Not only is Sarah Palin a fraud, she's the tawdriest, most half-assed fraud imaginable, 20 floors below the lowest common denominator, a character too dumb even for daytime TV -and this country is going to eat her up, cheering her every step of the way. All because most Americans no longer have the energy to do anything but lie back and allow ourselves to be jacked off by the calculating thieves who run this grasping consumer paradise we call a nation.
tirsdag den 30. september 2008
Citatcentralen - Rolling Stones journalist Matt Taibbi om USA og Palin.
søndag den 28. september 2008
USAs storhedstid er forbi
A shattering moment in America's fall from power
The global financial crisis will see the US falter in the same way the Soviet Union did when the Berlin Wall came down. The era of American dominance is over.
Our gaze might be on the markets melting down, but the upheaval we are experiencing is more than a financial crisis, however large. Here is a historic geopolitical shift, in which the balance of power in the world is being altered irrevocably. The era of American global leadership, reaching back to the Second World War, is over.
You can see it in the way America's dominion has slipped away in its own backyard, with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez taunting and ridiculing the superpower with impunity. Yet the setback of America's standing at the global level is even more striking. With the nationalisation of crucial parts of the financial system, the American free-market creed has self-destructed while countries that retained overall control of markets have been vindicated. In a change as far-reaching in its implications as the fall of the Soviet Union, an entire model of government and the economy has collapsed.
Ever since the end of the Cold War, successive American administrations have lectured other countries on the necessity of sound finance. Indonesia, Thailand, Argentina and several African states endured severe cuts in spending and deep recessions as the price of aid from the International Monetary Fund, which enforced the American orthodoxy. China in particular was hectored relentlessly on the weakness of its banking system. But China's success has been based on its consistent contempt for Western advice and it is not Chinese banks that are currently going bust. How symbolic yesterday that Chinese astronauts take a spacewalk while the US Treasury Secretary is on his knees.
Despite incessantly urging other countries to adopt its way of doing business, America has always had one economic policy for itself and another for the rest of the world. Throughout the years in which the US was punishing countries that departed from fiscal prudence, it was borrowing on a colossal scale to finance tax cuts and fund its over-stretched military commitments. Now, with federal finances critically dependent on continuing large inflows of foreign capital, it will be the countries that spurned the American model of capitalism that will shape America's economic future.
Which version of the bail out of American financial institutions cobbled up by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke is finally adopted is less important than what the bail out means for America's position in the world. The populist rant about greedy banks that is being loudly ventilated in Congress is a distraction from the true causes of the crisis. The dire condition of America's financial markets is the result of American banks operating in a free-for-all environment that these same American legislators created. It is America's political class that, by embracing the dangerously simplistic ideology of deregulation, has responsibility for the present mess.
In present circumstances, an unprecedented expansion of government is the only means of averting a market catastrophe. The consequence, however, will be that America will be even more starkly dependent on the world's new rising powers. The federal government is racking up even larger borrowings, which its creditors may rightly fear will never be repaid. It may well be tempted to inflate these debts away in a surge of inflation that would leave foreign investors with hefty losses. In these circumstances, will the governments of countries that buy large quantities of American bonds, China, the Gulf States and Russia, for example, be ready to continue supporting the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency? Or will these countries see this as an opportunity to tilt the balance of economic power further in their favour? Either way, the control of events is no longer in American hands.
The fate of empires is very often sealed by the interaction of war and debt. That was true of the British Empire, whose finances deteriorated from the First World War onwards, and of the Soviet Union. Defeat in Afghanistan and the economic burden of trying to respond to Reagan's technically flawed but politically extremely effective Star Wars programme were vital factors in triggering the Soviet collapse. Despite its insistent exceptionalism, America is no different. The Iraq War and the credit bubble have fatally undermined America's economic primacy. The US will continue to be the world's largest economy for a while longer, but it will be the new rising powers that, once the crisis is over, buy up what remains intact in the wreckage of America's financial system.
There has been a good deal of talk in recent weeks about imminent economic armageddon. In fact, this is far from being the end of capitalism. The frantic scrambling that is going on in Washington marks the passing of only one type of capitalism - the peculiar and highly unstable variety that has existed in America over the last 20 years. This experiment in financial laissez-faire has imploded.While the impact of the collapse will be felt everywhere, the market economies that resisted American-style deregulation will best weather the storm. Britain, which has turned itself into a gigantic hedge fund, but of a kind that lacks the ability to profit from a downturn, is likely to be especially badly hit.
The irony of the post-Cold War period is that the fall of communism was followed by the rise of another utopian ideology. In American and Britain, and to a lesser extent other Western countries, a type of market fundamentalism became the guiding philosophy. The collapse of American power that is underway is the predictable upshot. Like the Soviet collapse, it will have large geopolitical repercussions. An enfeebled economy cannot support America's over-extended military commitments for much longer. Retrenchment is inevitable and it is unlikely to be gradual or well planned.
Meltdowns on the scale we are seeing are not slow-motion events. They are swift and chaotic, with rapidly spreading side-effects. Consider Iraq. The success of the surge, which has been achieved by bribing the Sunnis, while acquiescing in ongoing ethnic cleansing, has produced a condition of relative peace in parts of the country. How long will this last, given that America's current level of expenditure on the war can no longer be sustained?
An American retreat from Iraq will leave Iran the regional victor. How will Saudi Arabia respond? Will military action to forestall Iran acquiring nuclear weapons be less or more likely? China's rulers have so far been silent during the unfolding crisis. Will America's weakness embolden them to assert China's power or will China continue its cautious policy of 'peaceful rise'? At present, none of these questions can be answered with any confidence. What is evident is that power is leaking from the US at an accelerating rate. Georgia showed Russia redrawing the geopolitical map, with America an impotent spectator.
Outside the US, most people have long accepted that the development of new economies that goes with globalisation will undermine America's central position in the world. They imagined that this would be a change in America's comparative standing, taking place incrementally over several decades or generations. Today, that looks an increasingly unrealistic assumption.
Having created the conditions that produced history's biggest bubble, America's political leaders appear unable to grasp the magnitude of the dangers the country now faces. Mired in their rancorous culture wars and squabbling among themselves, they seem oblivious to the fact that American global leadership is fast ebbing away. A new world is coming into being almost unnoticed, where America is only one of several great powers, facing an uncertain future it can no longer shape.
The global financial crisis will see the US falter in the same way the Soviet Union did when the Berlin Wall came down. The era of American dominance is over.
Our gaze might be on the markets melting down, but the upheaval we are experiencing is more than a financial crisis, however large. Here is a historic geopolitical shift, in which the balance of power in the world is being altered irrevocably. The era of American global leadership, reaching back to the Second World War, is over.
You can see it in the way America's dominion has slipped away in its own backyard, with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez taunting and ridiculing the superpower with impunity. Yet the setback of America's standing at the global level is even more striking. With the nationalisation of crucial parts of the financial system, the American free-market creed has self-destructed while countries that retained overall control of markets have been vindicated. In a change as far-reaching in its implications as the fall of the Soviet Union, an entire model of government and the economy has collapsed.
Ever since the end of the Cold War, successive American administrations have lectured other countries on the necessity of sound finance. Indonesia, Thailand, Argentina and several African states endured severe cuts in spending and deep recessions as the price of aid from the International Monetary Fund, which enforced the American orthodoxy. China in particular was hectored relentlessly on the weakness of its banking system. But China's success has been based on its consistent contempt for Western advice and it is not Chinese banks that are currently going bust. How symbolic yesterday that Chinese astronauts take a spacewalk while the US Treasury Secretary is on his knees.
