have a tough time trying to debunk this stunning report. After all, as McClatchy Newspapers noted, "the report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins, a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations."
The report's opening sentence says it all: "Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle."
Watch out for major NeoCon spin control in the weeks ahead. And look out for the Republicans to throw a major hissy fit. I suspect they'll also be angry at McClatchy for simply publishing this story in the first place.
Here's the McClatchy Newspapers story on the Pentagon institute's report:
By Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott, McClatchy Newspapers
The war in Iraq has become "a major debacle" and the outcome "is in doubt" despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute.
The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions.
The report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins, a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations.
It was published by the university's National Institute for Strategic Studies, a Defense Department research center.
"Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle," says the report's opening line.
At the time the report was written last fall, more than 4,000 U.S. and foreign troops, more than 7,500 Iraqi security forces and as many as 82,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed and tens of thousands of others wounded, while the cost of the war since March 2003 was estimated at $450 billion .
"No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on service personnel and materiel," wrote Collins, who was involved in planning post-invasion humanitarian operations.
The report said that the United States has suffered serious political costs, with its standing in the world seriously diminished. Moreover, operations in Iraq have diverted "manpower, materiel and the attention of decision-makers" from "all other efforts in the war on terror" and severely strained the U.S. armed forces.
"Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there (in Iraq) were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East," the report continued.
Read the rest of the McClatchy story here. Go here to read the Pentagon institute report.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Whatever Happened To Protest Music?
.
"You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you sit back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud"
"Masters of War," ---Bob Dylan, 1963
__________________________________
"We can dance, we can dance, we can dance, we can dance tonight
Come on just move your body
Come on just move your body"
"Not Leaving Without You," ---Paris Hilton, 2006
By MARC MCDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
Back in the 1960s, even the biggest-selling music artists routinely released songs that protested the Vietnam War and demanded change. From John Lennon ("Give Peace A Chance") to the Rolling Stones ("Street Fighting Man") to Bob Dylan ("Masters of War") the pop charts were full of protest songs.
Today, we're living in an era that is like the 1960s in many ways. The nation's social fabric has been torn asunder. An unpopular war based on lies rages on. And the occupant in the White House is a crook who makes even Richard Nixon look like a good president. In short, America is going down the toilet.
But unlike the 1960s, if you listen to today's music, you'd be unaware that there was any problem at all with today's America. The top pop stars of today have little to say about anything. Outside of some of the socially conscious hip-hop artists, today's music stars are content to peddle the most bland, innocuous lyrics imaginable. Mostly, the songs are about sex, sex, and more sex. If there's any message at all, it's: "Be apathetic. Don't use your brain. Be a good little consumer."
The shame of it all is that there's probably never been an era in American history that cried out more for protest songs.
Today, America is saddled with an unbelievably corrupt occupant in the White House. George W. Bush is guilty of a long list of serious crimes, from embracing torture as official state policy to illegal wiretaps to lying America into a $3 trillion fiasco of a war.
What's worse is that our nation's mainstream media has failed in its responsibility to inform the American people about Bush's crimes. Indeed, "journalists" like the Judith Miller of The New York Times actually worked hand-in-hand with the White House, to sell Bush's war to the American people.
Given this sad state of affairs, one might think that at least some of today's pop stars would be inclined to speak out about the ongoing crisis in America. The crimes of Bush and Cheney could easily be the inspiration for hundreds of protest songs.
But sadly, this isn't the case. Today's pampered pop and rock stars are quite content to sit in their mansions and count their cash and refuse to speak out on the issues of the day, much less write songs about them.
And as a result, our radio stations and pop charts today are full of the most sugary, banal, shallow dross imaginable. In fact, there's probably never been an era in U.S. musical history where popular music was as sanitized and apolitical as it is today.
True, there is the occasional exception (like when the Dixie Chicks dared to speak up against Bush). As a result, their career took a hit when Clear Channel yanked the group's songs from its radio stations. The band even received death threats from the NeoCon Bush supporters.
Most other top artists, though, have failed to follow the Dixie Chicks' lead and speak out. It's clear that they are cowards who are afraid any sort of risks of damaging their commercial prospects. (Of course, it's also possible that they simply don't give a sh*t about what's going on in America). I'm not sure which is worse: apathy, or cowardice---but today's pop stars are similar to the mainstream media in that they lack a spine and they're only concerned about making as much money as possible.
Ironically, despite the blatant commercialism of today's pop scene, music sales continue to plunge in the U.S. The big record labels bitch and moan endlessly about this. They point the finger of blame at file-sharing services. The latter, no doubt, have some of the blame---but I believe the main culprit is that today's music just plain sucks.
The best pop/rock music has always been risk-taking, rebellious, bold and creative. That's the polar opposite of today's sad line-up of Britney, Paris Hilton, Justin Timberlake and their endless clones.
Meanwhile, here's a salute to some of the best protest music of yesteryear:
"You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you sit back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud"
"Masters of War," ---Bob Dylan, 1963
__________________________________
"We can dance, we can dance, we can dance, we can dance tonight
Come on just move your body
Come on just move your body"
"Not Leaving Without You," ---Paris Hilton, 2006
By MARC MCDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
Back in the 1960s, even the biggest-selling music artists routinely released songs that protested the Vietnam War and demanded change. From John Lennon ("Give Peace A Chance") to the Rolling Stones ("Street Fighting Man") to Bob Dylan ("Masters of War") the pop charts were full of protest songs.
Today, we're living in an era that is like the 1960s in many ways. The nation's social fabric has been torn asunder. An unpopular war based on lies rages on. And the occupant in the White House is a crook who makes even Richard Nixon look like a good president. In short, America is going down the toilet.