Despite incessantly urging other countries to adopt its way of doing business, America has always had one economic policy for itself and another for the rest of the world. Throughout the years in which the US was punishing countries that departed from fiscal prudence, it was borrowing on a colossal scale to finance tax cuts and fund its over-stretched military commitments. Now, with federal finances critically dependent on continuing large inflows of foreign capital, it will be the countries that spurned the American model of capitalism that will shape America's economic future.
Which version of the bail out of American financial institutions cobbled up by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke is finally adopted is less important than what the bail out means for America's position in the world. The populist rant about greedy banks that is being loudly ventilated in Congress is a distraction from the true causes of the crisis. The dire condition of America's financial markets is the result of American banks operating in a free-for-all environment that these same American legislators created. It is America's political class that, by embracing the dangerously simplistic ideology of deregulation, has responsibility for the present mess.
In present circumstances, an unprecedented expansion of government is the only means of averting a market catastrophe. The consequence, however, will be that America will be even more starkly dependent on the world's new rising powers. The federal government is racking up even larger borrowings, which its creditors may rightly fear will never be repaid. It may well be tempted to inflate these debts away in a surge of inflation that would leave foreign investors with hefty losses. In these circumstances, will the governments of countries that buy large quantities of American bonds, China, the Gulf States and Russia, for example, be ready to continue supporting the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency? Or will these countries see this as an opportunity to tilt the balance of economic power further in their favour? Either way, the control of events is no longer in American hands.
The fate of empires is very often sealed by the interaction of war and debt. That was true of the British Empire, whose finances deteriorated from the First World War onwards, and of the Soviet Union. Defeat in Afghanistan and the economic burden of trying to respond to Reagan's technically flawed but politically extremely effective Star Wars programme were vital factors in triggering the Soviet collapse. Despite its insistent exceptionalism, America is no different. The Iraq War and the credit bubble have fatally undermined America's economic primacy. The US will continue to be the world's largest economy for a while longer, but it will be the new rising powers that, once the crisis is over, buy up what remains intact in the wreckage of America's financial system.
There has been a good deal of talk in recent weeks about imminent economic armageddon. In fact, this is far from being the end of capitalism. The frantic scrambling that is going on in Washington marks the passing of only one type of capitalism - the peculiar and highly unstable variety that has existed in America over the last 20 years. This experiment in financial laissez-faire has imploded.While the impact of the collapse will be felt everywhere, the market economies that resisted American-style deregulation will best weather the storm. Britain, which has turned itself into a gigantic hedge fund, but of a kind that lacks the ability to profit from a downturn, is likely to be especially badly hit.
The irony of the post-Cold War period is that the fall of communism was followed by the rise of another utopian ideology. In American and Britain, and to a lesser extent other Western countries, a type of market fundamentalism became the guiding philosophy. The collapse of American power that is underway is the predictable upshot. Like the Soviet collapse, it will have large geopolitical repercussions. An enfeebled economy cannot support America's over-extended military commitments for much longer. Retrenchment is inevitable and it is unlikely to be gradual or well planned.
Meltdowns on the scale we are seeing are not slow-motion events. They are swift and chaotic, with rapidly spreading side-effects. Consider Iraq. The success of the surge, which has been achieved by bribing the Sunnis, while acquiescing in ongoing ethnic cleansing, has produced a condition of relative peace in parts of the country. How long will this last, given that America's current level of expenditure on the war can no longer be sustained?
An American retreat from Iraq will leave Iran the regional victor. How will Saudi Arabia respond? Will military action to forestall Iran acquiring nuclear weapons be less or more likely? China's rulers have so far been silent during the unfolding crisis. Will America's weakness embolden them to assert China's power or will China continue its cautious policy of 'peaceful rise'? At present, none of these questions can be answered with any confidence. What is evident is that power is leaking from the US at an accelerating rate. Georgia showed Russia redrawing the geopolitical map, with America an impotent spectator.
Outside the US, most people have long accepted that the development of new economies that goes with globalisation will undermine America's central position in the world. They imagined that this would be a change in America's comparative standing, taking place incrementally over several decades or generations. Today, that looks an increasingly unrealistic assumption.
Having created the conditions that produced history's biggest bubble, America's political leaders appear unable to grasp the magnitude of the dangers the country now faces. Mired in their rancorous culture wars and squabbling among themselves, they seem oblivious to the fact that American global leadership is fast ebbing away. A new world is coming into being almost unnoticed, where America is only one of several great powers, facing an uncertain future it can no longer shape.
lørdag den 27. september 2008
Ralph Nader - Kandidaten der ties ihjel af medierne
Nu er medierne jo en ganske potent magtfaktor i ethvert valg da de simpelthen vælger hvem der får taletid, samt hvordan kandidaterne fremstilles bla. via de spørgsmål man fra journalisternes side stiller kandidaterne. I USA findes der, som de fleste nok allerede er bekendt med, en tredje kandidat ved navn Ralph Nader, men udfra den televiserede mediedækning at dømme skulle man ikke tro det var tilfældet, hvilket har fået Nader til at kalde USA for et to-partis diktatur. Her er hvad manden og hans running mate mener bør gøres.
Wall Street Bailout.
Rusland/Georgien Konflikten.
Nader første hundrede dage i Det Hvide Hus.
Wall Street Bailout.
Rusland/Georgien Konflikten.
Nader første hundrede dage i Det Hvide Hus.
Lykkebergs Kritik af Narcissistkulturen
Informations yngste intellektuelle samfundsrevser, den som regel veloplagte, skarpe og interessante Rune Lykkeberg har i dagens Information en ganske rammende kritik af det overfladiske samfunds / narcissistkulturen.
Overskud og underskud.
Overskud og underskud.
torsdag den 25. september 2008
Forbes udgiver liste over 400 rigeste amerikanere.
By Tom Eley 24/09/08 "WSWS"
Even as the US careens into its greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression, the financial aristocracy whose parasitism and criminality has brought on the crisis has held its own—and then some.
The recently released Forbes 400 list of the richest Americans shows that the combined wealth of the aristocracy has increased 2 percent, even amidst the financial breakdown and recession of the economy. “In this, the 27th edition of the list,” Forbes glumly notes, “the assembled net worth of America’s wealthiest rose by $30 billion—only 2%—to $1.57 trillion.”
Readers will be forgiven for tripping over the word “only” in relationship to a $30 billion increase in wealth for 400 spectacularly wealthy individuals. This “modest” figure—the increase in wealth for the oligarchy in a bad year—is only slightly less than the federal government has budgeted for unemployment insurance for all of 2008.
The overall wealth of the 400 richest Americans is staggering. There are no multimillionaires on the list; a minimum of $1.3 billion being required to gain admittance, while the average net worth is $3.9 billion.
The combined wealth of the richest 400 individuals is $400 billion more than the entire discretionary spending budget for the federal government. It is more than $300 billion larger than the combined 2008 outlay for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It is more than 15 times the combined appropriations for education and highways and mass transit.
The personal wealth of the top 400 Americans is more than twice the combined annual GDP of all of sub-Saharan Africa, home to nearly 800 million people, the vast majority of whom live in dire conditions. It is also several hundred billion dollars larger than the GDP of the world’s eighth biggest economy, that of Spain.