But unlike the 1960s, if you listen to today's music, you'd be unaware that there was any problem at all with today's America. The top pop stars of today have little to say about anything. Outside of some of the socially conscious hip-hop artists, today's music stars are content to peddle the most bland, innocuous lyrics imaginable. Mostly, the songs are about sex, sex, and more sex. If there's any message at all, it's: "Be apathetic. Don't use your brain. Be a good little consumer."
The shame of it all is that there's probably never been an era in American history that cried out more for protest songs.
Today, America is saddled with an unbelievably corrupt occupant in the White House. George W. Bush is guilty of a long list of serious crimes, from embracing torture as official state policy to illegal wiretaps to lying America into a $3 trillion fiasco of a war.
What's worse is that our nation's mainstream media has failed in its responsibility to inform the American people about Bush's crimes. Indeed, "journalists" like the Judith Miller of The New York Times actually worked hand-in-hand with the White House, to sell Bush's war to the American people.
Given this sad state of affairs, one might think that at least some of today's pop stars would be inclined to speak out about the ongoing crisis in America. The crimes of Bush and Cheney could easily be the inspiration for hundreds of protest songs.
But sadly, this isn't the case. Today's pampered pop and rock stars are quite content to sit in their mansions and count their cash and refuse to speak out on the issues of the day, much less write songs about them.
And as a result, our radio stations and pop charts today are full of the most sugary, banal, shallow dross imaginable. In fact, there's probably never been an era in U.S. musical history where popular music was as sanitized and apolitical as it is today.
True, there is the occasional exception (like when the Dixie Chicks dared to speak up against Bush). As a result, their career took a hit when Clear Channel yanked the group's songs from its radio stations. The band even received death threats from the NeoCon Bush supporters.
Most other top artists, though, have failed to follow the Dixie Chicks' lead and speak out. It's clear that they are cowards who are afraid any sort of risks of damaging their commercial prospects. (Of course, it's also possible that they simply don't give a sh*t about what's going on in America). I'm not sure which is worse: apathy, or cowardice---but today's pop stars are similar to the mainstream media in that they lack a spine and they're only concerned about making as much money as possible.
Ironically, despite the blatant commercialism of today's pop scene, music sales continue to plunge in the U.S. The big record labels bitch and moan endlessly about this. They point the finger of blame at file-sharing services. The latter, no doubt, have some of the blame---but I believe the main culprit is that today's music just plain sucks.
The best pop/rock music has always been risk-taking, rebellious, bold and creative. That's the polar opposite of today's sad line-up of Britney, Paris Hilton, Justin Timberlake and their endless clones.
Meanwhile, here's a salute to some of the best protest music of yesteryear:
- "Ohio," ---Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, 1970.
- "I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-To-Die Rag," ---Country Joe & the Fish, 1967.
- "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," ---Gil Scott-Heron, 1970.
- "Power To The People," ---John Lennon, 1971.
- "The Call Up," ---by The Clash, 1980.
- "For What It's Worth," ----Buffalo Springfield, 1967.
- "Shipbuilding," ---Elvis Costello, 1982.
- "Between the Wars," ---Billy Bragg, 1985.
- "Talkin' World War III Blues," ---Bob Dylan, 1963.
- "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy," ---Pete Seeger, 1967.
- "Get Up, Stand Up," ---Bob Marley, 1973.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Back In the Days When American Workers Were Willing To Stand Up For Their Rights
.
This video takes a look at the 1934 San Francisco general strike. May 9 will mark the 74th anniversary of this historic event, which occurred during an era when U.S. workers were willing to stand up to defend their rights.
Sadly, today's working class in America seems to be content with letting CEOs and other robber barons shit all over us, as these crooks loot the U.S. Treasury and dole out hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare to themselves and their rich allies.
If you've had enough of all this, take action. Also, consider joining a union.
This video takes a look at the 1934 San Francisco general strike. May 9 will mark the 74th anniversary of this historic event, which occurred during an era when U.S. workers were willing to stand up to defend their rights.
Sadly, today's working class in America seems to be content with letting CEOs and other robber barons shit all over us, as these crooks loot the U.S. Treasury and dole out hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare to themselves and their rich allies.
If you've had enough of all this, take action. Also, consider joining a union.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
White House Yawns At MLK Anniversary
By MARC MCDONALD
Friday was a day that the world remembered the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., who was killed 40 years ago in Memphis. Hillary Clinton and John McCain spoke to audiences in Memphis. In Chicago, Barack Obama spoke about King's legacy.
While the world commemorated King's achievements, the 40th anniversary seemed to draw nothing more than a big yawn at the White House. George W. Bush met with the prime minister of Romania. The only comment the White House had on the MLK anniversary was a short, bland, generic statement on the White House Web site. By contrast, the statement for something called "National Tartan Day" was actually much lengthier than the White House statement about King.
It's clear at this point that Bush can't even be bothered to go through the motions of acting like he cares about African-Americans. (Actually, this was apparent to many Americans long before Kanye West's "George Bush doesn't care about black people" remark during a Hurricane Katrina benefit concert).
Bush has long shown complete and utter contempt for civil rights. In this regard, he's following in the Bush family footsteps. (Recall how his father, George H.W. Bush, campaigned against the 1964 Civil Rights Act).
During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush made it a point to stop by Bob Jones University, where he praised the officials at that school (which incredibly still had a ban on interracial dating). This, no doubt, played real well to the "I don't want my white daughter dating a Negro" racist crowd---but the rest of us were shocked and appalled.
Indeed, in the Bush era, we've seen nothing less than the return of Jim Crow. How else to explain things like the 2000 election, in which record numbers of black voters were disenfranchised. As Greg Palast has documented, about one million black voters didn't count in the 2000 presidential election.
Against this backdrop, it shouldn't really be surprising that the 40th anniversary of King's assassination drew nothing more than a big yawn at the White House.
Friday was a day that the world remembered the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., who was killed 40 years ago in Memphis. Hillary Clinton and John McCain spoke to audiences in Memphis. In Chicago, Barack Obama spoke about King's legacy.
While the world commemorated King's achievements, the 40th anniversary seemed to draw nothing more than a big yawn at the White House. George W. Bush met with the prime minister of Romania. The only comment the White House had on the MLK anniversary was a short, bland, generic statement on the White House Web site. By contrast, the statement for something called "National Tartan Day" was actually much lengthier than the White House statement about King.
It's clear at this point that Bush can't even be bothered to go through the motions of acting like he cares about African-Americans. (Actually, this was apparent to many Americans long before Kanye West's "George Bush doesn't care about black people" remark during a Hurricane Katrina benefit concert).
Bush has long shown complete and utter contempt for civil rights. In this regard, he's following in the Bush family footsteps. (Recall how his father, George H.W. Bush, campaigned against the 1964 Civil Rights Act).
During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush made it a point to stop by Bob Jones University, where he praised the officials at that school (which incredibly still had a ban on interracial dating). This, no doubt, played real well to the "I don't want my white daughter dating a Negro" racist crowd---but the rest of us were shocked and appalled.
Indeed, in the Bush era, we've seen nothing less than the return of Jim Crow. How else to explain things like the 2000 election, in which record numbers of black voters were disenfranchised. As Greg Palast has documented, about one million black voters didn't count in the 2000 presidential election.
Against this backdrop, it shouldn't really be surprising that the 40th anniversary of King's assassination drew nothing more than a big yawn at the White House.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Media's Swooning Over McCain Echoes MSM's Love Affair With Bush In 2000
By MARC MCDONALD
In case you haven't heard, it's now official: John McCain is the darling of the mainstream media. And as reporters swoon over McCain, some of us are experiencing deja vu.
Where have we seen this sort of fawning MSM coverage before? Oh, that's right: it was in the 2000 campaign, when the MSM fell in love with George W. Bush.
Although today I'm sure they'd like to forget it ever happened, the fact is, reporters fawned over Bush in 2000. And while this love affair was going on, the media was sharpening its claws to attack Al Gore over GOP-invented bogus controversies like "I invented the Internet."
As Al Franken pointed out in Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, the media just plain didn't like Gore:
"Somewhere along the line, the pack decided that Al Gore was a sanctimonious, graspy exaggerator running against a likeable if dim-witted goof-off."
As Franken notes, the widely respected Pew Charitable Trusts foundation documented that the tone of the media coverage was decidedly anti-Gore and pro-Bush during the campaign.
As Pew notes, a comprehensive survey of 1,149 news stories from 17 leading news sources in 2000 showed a "positive" slant in 24 percent of the stories about Bush (versus only 13 percent for Gore). By contrast, the "negative" slant was 56 percent for Gore versus 49 percent for Bush.
And now a MSM love affair for a GOP candidate is happening all over again. As Gabler points out, "reporters routinely attach 'maverick,' 'straight talker' and 'patriot' to (McCain) like Homeric epithets." As Chris Matthews of MSNBC put it, the media is now "McCain's base."
In case you haven't heard, it's now official: John McCain is the darling of the mainstream media. And as reporters swoon over McCain, some of us are experiencing deja vu.
Where have we seen this sort of fawning MSM coverage before? Oh, that's right: it was in the 2000 campaign, when the MSM fell in love with George W. Bush.
Although today I'm sure they'd like to forget it ever happened, the fact is, reporters fawned over Bush in 2000. And while this love affair was going on, the media was sharpening its claws to attack Al Gore over GOP-invented bogus controversies like "I invented the Internet."
As Al Franken pointed out in Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, the media just plain didn't like Gore:
"Somewhere along the line, the pack decided that Al Gore was a sanctimonious, graspy exaggerator running against a likeable if dim-witted goof-off."
As Franken notes, the widely respected Pew Charitable Trusts foundation documented that the tone of the media coverage was decidedly anti-Gore and pro-Bush during the campaign.
As Pew notes, a comprehensive survey of 1,149 news stories from 17 leading news sources in 2000 showed a "positive" slant in 24 percent of the stories about Bush (versus only 13 percent for Gore). By contrast, the "negative" slant was 56 percent for Gore versus 49 percent for Bush.
And now a MSM love affair for a GOP candidate is happening all over again. As Gabler points out, "reporters routinely attach 'maverick,' 'straight talker' and 'patriot' to (McCain) like Homeric epithets." As Chris Matthews of MSNBC put it, the media is now "McCain's base."
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Why Ridding The World of Saddam Didn't Justify The Iraq War
By MARC MCDONALD
Five years after the start of the disastrous Iraq War, there remains one fig leaf that the remaining war supporters and other hopeful Americans can still hide behind these days. After all, these fig-leaf wearers constantly remind us, we did get rid of Saddam Hussein, right?
So despite the fact that the war is a $3 trillion fiasco that has slaughtered a million people, the fig-leaf wearers think they can still find a silver lining in this disaster by reminding all of us that, after all, Saddam is gone.
I am not defending Saddam. But on the other hand, I think those who proclaimed Saddam to be a monstrous tyrant who was the "new Hitler" need to ask themselves a few questions:
1. First of all, I find it incredible that any Americans can still smugly proclaim that they know exactly what was going on in Iraq before the U.S. invaded. Saddam may well have been an evil tyrant---but the fact is, America was totally in the dark about Iraq. Everything we were told about Iraq turned out to be a crock of sh*t (from the non-existent WMDs to Saddam's non-existent ties to 9/11 to the "fact" that Iraqis would greet us as liberators).