The club’s richest member is Microsoft magnate Bill Gates, whose net worth, $57 billion, is greater than the annual GDP of about 120 of the world’s 180 nations.
The year’s biggest winner is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose personal wealth increased by $8.5 billion to $20 billion, making Bloomberg the nation’s eighth richest individual.
On Tuesday, without a hint of irony—much less shame—Mayor Bloomberg proposed brutal across-the-board budget cuts for the city of New York. He is calling for cutbacks totaling $500 million for the current fiscal year, to be followed by much steeper cuts in the coming years. Meanwhile Bloomberg, in the course of just one year, pocketed 17 times what he is now demanding that millions of working people in New York City forfeit in terms of vital services and jobs. Only in America!
However, owing to the turbulence of the stock market, great fortunes were being both made and squandered even as Forbes published its list. “The Forbes 400 is a snapshot of estimated wealth on Aug. 29, 2008, the day we locked in prices of publicly traded stocks,” the magazine wrote. “Given how unsettled the stock market is, some of those on our list will become significantly richer or poorer within weeks—even days—of publication. Many, including AIG shareholders Eli Broad and Steven Udvar-Hazy, have lost hundreds of millions of dollars.”
Becoming poorer is of course a relative process; we can be certain that none of the demoted oligarchs faces hunger.
Among this year’s biggest “losers”—and there is a degree of poetic justice in this—are casino moguls. Kirk Kerkorian has managed to squander $6.8 billion of ill-gotten social wealth, while the fortune of his rival Sheldon Adelson “has fallen $13 billion in the past 12 months—$1.5 million per hour.” Adelson has managed to lose more in an hour than most US workers will earn in a lifetime.
That the nation’s financial aristocracy continues to gorge itself even as the economy stagnates demonstrates the increasing parasitism of the elite. The wealth of the super-rich is no longer bound up with the growth of the real economy, as it was in the days of Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford. Just the opposite is the case. The wealth of the aristocracy is based on the plundering and destruction of the real economy.
A perusal of the basis of the Forbes 400 members’ wealth illustrates the parasitic nature of US capitalism. The largest two categories on the list are “finance” with 65 members and “investments” with 51. Among the “sources” Forbes lists for these categories are “leveraged buyouts,” “investments,” “hedge funds,” “money management,” and “banking, insurance.”
The next largest category is “media/entertainment,” with 36 representatives among the Fortune 400, followed by the 35 members in the highly toxic “real estate” category. There are 30 members of the Fortune 400 who have reaped their fortunes from “technology,” almost all from Internet ventures or computer technology. Twenty-eight more are found in the “oil/gas” category.
Among the Fortune 400 there are 20 in the “retail” group, among them seven members of the Walton clan, owners of Wal-Mart, who collectively have assets of over $100 billion.
It has to be asked: Are there any members of the Forbes 400 actually associated with producing commodities or creating wealth of some sort?
There are only 19 members of the 400 in the category called “manufacturing.” However, upon inspection we see that this group is comprised of corporate raiders, oil refiners, inheritors, and controllers of holding companies. Only five members of this classification are actually associated with producing a commodity—and four of these produce light consumer goods.
Likewise, there are only 11 members of the financial aristocracy whose wealth has been associated with commodity production in the agricultural sector. But among these, nine are inheritors of the Cargill fortune. Of the other two, one has gained his fortune selling discount cigarettes; another by producing pesticides in Argentina.
There are nine members of the group in the “apparel” category, which is split between those whose wealth has come from retail sales, such as the owners of the Gap clothing stores, and those who have made windfalls by producing consumer goods in low-cost countries and selling the products for inflated prices in the US, such as Phil Knight of Nike.
There is only one member of the “construction/engineering” category, the 321st richest American, Alfred Clark, who has made his fortune by building sports stadiums. The “food” category, of which there are 21 members, is divided among retailers, inheritors, and the owners of single product lines, including the owner of the Slim-Fast empire. There are only three members of the “shipping/trucking/transport” category, and one member of “mining/lumber” (whose wealth came from overseas ventures).
In short, the incredible fortunes accumulated by the American elite have precious little to do with socially useful production. On the contrary, the financial aristocracy has reaped its obscene piles of wealth from the gutting of infrastructure, the shuttering of industrial production, and the impoverishment of working people, the broad mass of the population.
Even as the US careens into its greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression, the financial aristocracy whose parasitism and criminality has brought on the crisis has held its own—and then some.
The recently released Forbes 400 list of the richest Americans shows that the combined wealth of the aristocracy has increased 2 percent, even amidst the financial breakdown and recession of the economy. “In this, the 27th edition of the list,” Forbes glumly notes, “the assembled net worth of America’s wealthiest rose by $30 billion—only 2%—to $1.57 trillion.”
Readers will be forgiven for tripping over the word “only” in relationship to a $30 billion increase in wealth for 400 spectacularly wealthy individuals. This “modest” figure—the increase in wealth for the oligarchy in a bad year—is only slightly less than the federal government has budgeted for unemployment insurance for all of 2008.
The overall wealth of the 400 richest Americans is staggering. There are no multimillionaires on the list; a minimum of $1.3 billion being required to gain admittance, while the average net worth is $3.9 billion.
The combined wealth of the richest 400 individuals is $400 billion more than the entire discretionary spending budget for the federal government. It is more than $300 billion larger than the combined 2008 outlay for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It is more than 15 times the combined appropriations for education and highways and mass transit.
The personal wealth of the top 400 Americans is more than twice the combined annual GDP of all of sub-Saharan Africa, home to nearly 800 million people, the vast majority of whom live in dire conditions. It is also several hundred billion dollars larger than the GDP of the world’s eighth biggest economy, that of Spain.
The club’s richest member is Microsoft magnate Bill Gates, whose net worth, $57 billion, is greater than the annual GDP of about 120 of the world’s 180 nations.
The year’s biggest winner is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose personal wealth increased by $8.5 billion to $20 billion, making Bloomberg the nation’s eighth richest individual.
On Tuesday, without a hint of irony—much less shame—Mayor Bloomberg proposed brutal across-the-board budget cuts for the city of New York. He is calling for cutbacks totaling $500 million for the current fiscal year, to be followed by much steeper cuts in the coming years. Meanwhile Bloomberg, in the course of just one year, pocketed 17 times what he is now demanding that millions of working people in New York City forfeit in terms of vital services and jobs. Only in America!
However, owing to the turbulence of the stock market, great fortunes were being both made and squandered even as Forbes published its list. “The Forbes 400 is a snapshot of estimated wealth on Aug. 29, 2008, the day we locked in prices of publicly traded stocks,” the magazine wrote. “Given how unsettled the stock market is, some of those on our list will become significantly richer or poorer within weeks—even days—of publication. Many, including AIG shareholders Eli Broad and Steven Udvar-Hazy, have lost hundreds of millions of dollars.”
Becoming poorer is of course a relative process; we can be certain that none of the demoted oligarchs faces hunger.
Among this year’s biggest “losers”—and there is a degree of poetic justice in this—are casino moguls. Kirk Kerkorian has managed to squander $6.8 billion of ill-gotten social wealth, while the fortune of his rival Sheldon Adelson “has fallen $13 billion in the past 12 months—$1.5 million per hour.” Adelson has managed to lose more in an hour than most US workers will earn in a lifetime.