All lies. All bullsh*t. And yet, incredibly, there are those fig-leaf wearers who still, to this day, arrogantly proclaim that they know exactly what Saddam was up to---and that it consisted of horrific crimes that murdered millions of people. Keep in mind that these are the same people who smugly proclaimed that Saddam had WMDs---and indeed, used that issue as a club to beat the heads of anyone who dared question George W. Bush's case for war in 2003.
I'm astonished at how smug and arrogant many of these people are. They've been proven wrong time and time again on everything to do with Iraq. And yet, when they make sweeping statements about Iraq and Saddam's crimes, you'll never find anyone who is more sure of themselves.
One wonders: where, exactly, are they getting this info about Saddam's murder of "millions"? The reality is, it's likely largely coming from the same disgruntled anti-Baathist Iraqi exiles who were peddling the same fairy tales about Saddam having WMDs. Between Bush's hysterical, over-the-top denunciations of Saddam, and these misinformed exiles (many of whom hadn't actually lived in Iraq for many years), it's no wonder that Americans came to believe that Saddam was the next Hitler.
2. Speaking of Saddam's murder of "millions": maybe it's true. I don't claim to know one way or another. But those who condemn Saddam weaken their credibility by constantly citing wildly different figures. I've seen some authors claim the death toll was in the hundreds of thousands. Other cite figures in excess of millions dead.
I find all this interesting. After all, the U.S. has little idea of the carnage that has taken place right under our noses during our occupation of Iraq. As the Pentagon has repeatedly put it, the U.S. military "doesn't do body counts." And yet, even though we have no idea of how many have died in our occupation of Iraq, there are fig-leaf wearers who make sweeping proclamations about the "millions" that Saddam murdered many years ago.
Actually, America could have bolstered its credibility and its case for invading Iraq if it had worked to ensure that Saddam got a fair trial. Such a trial could have presented to the world a detailed case for Saddam's crimes. It would have also given survivors of Saddam's regime their day in court.
Of course, nothing of the sort happened. Saddam's trial was a travesty. Basically, we handed him over to his political enemies for a kangaroo trial that mocked the very idea of justice. Saddam's lawyers couldn't even do their job without worrying about getting a bullet in the head (and indeed, several were gunned down during the trial).
There was no detailed examination of the "millions" that Saddam murdered during the trial. One wonders: why not? If we had solid evidence of Saddam murdering millions, then why not try him for that? In the end, Saddam was convicted for the killing of 148 people in 1982 who were reportedly connected to an assassination attempt.
Watching the trial proceedings, I couldn't help but think that the whole event was a mockery of justice. It seems to me that the U.S. just wanted to quickly get the trial over with and hang Saddam as soon as possible. Which begs the question: why? What was the rush? If Saddam was indeed the new Hitler, why didn't the trial take a deeper look at his past crimes?
Call me cynical, but I can't help but wonder if the U.S. just didn't want Saddam dead as quickly as possible before he started talking about his past lengthy, cozy ties to the U.S. Which brings me to another point:
3. Did the U.S. really ever have a leg to stand on in condemning Saddam? Of course, the vast majority of Americans will say yes. But I wonder. If Saddam did indeed murder millions, there is still the uncomfortable fact that the U.S. worked closely with Saddam for decades. If Saddam was indeed the New Hitler, what does that make America?
Most Americans are completely in the dark when it comes to knowledge about how America worked closely with Saddam.
In fact, the U.S. had a cozy relationship with Saddam that lasted for decades. How many Americans are aware that, in 1959, the CIA hired the then-22-year-old Saddam to carry out a plot to assassinate the Iraqi prime minister, General Abd al-Karim Qasim? (Saddam's assassination attempt failed when he fired too soon and he only wound up killing Qasim's driver).
Bush has long condemned Saddam for crimes such as gassing the Kurds in the town of Halabjah in 1988. But how many Americans know that the U.S. in fact sold materials to Saddam for creating biological and chemical weapons in the 1980s?
As Craig Unger reported in his 2004 book, House of Bush, House of Saud:
"Beginning in 1984, the Centers for Disease Control began providing Saddam's Iraq with biological materials--including viruses, retroviruses, bacteria, fungi, and even tissue that was infected with bubonic plague."
Unger noted that the latter exchange may have been initiated in the spirit of an "innocent" transfer of scientific information. But as he points out: "It is not difficult to argue against giving bubonic-plague-infected tissues to Saddam Hussein."
Unger quotes former Senate investigator James Tuite: "We were freely exchanging pathogenic materials with a country that we knew had an active biological warfare program."
But don't try to tell any of this to the fig-leaf wearers. The fact is, America has become an infantile culture. We're deeply ignorant about the rest of the world. And we tend to see the world in simplistic black-and-white/good-versus-evil terms (with, of course, the U.S. always being the "good guys").
All the fig-leaf wearers will permit themselves to hear is that Saddam was the next Hitler. End of story. The vast majority of Americans don't want to hear that maybe, just maybe, the story is a little more complex than that. Which leads me to my final point:
4. It's clear that America never really understood Iraq. We never bothered to learn a thing about the Iraqi people, their language and their culture. We were completely clueless and in the dark. Hell, most Americans had no clue that our own government had been working, hand-in-glove, with Saddam for decades.
Instead, on the eve of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Americans were blissfully ignorant and eagerly lapping up the Fox News/corporate media line: "Saddam is the new Hitler and America needs to get rid of him. If we do this, Iraqis will greet us with flowers and everyone will live happily ever after."
Five years later, it's clear that everything we were told about Saddam (and Iraq in general) back in those heady days in 2003 was a f*cking lie. And by deluding ourselves by building up this cartoonish image of Saddam-as-the-new-Hitler, we were completely in the dark about the oncoming freight train of disaster we were about to encounter.
The fact is, Saddam was no Hitler. He was a dime-a-dozen petty tyrant of a poor, Third World nation. He posed absolutely no threat to the U.S. (Indeed, if he did somehow pose a threat to America, then the real question wasn't whether to invade Iraq---it should have been this: what, exactly, had U.S. taxpayers been getting in return for the trillions of dollars that we've pumped into the Pentagon over the years? We've lavished more on military spending than the rest of the world combined---and yet we were not safe from Iraq, a poor Third World nation with no industry that was crippled by crushing sanctions?)
One thing I'd like the fig-leaf wearers to explain to me is this: how, exactly, was Saddam any more evil than the dozens of other petty dictators around the world (many of whom America has also supported over the years).
For that matter, how was Saddam more evil than, say, the leaders of Saudi Arabia? The latter, after all, run one of the world's most repressive dictatorships. They routinely torture and murder their opponents. (Oh, and Saudi Arabia is also the beating heart of Islamic radicalism worldwide). And yet, instead of invading that nation, Bush happily hobnobs with their leaders and even invites them out to the ranch for barbecue.
One final thing I'd like the fig-leaf wearers to explain to me is this: if Saddam was so evil, then why is it that there was never a single recorded instance of a suicide bomber in Iraq before 2003? And why did Saddam's convoys never face roadside bombs?
For that matter, why, exactly has the U.S. faced a ferocious insurgency now for the past five years? If Saddam was the next Hitler and he was so evil, then why weren't we greeted as liberators in the first place?
Yes, these are troubling questions. And they are questions that the fig-leaf wearers (and most Americans) will never bother to answer. Probably because if we answer these questions, it'll lead us to even more troubling questions that we as a nation would simply rather not think about. So in the time-honored American tradition of sanitizing our own history, we'll simply sweep these troubling questions under the rug and not give them any further thought.
Five years after the start of the disastrous Iraq War, there remains one fig leaf that the remaining war supporters and other hopeful Americans can still hide behind these days. After all, these fig-leaf wearers constantly remind us, we did get rid of Saddam Hussein, right?
So despite the fact that the war is a $3 trillion fiasco that has slaughtered a million people, the fig-leaf wearers think they can still find a silver lining in this disaster by reminding all of us that, after all, Saddam is gone.
I am not defending Saddam. But on the other hand, I think those who proclaimed Saddam to be a monstrous tyrant who was the "new Hitler" need to ask themselves a few questions:
1. First of all, I find it incredible that any Americans can still smugly proclaim that they know exactly what was going on in Iraq before the U.S. invaded. Saddam may well have been an evil tyrant---but the fact is, America was totally in the dark about Iraq. Everything we were told about Iraq turned out to be a crock of sh*t (from the non-existent WMDs to Saddam's non-existent ties to 9/11 to the "fact" that Iraqis would greet us as liberators).
All lies. All bullsh*t. And yet, incredibly, there are those fig-leaf wearers who still, to this day, arrogantly proclaim that they know exactly what Saddam was up to---and that it consisted of horrific crimes that murdered millions of people. Keep in mind that these are the same people who smugly proclaimed that Saddam had WMDs---and indeed, used that issue as a club to beat the heads of anyone who dared question George W. Bush's case for war in 2003.
I'm astonished at how smug and arrogant many of these people are. They've been proven wrong time and time again on everything to do with Iraq. And yet, when they make sweeping statements about Iraq and Saddam's crimes, you'll never find anyone who is more sure of themselves.
One wonders: where, exactly, are they getting this info about Saddam's murder of "millions"? The reality is, it's likely largely coming from the same disgruntled anti-Baathist Iraqi exiles who were peddling the same fairy tales about Saddam having WMDs. Between Bush's hysterical, over-the-top denunciations of Saddam, and these misinformed exiles (many of whom hadn't actually lived in Iraq for many years), it's no wonder that Americans came to believe that Saddam was the next Hitler.
2. Speaking of Saddam's murder of "millions": maybe it's true. I don't claim to know one way or another. But those who condemn Saddam weaken their credibility by constantly citing wildly different figures. I've seen some authors claim the death toll was in the hundreds of thousands. Other cite figures in excess of millions dead.
I find all this interesting. After all, the U.S. has little idea of the carnage that has taken place right under our noses during our occupation of Iraq. As the Pentagon has repeatedly put it, the U.S. military "doesn't do body counts." And yet, even though we have no idea of how many have died in our occupation of Iraq, there are fig-leaf wearers who make sweeping proclamations about the "millions" that Saddam murdered many years ago.
Actually, America could have bolstered its credibility and its case for invading Iraq if it had worked to ensure that Saddam got a fair trial. Such a trial could have presented to the world a detailed case for Saddam's crimes. It would have also given survivors of Saddam's regime their day in court.
Of course, nothing of the sort happened. Saddam's trial was a travesty. Basically, we handed him over to his political enemies for a kangaroo trial that mocked the very idea of justice. Saddam's lawyers couldn't even do their job without worrying about getting a bullet in the head (and indeed, several were gunned down during the trial).
There was no detailed examination of the "millions" that Saddam murdered during the trial. One wonders: why not? If we had solid evidence of Saddam murdering millions, then why not try him for that? In the end, Saddam was convicted for the killing of 148 people in 1982 who were reportedly connected to an assassination attempt.