That the nation’s financial aristocracy continues to gorge itself even as the economy stagnates demonstrates the increasing parasitism of the elite. The wealth of the super-rich is no longer bound up with the growth of the real economy, as it was in the days of Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford. Just the opposite is the case. The wealth of the aristocracy is based on the plundering and destruction of the real economy.
A perusal of the basis of the Forbes 400 members’ wealth illustrates the parasitic nature of US capitalism. The largest two categories on the list are “finance” with 65 members and “investments” with 51. Among the “sources” Forbes lists for these categories are “leveraged buyouts,” “investments,” “hedge funds,” “money management,” and “banking, insurance.”
The next largest category is “media/entertainment,” with 36 representatives among the Fortune 400, followed by the 35 members in the highly toxic “real estate” category. There are 30 members of the Fortune 400 who have reaped their fortunes from “technology,” almost all from Internet ventures or computer technology. Twenty-eight more are found in the “oil/gas” category.
Among the Fortune 400 there are 20 in the “retail” group, among them seven members of the Walton clan, owners of Wal-Mart, who collectively have assets of over $100 billion.
It has to be asked: Are there any members of the Forbes 400 actually associated with producing commodities or creating wealth of some sort?
There are only 19 members of the 400 in the category called “manufacturing.” However, upon inspection we see that this group is comprised of corporate raiders, oil refiners, inheritors, and controllers of holding companies. Only five members of this classification are actually associated with producing a commodity—and four of these produce light consumer goods.
Likewise, there are only 11 members of the financial aristocracy whose wealth has been associated with commodity production in the agricultural sector. But among these, nine are inheritors of the Cargill fortune. Of the other two, one has gained his fortune selling discount cigarettes; another by producing pesticides in Argentina.
There are nine members of the group in the “apparel” category, which is split between those whose wealth has come from retail sales, such as the owners of the Gap clothing stores, and those who have made windfalls by producing consumer goods in low-cost countries and selling the products for inflated prices in the US, such as Phil Knight of Nike.
There is only one member of the “construction/engineering” category, the 321st richest American, Alfred Clark, who has made his fortune by building sports stadiums. The “food” category, of which there are 21 members, is divided among retailers, inheritors, and the owners of single product lines, including the owner of the Slim-Fast empire. There are only three members of the “shipping/trucking/transport” category, and one member of “mining/lumber” (whose wealth came from overseas ventures).
In short, the incredible fortunes accumulated by the American elite have precious little to do with socially useful production. On the contrary, the financial aristocracy has reaped its obscene piles of wealth from the gutting of infrastructure, the shuttering of industrial production, and the impoverishment of working people, the broad mass of the population.
onsdag den 24. september 2008
To videoer om gæld i den tredje verden.
Martin Khor: Debt in the Developing World—Part One, GlobalIssues.org, Posted: Sunday, July 08, 2007
Martin Khor: Debt in the Developing World—Part Two, GlobalIssues.org, Posted: Sunday, July 08, 2007
tirsdag den 23. september 2008
Markedsspillet - En Gravalvorlig Pengeleg
The world's most powerful instrument of governance is not a government. Nor is it a global corporation. Rather it is a global financial system that is running dangerously out of control.
Each day half a million to a million people--primarily Western Europeans, North Americans, and Japanese--arise as dawn reaches their part of the world, turn on their computers, and leave the real world of people, things, and nature to immerse themselves in playing the world's most lucrative computer game: the money game. As their computers come on line, they enter a world of cyberspace constructed of numbers that represent money and complex rules by which those numbers can be converted into a seemingly infinite variety of financial instruments, each with its own distinctive risks and reproductive qualities. Through their interactions, the players engage in competitive transactions aimed at acquiring for their own accounts the money that other players hold.
Players can also pyramid the amount of money in play by borrowing from one another and bidding up prices. Indeed, the money game players have been so successful in creating play money that for every $1 now circulating in the productive world economy of real goods and services, it is estimated that there is $20 to $50 circulating in the world of pure finance--"investment" funds completely delinked from the creation of real value. In the international currency markets alone, some $800 billion to $1 trillion changes hands each day--unrelated to productive investment or trade in actual goods and services.
Not only is the money game challenging and fun, the play money it generates can be exchanged for real money to buy things from people who work in the real world--lots of things. Unfortunately for the rest of us, though it is played like a game and the transactions involve nothing more than moving numbers from one electronic account to another through a global web of computers, the money game has enormous real consequences.
Ovenstående er sakset fra økonomen David Korten's bog "When Corporations Rule The World".
A note of appreciation from the rich
Let's be honest: you'll never win the lottery.
On the other hand, the chances are pretty good that you'll slave away at some miserable job the rest of your life. That's because you were in all likelihood born into the wrong social class. Let's face it -- you're a member of the working caste. Sorry!
As a result, you don't have the education, upbringing, connections, manners, appearance, and good taste to ever become one of us. In fact, you'd probably need a book the size of the yellow pages to list all the unfair advantages we have over you. That's why we're so relieved to know that you still continue to believe all those silly fairy tales about "justice" and "equal opportunity" in America.
Of course, in a hierarchical social system like ours, there's never been much room at the top to begin with. Besides, it's already occupied by us -- and we like it up here so much that we intend to keep it that way. But at least there's usually someone lower in the social hierarchy you can feel superior to and kick in the teeth once in a while. Even a lowly dishwasher can easily find some poor slob further down in the pecking order to sneer and spit at. So be thankful for migrant workers, prostitutes, and homeless street people.
Always remember that if everyone like you were economically secure and socially privileged like us, there would be no one left to fill all those boring, dangerous, low-paid jobs in our economy. And no one to fight our wars for us, or blindly follow orders in our totalitarian corporate institutions. And certainly no one to meekly go to their grave without having lived a full and creative life. So please, keep up the good work!
You also probably don't have the same greedy, compulsive drive to possess wealth, power, and prestige that we have. And even though you may sincerely want to change the way you live, you're also afraid of the very change you desire, thus keeping you and others like you in a nervous state of limbo. So you go through life mechanically playing your assigned social role, terrified what others would think should you ever dare to "break out of the mold."
Naturally, we try to play you off against each other whenever it suits our purposes: high-waged workers against low-waged, unionized against non-unionized, Black against White, male against female, American workers against Japanese against Mexican against.... We continually push your wages down by invoking "foreign competition," "the law of supply and demand," "national security," or "the bloated federal deficit." We throw you on the unemployed scrap heap if you step out of line or jeopardize our profits. And to give you an occasional break from the monotony of our daily economic blackmail, we allow you to participate in our stage-managed electoral shell games, better known to you ordinary folks as "elections." Happily, you haven't a clue as to what's really happening -- instead, you blame "Aliens," "Tree-hugging Environmentalists," "Niggers," "Jews," Welfare Queens," and countless others for your troubled situation.
We're also very pleased that many of you still embrace the "work ethic," even though most jobs in our economy degrade the environment, undermine your physical and emotional health, and basically suck your one and only life right out of you. We obviously don't know much about work, but we're sure glad you do!
Of course, life could be different. Society could be intelligently organized to meet the real needs of the general population. You and others like you could collectively fight to free yourselves from our domination. But you don't know that. In fact, you can't even imagine that another way of life is possible. And that's probably the greatest, most significant achievement of our system -- robbing you of your imagination, your creativity, your ability to think and act for yourself.
So we'd truly like to thank you from the bottom of our heartless hearts. Your loyal sacrifice makes possible our corrupt luxury; your work makes our system work. Thanks so much for "knowing your place" -- without even knowing it!
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20833.htm
On the other hand, the chances are pretty good that you'll slave away at some miserable job the rest of your life. That's because you were in all likelihood born into the wrong social class. Let's face it -- you're a member of the working caste. Sorry!
As a result, you don't have the education, upbringing, connections, manners, appearance, and good taste to ever become one of us. In fact, you'd probably need a book the size of the yellow pages to list all the unfair advantages we have over you. That's why we're so relieved to know that you still continue to believe all those silly fairy tales about "justice" and "equal opportunity" in America.
Of course, in a hierarchical social system like ours, there's never been much room at the top to begin with. Besides, it's already occupied by us -- and we like it up here so much that we intend to keep it that way. But at least there's usually someone lower in the social hierarchy you can feel superior to and kick in the teeth once in a while. Even a lowly dishwasher can easily find some poor slob further down in the pecking order to sneer and spit at. So be thankful for migrant workers, prostitutes, and homeless street people.
Always remember that if everyone like you were economically secure and socially privileged like us, there would be no one left to fill all those boring, dangerous, low-paid jobs in our economy. And no one to fight our wars for us, or blindly follow orders in our totalitarian corporate institutions. And certainly no one to meekly go to their grave without having lived a full and creative life. So please, keep up the good work!
You also probably don't have the same greedy, compulsive drive to possess wealth, power, and prestige that we have. And even though you may sincerely want to change the way you live, you're also afraid of the very change you desire, thus keeping you and others like you in a nervous state of limbo. So you go through life mechanically playing your assigned social role, terrified what others would think should you ever dare to "break out of the mold."
Naturally, we try to play you off against each other whenever it suits our purposes: high-waged workers against low-waged, unionized against non-unionized, Black against White, male against female, American workers against Japanese against Mexican against.... We continually push your wages down by invoking "foreign competition," "the law of supply and demand," "national security," or "the bloated federal deficit." We throw you on the unemployed scrap heap if you step out of line or jeopardize our profits. And to give you an occasional break from the monotony of our daily economic blackmail, we allow you to participate in our stage-managed electoral shell games, better known to you ordinary folks as "elections." Happily, you haven't a clue as to what's really happening -- instead, you blame "Aliens," "Tree-hugging Environmentalists," "Niggers," "Jews," Welfare Queens," and countless others for your troubled situation.
We're also very pleased that many of you still embrace the "work ethic," even though most jobs in our economy degrade the environment, undermine your physical and emotional health, and basically suck your one and only life right out of you. We obviously don't know much about work, but we're sure glad you do!
Of course, life could be different. Society could be intelligently organized to meet the real needs of the general population. You and others like you could collectively fight to free yourselves from our domination. But you don't know that. In fact, you can't even imagine that another way of life is possible. And that's probably the greatest, most significant achievement of our system -- robbing you of your imagination, your creativity, your ability to think and act for yourself.
So we'd truly like to thank you from the bottom of our heartless hearts. Your loyal sacrifice makes possible our corrupt luxury; your work makes our system work. Thanks so much for "knowing your place" -- without even knowing it!
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20833.htm
mandag den 22. september 2008
søndag den 21. september 2008
lørdag den 20. september 2008
Et nyt paradigme tak,
Ideen om at mennesket har undergået et historisk fald fra et tidligere og mere ophøjet kulturstade, må siges at være et besynderligt standpunkt, for hvorfor skulle det evolutionære princip, som ledte fra big bang til skabelsen af planeter, encellet liv, flercellet liv, pattedyr og ultimativt til tænkende pattedyr, pludselig stoppe, eller sågar udskiftes af et devolutionært princip, i det øjeblik mennesket træder ind på scenen? Dette er for mig at se et standpunkt der er vanskeligt at forsvare.
Vores kulturelle udvikling er i dag både moralsk og teknoøkonomisk overlegen set ift. til tidligere tiders, men det betyder selvfølgelig ikke, at alle nutidige mennesker er alle fortidige mennesker overlegne moralsk set, for næppe mange er Jesus eller Nagarjuna moralsk overlegne, mens det imidlertid betyder, at stort set alle voksne mennesker i vores nutidige samfund, har adgang til teknologier som er vores forfædres overlegne. For at eksemplificere hvad der menes, kunne man tage en hvilken som helst krise, hvor vores vestlige kulturs teknologiske udvikling parret med nogles moralske udvikling, udmønter sig i, at mennesker fra alle socioøkonomiske lag i Danmark kan tage til eksempelvis Darfur for at hjælpe nødstedte, hvilket ville være utænkeligt og umuligt for langt størstedelen af vores forfædre, der simpelthen ikke ville have midlerne eller indsigten i sådanne forhold på den anden side af planeten, til at træffe sådanne valg. Dette kan kun lade sig gøre fordi vi i dag ser en række individer i den vestlige verden, som både moralsk opfatter alle mennesker som individer der har krav på en ordentlig tilværelse, altså en decideret verdenscentrisk moral, parret med det forhold, at vi har gennemgået en teknologisk udvikling der gør en sådan transnational godgørenhed mulig. At dømme ud fra hvordan andre folkeslag i meget af verdenslitteraturen betegnes som enten oprigtige fjender, eller indehavere af potentielt brugbare resourcer som kan underlægges det stærke eller udvalgte folkeslag, gør endvidere at man nok også gør klogest i, at betvivle om tidligere tiders dominante etnocentriske eller kulturcentriske moralkodekser, udgør højere og finere menneskelige livsytringer, som på alle punkter er enhver form for nutidig moral overlegen, som det undertiden høres hævdet af romantikere, der postulerer den såkaldte menneskelige afvikling.
Den verdenscentriske moral, som omhandler universelle menneskerettigheder og global social retfærdighed, og som blandt andet findes udtrykt i neologismen globalidaritet, udtrykker en anskuet nødvendighed for global solidaritet og omfordeling. Hvor menneskerettighederne finder sit udgangspunkt i oplysningstiden, udfoldedes tanker om global social retfærdighed først for alvor indenfor de seneste hundrede år, men dette betyder selvfølgelig ingenlunde, at vi ikke også finder den egocentriske moral og den etnocentriske eller grupperorienterede moral på vore geografiske og kulturelle breddegrader, idet disse moralske udviklingstrin selvfølgelig også findes i vores kultur. Den etnocentriske moral synes endda at være den mest fremherskende i befolkningen i dag, hvilket både ses i argumentation vedrørende velfærdsstatens bevaring gennem begrænsning af indvandring, samt i den kulturelle og nationale selvforherligelse, der ligger og gemmer sig som den uudtalte hjemmel, i nationalkonservatives had- og frygtorienterede demagogiske praksis. Men hvad betyder det så? Det betuyder, at vi befinder os på et unikt historisk stade, hvor uhørt mange ift. til tidligere tider i dag besidder en moral som går på tværs af nationale og kulturelle skel og som følgelig omfatter hele menneskeheden, eller i den mere ekstreme form, alle dyrs ret til liv, eller biosfæren betragtet som noget helligt.