Watching the trial proceedings, I couldn't help but think that the whole event was a mockery of justice. It seems to me that the U.S. just wanted to quickly get the trial over with and hang Saddam as soon as possible. Which begs the question: why? What was the rush? If Saddam was indeed the new Hitler, why didn't the trial take a deeper look at his past crimes?
Call me cynical, but I can't help but wonder if the U.S. just didn't want Saddam dead as quickly as possible before he started talking about his past lengthy, cozy ties to the U.S. Which brings me to another point:
3. Did the U.S. really ever have a leg to stand on in condemning Saddam? Of course, the vast majority of Americans will say yes. But I wonder. If Saddam did indeed murder millions, there is still the uncomfortable fact that the U.S. worked closely with Saddam for decades. If Saddam was indeed the New Hitler, what does that make America?
Most Americans are completely in the dark when it comes to knowledge about how America worked closely with Saddam.
In fact, the U.S. had a cozy relationship with Saddam that lasted for decades. How many Americans are aware that, in 1959, the CIA hired the then-22-year-old Saddam to carry out a plot to assassinate the Iraqi prime minister, General Abd al-Karim Qasim? (Saddam's assassination attempt failed when he fired too soon and he only wound up killing Qasim's driver).
Bush has long condemned Saddam for crimes such as gassing the Kurds in the town of Halabjah in 1988. But how many Americans know that the U.S. in fact sold materials to Saddam for creating biological and chemical weapons in the 1980s?
As Craig Unger reported in his 2004 book, House of Bush, House of Saud:
"Beginning in 1984, the Centers for Disease Control began providing Saddam's Iraq with biological materials--including viruses, retroviruses, bacteria, fungi, and even tissue that was infected with bubonic plague."
Unger noted that the latter exchange may have been initiated in the spirit of an "innocent" transfer of scientific information. But as he points out: "It is not difficult to argue against giving bubonic-plague-infected tissues to Saddam Hussein."
Unger quotes former Senate investigator James Tuite: "We were freely exchanging pathogenic materials with a country that we knew had an active biological warfare program."
But don't try to tell any of this to the fig-leaf wearers. The fact is, America has become an infantile culture. We're deeply ignorant about the rest of the world. And we tend to see the world in simplistic black-and-white/good-versus-evil terms (with, of course, the U.S. always being the "good guys").
All the fig-leaf wearers will permit themselves to hear is that Saddam was the next Hitler. End of story. The vast majority of Americans don't want to hear that maybe, just maybe, the story is a little more complex than that. Which leads me to my final point:
4. It's clear that America never really understood Iraq. We never bothered to learn a thing about the Iraqi people, their language and their culture. We were completely clueless and in the dark. Hell, most Americans had no clue that our own government had been working, hand-in-glove, with Saddam for decades.
Instead, on the eve of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Americans were blissfully ignorant and eagerly lapping up the Fox News/corporate media line: "Saddam is the new Hitler and America needs to get rid of him. If we do this, Iraqis will greet us with flowers and everyone will live happily ever after."
Five years later, it's clear that everything we were told about Saddam (and Iraq in general) back in those heady days in 2003 was a f*cking lie. And by deluding ourselves by building up this cartoonish image of Saddam-as-the-new-Hitler, we were completely in the dark about the oncoming freight train of disaster we were about to encounter.
The fact is, Saddam was no Hitler. He was a dime-a-dozen petty tyrant of a poor, Third World nation. He posed absolutely no threat to the U.S. (Indeed, if he did somehow pose a threat to America, then the real question wasn't whether to invade Iraq---it should have been this: what, exactly, had U.S. taxpayers been getting in return for the trillions of dollars that we've pumped into the Pentagon over the years? We've lavished more on military spending than the rest of the world combined---and yet we were not safe from Iraq, a poor Third World nation with no industry that was crippled by crushing sanctions?)
One thing I'd like the fig-leaf wearers to explain to me is this: how, exactly, was Saddam any more evil than the dozens of other petty dictators around the world (many of whom America has also supported over the years).
For that matter, how was Saddam more evil than, say, the leaders of Saudi Arabia? The latter, after all, run one of the world's most repressive dictatorships. They routinely torture and murder their opponents. (Oh, and Saudi Arabia is also the beating heart of Islamic radicalism worldwide). And yet, instead of invading that nation, Bush happily hobnobs with their leaders and even invites them out to the ranch for barbecue.
One final thing I'd like the fig-leaf wearers to explain to me is this: if Saddam was so evil, then why is it that there was never a single recorded instance of a suicide bomber in Iraq before 2003? And why did Saddam's convoys never face roadside bombs?
For that matter, why, exactly has the U.S. faced a ferocious insurgency now for the past five years? If Saddam was the next Hitler and he was so evil, then why weren't we greeted as liberators in the first place?
Yes, these are troubling questions. And they are questions that the fig-leaf wearers (and most Americans) will never bother to answer. Probably because if we answer these questions, it'll lead us to even more troubling questions that we as a nation would simply rather not think about. So in the time-honored American tradition of sanitizing our own history, we'll simply sweep these troubling questions under the rug and not give them any further thought.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Is Dick Cheney Set To Profit From Dollar's Drop?
By MARC MCDONALD
The plunging dollar has taken a beating lately on international markets. But at least one wealthy investor may be set to profit from the dollar's decline: Dick Cheney.
Back in June 2006, Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine reported that Cheney's financial advisers were apparently betting on a rise in inflation and on a decline in the value of the dollar against foreign currencies.