Derfor bør man altså ikke drage den konklusion, at der med ovenstående er tale om en ukritisk selvforherligelse af vores nuværende kulturelle stade, for det lader til at forholde sig således, at der med enhver evoltionær komplicering også indtræder nye og mere komplekse patologier, hvilket populært sagt betyder, at hunde får kræft, mens atomer ikke gør det. Dette er ligeledes tilfældet for vores moderne højteknologisk baserede samfund, som i sig bærer kimen til alt fra teknologisk effektiviserede muligheder for etniske udresninger, til den totale udryddelse af jordisk liv som vi kender det, forårsaget af det nutidige omfang af masseødelæggelsesvåben, som rummer denne kapacitet i sig. Problemet er altså her, at den generelle moralske udvikling ikke har fulgt med den teknologiske. Vi så selvfølgelig dette udmønte sig så rædselsvækkende i det tyvende århundrede, hvor Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao og en lang række amerikanske præsidenter, med en enten egocentrisk eller etnocentrisk/kulturcentrisk verdensanskuelse, forårsagede et ubegribeligt omfang af død og lidelse, ligesom vi i nutiden ser denne form for moral manifesteret i den jødiske undertrykkelse af det palæstinensiske folk.
Her stopper patologien imidlertid ikke, for den nuværende systemkrise er et udtryk for hvorledes vores rationelt og materialistisk dominerede kultur, har udviklet sig til dels at skabe en, i forhold til tidligere tiders mennesker, uhørt grad af materiel velstand, men samtidig også har forårsaget at mennesket er blevet fremmedgjort ift. det som måske er det allermest fundamentalt menneskelig, vores åndelighed. Dette har i høj grad at gøre med den kulturelle udvikling som fandt sit fodfæste i oplysningstiden, og som derfra, frem til nutiden, har udviklet sig. Rationalismen og dennes tætte beslægtning med materialismen, har forvoldt et verdensbillede som både er paradoksalt og patologisk. Det paradoksale består i, at rationalismen og dennes postulerede afstandstagen til metafysikken, som det blandt andet findes udtrykt i den gamle marxistiske vending, at “religion er opium for folket”, har ophøjet rationalismen til en status af ophøjethed og ubetvivlelighed, som nærmest må betragtes som grænsende til det religiøse, mens man i den mere højreorienterede del af spekktret, ser opbakning til den statssanktionerede folkekirkes døde religion, hvor de religiøse erfaringer er fortidige og afsluttede, hvorfor folkekirkekristendommen, egentlig mestendels er at betragte som levende religiøsitet, degenereret til dogmatik og forkyndende etik. Etik som der kan argumenteres for rent rationelt. Rationalismen har altså ophøjet sig selv til nærmest religiøs status, og er derfor at betragte som religionens arvtager, høres det undertiden hævdet.
Det patologiske består i, at rationalismen, specielt hvor denne kobles med hardcore materialisme, har reduceret mennesket til en krop med en kapacitet for rationel mental virksomhed, mens den biosfære som er menneskedyrets livsgrundlag, er reduceret til en blot og bar ressource. Konsekvenserne af denne reduktionisme er inden for de seneste årtier blevet rædselsvækkende tydelige, og vi befinder os derfor i dag i en unik historisk situation, hvor det idag er bedrøvende sandsynligt, at store dele af menneskeheden og klodens mangfoldighed af dyreliv, er udryddelsestruede, primært grundet menneskabte omstændigheder. Dette er den mest begrænsende form for dogme. Desværre for os selv er det også langt den mest udbredte, hvorfor den også kun sjældent høres betegnet med ord som indoktrinering og lignende, selvom den netop er den allermest grundlæggende form for indoktrinering, idet vi sjældent er bevidste om vores gensidige indoktrinering af hinanden, og fordi den begrænser os til at se verden som empirisk realitet og derfor fuldstændig afskærer os fra at se verdens transcendentale aspekt.
Til dette problemkompleks findes ingen lette løsninger, for det er bestemt ikke tilstrækkeligt med et systemskifte, selvom dette selvfølgelig, givet den nuværende situation, må siges at være yderst ønskværdigt og nødvendig. Det der er brug for er et paradigmeskifte.
Vores kulturelle udvikling er i dag både moralsk og teknoøkonomisk overlegen set ift. til tidligere tiders, men det betyder selvfølgelig ikke, at alle nutidige mennesker er alle fortidige mennesker overlegne moralsk set, for næppe mange er Jesus eller Nagarjuna moralsk overlegne, mens det imidlertid betyder, at stort set alle voksne mennesker i vores nutidige samfund, har adgang til teknologier som er vores forfædres overlegne. For at eksemplificere hvad der menes, kunne man tage en hvilken som helst krise, hvor vores vestlige kulturs teknologiske udvikling parret med nogles moralske udvikling, udmønter sig i, at mennesker fra alle socioøkonomiske lag i Danmark kan tage til eksempelvis Darfur for at hjælpe nødstedte, hvilket ville være utænkeligt og umuligt for langt størstedelen af vores forfædre, der simpelthen ikke ville have midlerne eller indsigten i sådanne forhold på den anden side af planeten, til at træffe sådanne valg. Dette kan kun lade sig gøre fordi vi i dag ser en række individer i den vestlige verden, som både moralsk opfatter alle mennesker som individer der har krav på en ordentlig tilværelse, altså en decideret verdenscentrisk moral, parret med det forhold, at vi har gennemgået en teknologisk udvikling der gør en sådan transnational godgørenhed mulig. At dømme ud fra hvordan andre folkeslag i meget af verdenslitteraturen betegnes som enten oprigtige fjender, eller indehavere af potentielt brugbare resourcer som kan underlægges det stærke eller udvalgte folkeslag, gør endvidere at man nok også gør klogest i, at betvivle om tidligere tiders dominante etnocentriske eller kulturcentriske moralkodekser, udgør højere og finere menneskelige livsytringer, som på alle punkter er enhver form for nutidig moral overlegen, som det undertiden høres hævdet af romantikere, der postulerer den såkaldte menneskelige afvikling.
Den verdenscentriske moral, som omhandler universelle menneskerettigheder og global social retfærdighed, og som blandt andet findes udtrykt i neologismen globalidaritet, udtrykker en anskuet nødvendighed for global solidaritet og omfordeling. Hvor menneskerettighederne finder sit udgangspunkt i oplysningstiden, udfoldedes tanker om global social retfærdighed først for alvor indenfor de seneste hundrede år, men dette betyder selvfølgelig ingenlunde, at vi ikke også finder den egocentriske moral og den etnocentriske eller grupperorienterede moral på vore geografiske og kulturelle breddegrader, idet disse moralske udviklingstrin selvfølgelig også findes i vores kultur. Den etnocentriske moral synes endda at være den mest fremherskende i befolkningen i dag, hvilket både ses i argumentation vedrørende velfærdsstatens bevaring gennem begrænsning af indvandring, samt i den kulturelle og nationale selvforherligelse, der ligger og gemmer sig som den uudtalte hjemmel, i nationalkonservatives had- og frygtorienterede demagogiske praksis. Men hvad betyder det så? Det betuyder, at vi befinder os på et unikt historisk stade, hvor uhørt mange ift. til tidligere tider i dag besidder en moral som går på tværs af nationale og kulturelle skel og som følgelig omfatter hele menneskeheden, eller i den mere ekstreme form, alle dyrs ret til liv, eller biosfæren betragtet som noget helligt.
Derfor bør man altså ikke drage den konklusion, at der med ovenstående er tale om en ukritisk selvforherligelse af vores nuværende kulturelle stade, for det lader til at forholde sig således, at der med enhver evoltionær komplicering også indtræder nye og mere komplekse patologier, hvilket populært sagt betyder, at hunde får kræft, mens atomer ikke gør det. Dette er ligeledes tilfældet for vores moderne højteknologisk baserede samfund, som i sig bærer kimen til alt fra teknologisk effektiviserede muligheder for etniske udresninger, til den totale udryddelse af jordisk liv som vi kender det, forårsaget af det nutidige omfang af masseødelæggelsesvåben, som rummer denne kapacitet i sig. Problemet er altså her, at den generelle moralske udvikling ikke har fulgt med den teknologiske. Vi så selvfølgelig dette udmønte sig så rædselsvækkende i det tyvende århundrede, hvor Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao og en lang række amerikanske præsidenter, med en enten egocentrisk eller etnocentrisk/kulturcentrisk verdensanskuelse, forårsagede et ubegribeligt omfang af død og lidelse, ligesom vi i nutiden ser denne form for moral manifesteret i den jødiske undertrykkelse af det palæstinensiske folk.
Her stopper patologien imidlertid ikke, for den nuværende systemkrise er et udtryk for hvorledes vores rationelt og materialistisk dominerede kultur, har udviklet sig til dels at skabe en, i forhold til tidligere tiders mennesker, uhørt grad af materiel velstand, men samtidig også har forårsaget at mennesket er blevet fremmedgjort ift. det som måske er det allermest fundamentalt menneskelig, vores åndelighed. Dette har i høj grad at gøre med den kulturelle udvikling som fandt sit fodfæste i oplysningstiden, og som derfra, frem til nutiden, har udviklet sig. Rationalismen og dennes tætte beslægtning med materialismen, har forvoldt et verdensbillede som både er paradoksalt og patologisk. Det paradoksale består i, at rationalismen og dennes postulerede afstandstagen til metafysikken, som det blandt andet findes udtrykt i den gamle marxistiske vending, at “religion er opium for folket”, har ophøjet rationalismen til en status af ophøjethed og ubetvivlelighed, som nærmest må betragtes som grænsende til det religiøse, mens man i den mere højreorienterede del af spekktret, ser opbakning til den statssanktionerede folkekirkes døde religion, hvor de religiøse erfaringer er fortidige og afsluttede, hvorfor folkekirkekristendommen, egentlig mestendels er at betragte som levende religiøsitet, degenereret til dogmatik og forkyndende etik. Etik som der kan argumenteres for rent rationelt. Rationalismen har altså ophøjet sig selv til nærmest religiøs status, og er derfor at betragte som religionens arvtager, høres det undertiden hævdet.
Det patologiske består i, at rationalismen, specielt hvor denne kobles med hardcore materialisme, har reduceret mennesket til en krop med en kapacitet for rationel mental virksomhed, mens den biosfære som er menneskedyrets livsgrundlag, er reduceret til en blot og bar ressource. Konsekvenserne af denne reduktionisme er inden for de seneste årtier blevet rædselsvækkende tydelige, og vi befinder os derfor i dag i en unik historisk situation, hvor det idag er bedrøvende sandsynligt, at store dele af menneskeheden og klodens mangfoldighed af dyreliv, er udryddelsestruede, primært grundet menneskabte omstændigheder. Dette er den mest begrænsende form for dogme. Desværre for os selv er det også langt den mest udbredte, hvorfor den også kun sjældent høres betegnet med ord som indoktrinering og lignende, selvom den netop er den allermest grundlæggende form for indoktrinering, idet vi sjældent er bevidste om vores gensidige indoktrinering af hinanden, og fordi den begrænser os til at se verden som empirisk realitet og derfor fuldstændig afskærer os fra at se verdens transcendentale aspekt.
Til dette problemkompleks findes ingen lette løsninger, for det er bestemt ikke tilstrækkeligt med et systemskifte, selvom dette selvfølgelig, givet den nuværende situation, må siges at være yderst ønskværdigt og nødvendig. Det der er brug for er et paradigmeskifte.
lørdag den 13. september 2008
fredag den 12. september 2008
Søren Pinds Censurmaskine
Man må åbenbart ikke spørge ind til, hvad Søren Pind (venstres udenrigsordfører som mener at McCain er det bedste valg for USA) synes det siger om McCains forholden sig til oplysningstidens fornuftstradition - nn tradition som liberalister ellers over en bred kam traditionelt har set sig som de primære arvtagere af - at han tilsyneladende er omringet af religiøse freaks, og netop har valgt en vicepræsidentkandidat som ønsker at indføre kreationismeundervisning i skolen, har spurgt ind til hos en bibliotekar i Alaske hvad der skulle til for at forbyde bøger som ikke stemmer overens med hendes og vennernes religiøse verdensbillede, og som ikke aner noget som helst om udenrigspolitik. Det var for tungt et spørgsmål for Pind, så den kommentar røg ikke gennem censurmaskinen på hans blog.
Det ledte mig til at skrive et nyt indlæg:
Denne gang kom det gennem censuren.
Palin er selvfølgelig imod abort fordi hun er fundamentalist, men bemærk at Pind også bruger en henvisning til en religiøs autoritet i hans egne refleksioner over hvorvidt abort bør være legalt, hvilket han mener det bør, da han henviser til Paulus. "Det var vist Paulus, der bemærkede, at vi er skabninger - ikke skabere...".
Pind svarer ikke tilbage.
Vel vidende at det nok ikke kommer til at blive publiceret som kommentar, skriver jeg et tredje indlæg, og denne gang tager jeg fløjlshandskerne af, idet jeg gør rede for hvor forstyrrende hans lovprisning af Reagan er i lyset af Reagan-administrationens talrige forbrydelser, og i lyset af, at hans indlæg starter med bedrevidende at have som formuleret intention, at der vist lige er et par ting omkring amerikanske forhold som han bliver nødt til at slå fast, finder jeg det på sin plads at skrive, at det nok ville klæde ham hvis han selv gjorde sig den ulejlighed at åbne en historiebog.
Jeg pointerer
At Reagan-administrationen aktivt støttede Saddam Hussein’s angrebskrig mod Iran som kostede hundredetusinder iranere livet, og at man derudover solgte Saddam Hussein ingredienserne til de kemiske våben han under denne krig anvendte mod iranerne og senere mod kurderne, sidstnævnte uden at man i øvrigt fra Reagan-administrationens side slog hånden af ham.
At man samtidig med at støtte Saddam solgte våben til iranerne, og at indtjeningen herfra blev brugt til armere de nicaraguanske contraer. Den såkaldte Iran-Contra skandale.
At Reagan-administrationen er den eneste vestlige regering nogensinde der er dømt ved domstolen i Haag for hvad der i sin essens er statsterror dvs. de uhyrlige forbrydelser der blev begået mod den nicaraguanske befolkning. [jeg glemte at nævne at ift. indbyggertal svarede antallet af mord til hvis 2,5 millioner amerikanere var blevet dræbt, hvilket er flere end der tilsammen er faldet i alle krige USA har deltaget i nogensinde.]
At man bevæbnede mujahedinerne i Afghanistan, og derefter skred da man ikke længere havde brug for dem i proxy-krigen mod USSR, og man efterlod dermed afghanerne med en flok gale fundamentalister bevæbnet til tænderne. [hvordan det gik, er vist ikke den store hemmelighed.]