Cheney and his wife, Lynne, the magazine noted, had between $10 million and $25 million in American Century International Bond (BEGBX). As Kiplinger pointed out, the fund "buys mainly high-quality foreign bonds (predominantly in Europe) and rarely hedges against possible increases in the value of the dollar. Indeed, its prospectus limits dollar exposure to 25 percent of assets and the fund currently has only 6 percent of assets in dollars, according to an American Century spokesman."
Assuming Cheney still holds the fund, he has done well: BEGBX returned 8.3 percent in 2006 and 9.9 percent in 2007. And if he was counting on a dollar decline, of course, he's done well in that regard, as well: in recent days, the dollar has continued to plunge to new all-time lows against the euro. The dollar has also fallen to 12-year lows against the yen. The weak dollar trend looks set to continue as the Fed continues to slash interest rates.
Economists have noted that the weak dollar stems from America's titanic fiscal deficits, which have soared as a result of the disastrous Iraq War.
It's notable that Cheney once claimed that "deficits don't matter." But by banking on a declining dollar, it's clear that even Cheney knows this is bullsh*t and that deficits do indeed matter.
The plunging dollar has taken a beating lately on international markets. But at least one wealthy investor may be set to profit from the dollar's decline: Dick Cheney.
Back in June 2006, Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine reported that Cheney's financial advisers were apparently betting on a rise in inflation and on a decline in the value of the dollar against foreign currencies.
Cheney and his wife, Lynne, the magazine noted, had between $10 million and $25 million in American Century International Bond (BEGBX). As Kiplinger pointed out, the fund "buys mainly high-quality foreign bonds (predominantly in Europe) and rarely hedges against possible increases in the value of the dollar. Indeed, its prospectus limits dollar exposure to 25 percent of assets and the fund currently has only 6 percent of assets in dollars, according to an American Century spokesman."
Assuming Cheney still holds the fund, he has done well: BEGBX returned 8.3 percent in 2006 and 9.9 percent in 2007. And if he was counting on a dollar decline, of course, he's done well in that regard, as well: in recent days, the dollar has continued to plunge to new all-time lows against the euro. The dollar has also fallen to 12-year lows against the yen. The weak dollar trend looks set to continue as the Fed continues to slash interest rates.
Economists have noted that the weak dollar stems from America's titanic fiscal deficits, which have soared as a result of the disastrous Iraq War.
It's notable that Cheney once claimed that "deficits don't matter." But by banking on a declining dollar, it's clear that even Cheney knows this is bullsh*t and that deficits do indeed matter.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Stocks Plunge Again As U.S. Moves Closer To Economic Apocalypse
By MARC MCDONALD
A recent Wall Street Journal survey of economists proclaimed that the U.S. is now in a recession. The good news is that they're wrong. The bad news is that the U.S. economy is facing a meltdown far more serious than any recession.
But don't take my word for it. Consider the apocalyptic tone of this excerpt from the normally dry, bland prose of the Associated Press on Friday: "On the verge of a collapse that could have shaken the very foundations of the U.S. financial system, investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. was bailed out Friday by a rival and the federal government."
I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more apocalyptic language from the MSM in the coming weeks, as the U.S. economy starts to melt down.
And make no mistake, a catastrophic economic collapse is on the way. Such is the inevitable fate of any Ponzi scheme economy that has been running on nothing more than smoke and mirrors (and oceans of foreign capital) now for many years.
Of course, those who are poor or working class know first-hand that the U.S. economy has been in increasingly serious trouble since around 1980. Wages have been steadily declining for everyone but the very rich. And working class people now toil more hours for less pay than their counterparts in any other First World nation. (They have to, as a 40-hour workweek no longer is enough to put groceries on the table).
But as long as America had a tiny elite of prosperous super wealthy, we could always point to them and try to convince ourselves that our economy couldn't be all bad. After all, we would note, there are some people out there making a fortune. All it takes is hard work and ambition, right?
Today, with the stock market in the toilet, and the Fed having to step in to bail out the financial sector, it should be clear to anyone that the U.S. economy is in crisis.
If the U.S. economy actually produced anything of value, this would be nothing more than just another typical downturn in the economic cycle.
The problem is, the U.S. economy no longer produces anything of value. Our economic activity basically consists of importing trillions of dollars from central banks in East Asia---which we then use to prop up our Ponzi scheme economy. The ocean of foreign capital that flows into our nation daily is used to pay for the shopping habits of U.S. consumers.
In fact, in recent years, the Great American Consumer has been hailed by U.S. economists as the "locomotive" of the world economy. There was only one problem: U.S. consumers had zero savings and were depending on foreign capital to finance their shopping binges.
Now, with the stock market crisis and the ongoing housing mortgage crisis, nobody is in much of a mood to do any spending these days. And with the dollar rapidly declining, it's only a matter of time before the East Asian central banks start to unload their depreciating greenbacks (which will accelerate the dollar's fall even further in a vicious cycle).
The frightening thing is that East Asian central banks haven't even begun seriously dumping their dollars and yet the dollar is already plunging.
The key numbers which measure the current U.S. economic crisis are so far off the chart that it is difficult to even fathom them. As economics writer Eamonn Fingleton has noted, the U.S. current account deficit (the widest and most meaningful measure of our trade position) now represents an astounding 6.5 percent of our gross domestic product.
As Fingleton notes, only one other major nation has ever exceeded this figure: Italy in 1924. That was just before Benito Mussolini seized dictatorial power.
A recent Wall Street Journal survey of economists proclaimed that the U.S. is now in a recession. The good news is that they're wrong. The bad news is that the U.S. economy is facing a meltdown far more serious than any recession.
But don't take my word for it. Consider the apocalyptic tone of this excerpt from the normally dry, bland prose of the Associated Press on Friday: "On the verge of a collapse that could have shaken the very foundations of the U.S. financial system, investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. was bailed out Friday by a rival and the federal government."
I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more apocalyptic language from the MSM in the coming weeks, as the U.S. economy starts to melt down.
And make no mistake, a catastrophic economic collapse is on the way. Such is the inevitable fate of any Ponzi scheme economy that has been running on nothing more than smoke and mirrors (and oceans of foreign capital) now for many years.
Of course, those who are poor or working class know first-hand that the U.S. economy has been in increasingly serious trouble since around 1980. Wages have been steadily declining for everyone but the very rich. And working class people now toil more hours for less pay than their counterparts in any other First World nation. (They have to, as a 40-hour workweek no longer is enough to put groceries on the table).
But as long as America had a tiny elite of prosperous super wealthy, we could always point to them and try to convince ourselves that our economy couldn't be all bad. After all, we would note, there are some people out there making a fortune. All it takes is hard work and ambition, right?
Today, with the stock market in the toilet, and the Fed having to step in to bail out the financial sector, it should be clear to anyone that the U.S. economy is in crisis.
If the U.S. economy actually produced anything of value, this would be nothing more than just another typical downturn in the economic cycle.
The problem is, the U.S. economy no longer produces anything of value. Our economic activity basically consists of importing trillions of dollars from central banks in East Asia---which we then use to prop up our Ponzi scheme economy. The ocean of foreign capital that flows into our nation daily is used to pay for the shopping habits of U.S. consumers.
In fact, in recent years, the Great American Consumer has been hailed by U.S. economists as the "locomotive" of the world economy. There was only one problem: U.S. consumers had zero savings and were depending on foreign capital to finance their shopping binges.
Now, with the stock market crisis and the ongoing housing mortgage crisis, nobody is in much of a mood to do any spending these days. And with the dollar rapidly declining, it's only a matter of time before the East Asian central banks start to unload their depreciating greenbacks (which will accelerate the dollar's fall even further in a vicious cycle).
The frightening thing is that East Asian central banks haven't even begun seriously dumping their dollars and yet the dollar is already plunging.
The key numbers which measure the current U.S. economic crisis are so far off the chart that it is difficult to even fathom them. As economics writer Eamonn Fingleton has noted, the U.S. current account deficit (the widest and most meaningful measure of our trade position) now represents an astounding 6.5 percent of our gross domestic product.
As Fingleton notes, only one other major nation has ever exceeded this figure: Italy in 1924. That was just before Benito Mussolini seized dictatorial power.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Spitzer Case Reveals America's Twisted Priorities
By MARC MCDONALD
It's unclear exactly what transpired in the Eliot Spitzer call-girl scandal. Details are still sketchy at this point. But no matter how this pans out, a lot of us are annoyed with Spitzer for essentially gift-wrapping an issue for Fox News and HateWing radio to peddle for the next few months.
But let's be clear about what we're talking about here:
Sex between consenting adults.
You can call it whatever you want. Prostitution. Hookers. Call girls. Infidelity. Sleaze. A bone-headed mistake. Poor ethics and morals. Plain stupidity.
But at the end of the day, no matter what you call it, we're still talking about nothing more than sex between consenting adults.
And now, the media is howling for Spitzer to resign.
Yes, the same mainstream media that has routinely ignored, or underplayed, the sleaze and sexual perversion of dozens of GOP officials and politicians.
Yes, the same mainstream media that has never once called upon George W. Bush to resign.
Yes, the same mainstream media that has snoozed through one Bush criminal act after another over the past 7 years.
Bush has outrageously violated the Constitution. He has violated his oath of office. He lied America into a disastrous $3 trillion war of aggression that killed 1 million Iraqi men, women and children. He engaged in illegal wiretaps and embraced torture as official state policy. He made the United States the most feared and hated nation on the planet.
Meanwhile, the same media that is braying for Spitzer to resign, looked the other way while Bush virtually destroyed just about everything that once was good about America. Indeed, the MSM even collaborated with Bush and helped him sell his war to the American people.
Sex between consenting adults versus lying the nation into a war that slaughtered a million civilians.
Yes, America definitely has its priorities in order these days.
It's unclear exactly what transpired in the Eliot Spitzer call-girl scandal. Details are still sketchy at this point. But no matter how this pans out, a lot of us are annoyed with Spitzer for essentially gift-wrapping an issue for Fox News and HateWing radio to peddle for the next few months.
But let's be clear about what we're talking about here:
Sex between consenting adults.
You can call it whatever you want. Prostitution. Hookers. Call girls. Infidelity. Sleaze. A bone-headed mistake. Poor ethics and morals. Plain stupidity.
But at the end of the day, no matter what you call it, we're still talking about nothing more than sex between consenting adults.
And now, the media is howling for Spitzer to resign.
Yes, the same mainstream media that has routinely ignored, or underplayed, the sleaze and sexual perversion of dozens of GOP officials and politicians.
Yes, the same mainstream media that has never once called upon George W. Bush to resign.
Yes, the same mainstream media that has snoozed through one Bush criminal act after another over the past 7 years.
Bush has outrageously violated the Constitution. He has violated his oath of office. He lied America into a disastrous $3 trillion war of aggression that killed 1 million Iraqi men, women and children. He engaged in illegal wiretaps and embraced torture as official state policy. He made the United States the most feared and hated nation on the planet.
Meanwhile, the same media that is braying for Spitzer to resign, looked the other way while Bush virtually destroyed just about everything that once was good about America. Indeed, the MSM even collaborated with Bush and helped him sell his war to the American people.
Sex between consenting adults versus lying the nation into a war that slaughtered a million civilians.
Yes, America definitely has its priorities in order these days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