At man så gennem fingre med at Muhammed Zia ul-Haq forsøgte at oparbejde en atomar våbenkapacitet i Pakistan, selvom Zia ul-Haq havde kuppet sig til magten og var en ekstremist der ønskede en gennemgribende islamisering af det pakistanske samfund.
Indlægget afsluttes med at jeg skriver, at Pind bør klappe sig selv på skulderen, for hans markedsføring af Reagan som en af de største præsidenter i det forrige århundrede, siger - i lyset af hans administrations talrige forbrydelser – ikke så lidt om Pinds format som politiker og ikke mindst udenrigsordfører.
Selvom alt ovenstående kan bakkes ethundrede procent op af troværdigt bevismateriale, fik det selvfølgelig ikke lov at komme gennem Pinds censurmaskine.
Det får mig til at undre mig, for så er der to muligheder, enten ved Pind godt alt det jeg har nævnt og taler derfor mod bedre vidende eller også støtter han blindt USAs republikanske ledere, fortidige som kommende, udelukkende fordi han mener at være ideologisk beslægtet med dem. Begge dele er rimelig skræmmende når man tager hans ordførerstilling i betragtning.
Det ledte mig til at skrive et nyt indlæg:
Den amerikanske professor i semantik George Lakoff som blandt andet har skrevet en af de mest interessante bøger, The Political Mind, om de værdisæt som danner fundament for retorikken og den førte politik på begge fløje i USA, har skrevet en interessant artikel med titlen The Palin Choice, som rammer hovedet på sømmet hvad det de religiøse konservative i USA angår, han skriver:
"...Election campaigns matter because who gets elected can change reality. But election campaigns are primarily about the realities of voters' minds, which depend on how the candidates and the external realities are cognitively framed. They can be framed honestly or deceptively, effectively or clumsily. And they are always framed from the perspective of a worldview.
The Obama campaign has learned this. The Republicans have long known it, and the choice of Sarah Palin as their Vice-Presidential candidate reflects their expert understanding of the political mind and political marketing. Democrats who simply belittle the Palin choice are courting disaster. It must be t aken with the utmost seriousness.
The Democratic responses so far reflect external realities: she is inexperienced, knowing little or nothing about foreign policy or national issues; she is really an anti-feminist, wanting the government to enter women's lives to block abortion, but not wanting the government to guarantee equal pay for equal work, or provide adequate child health coverage, or child care, or early childhood education; she shills for the oil and gas industry on drilling; she denies the scientific truths of global warming and evolution; she misuses her political authority; she opposes sex education and her daughter is pregnant; and, rather than being a maverick, she is on the whole a radical right-wing ideologue.
All true, so far as we can tell......
[....] Conservative family values are strict and apply via metaphorical thought to the nation: good vs. evil, authority, the use of force, toughness and discipline, individual (versus social) responsibility, and tough love. Hence, social programs are immoral because they violate discipline and individual responsibility. Guns and the military show force and discipline. Man is above nature; hence no serious environmentalism. The market is the ultimate financial authority, requiring market discipline. In foreign policy, strength is use of the force. In fundamentalist religion, the Bible is the ultimate authority; hence no gay marriage. Such values are at the heart of radical conservatism. This is how John McCain was raised and how he plans to govern. And it is what he shares with Sarah Palin. Palin is the mom in the strict father family, upholding conservative values. Palin is tough: she shoots, skins, and eats caribou. She is disciplined: raising five kids with a major career. She lives her values: she has a Downs-syndrome baby that she refused to abort. She has the image of the ideal conservative mom: pretty, perky, feminine, Bible-toting, and fitting into the ideal conservative family. And she fits the stereotype of America as small-town America. It is Reagan's morning-in-America image. Where Obama thought of capturing the West, she is running for Sweetheart of the West...."
Hvad siger Pind til denne Analyse? Og mener han, at Palin som ønsker at forbyde piger der er blevet gravide fordi deres egne fædre har voldtaget dem i, at få en abort, er i god tråd med hans egen opfattelse af hvad retten til liv involverer. Hendes popularitet er ærlig talt ret uinteressant i denne henseende, da den ikke kan ses som legitimation af noget som helst.
Denne gang kom det gennem censuren.
Palin er selvfølgelig imod abort fordi hun er fundamentalist, men bemærk at Pind også bruger en henvisning til en religiøs autoritet i hans egne refleksioner over hvorvidt abort bør være legalt, hvilket han mener det bør, da han henviser til Paulus. "Det var vist Paulus, der bemærkede, at vi er skabninger - ikke skabere...".
Pind svarer ikke tilbage.
Vel vidende at det nok ikke kommer til at blive publiceret som kommentar, skriver jeg et tredje indlæg, og denne gang tager jeg fløjlshandskerne af, idet jeg gør rede for hvor forstyrrende hans lovprisning af Reagan er i lyset af Reagan-administrationens talrige forbrydelser, og i lyset af, at hans indlæg starter med bedrevidende at have som formuleret intention, at der vist lige er et par ting omkring amerikanske forhold som han bliver nødt til at slå fast, finder jeg det på sin plads at skrive, at det nok ville klæde ham hvis han selv gjorde sig den ulejlighed at åbne en historiebog.
Jeg pointerer
At Reagan-administrationen aktivt støttede Saddam Hussein’s angrebskrig mod Iran som kostede hundredetusinder iranere livet, og at man derudover solgte Saddam Hussein ingredienserne til de kemiske våben han under denne krig anvendte mod iranerne og senere mod kurderne, sidstnævnte uden at man i øvrigt fra Reagan-administrationens side slog hånden af ham.
At man samtidig med at støtte Saddam solgte våben til iranerne, og at indtjeningen herfra blev brugt til armere de nicaraguanske contraer. Den såkaldte Iran-Contra skandale.
At Reagan-administrationen er den eneste vestlige regering nogensinde der er dømt ved domstolen i Haag for hvad der i sin essens er statsterror dvs. de uhyrlige forbrydelser der blev begået mod den nicaraguanske befolkning. [jeg glemte at nævne at ift. indbyggertal svarede antallet af mord til hvis 2,5 millioner amerikanere var blevet dræbt, hvilket er flere end der tilsammen er faldet i alle krige USA har deltaget i nogensinde.]
At man bevæbnede mujahedinerne i Afghanistan, og derefter skred da man ikke længere havde brug for dem i proxy-krigen mod USSR, og man efterlod dermed afghanerne med en flok gale fundamentalister bevæbnet til tænderne. [hvordan det gik, er vist ikke den store hemmelighed.]
At man så gennem fingre med at Muhammed Zia ul-Haq forsøgte at oparbejde en atomar våbenkapacitet i Pakistan, selvom Zia ul-Haq havde kuppet sig til magten og var en ekstremist der ønskede en gennemgribende islamisering af det pakistanske samfund.
Indlægget afsluttes med at jeg skriver, at Pind bør klappe sig selv på skulderen, for hans markedsføring af Reagan som en af de største præsidenter i det forrige århundrede, siger - i lyset af hans administrations talrige forbrydelser – ikke så lidt om Pinds format som politiker og ikke mindst udenrigsordfører.
Selvom alt ovenstående kan bakkes ethundrede procent op af troværdigt bevismateriale, fik det selvfølgelig ikke lov at komme gennem Pinds censurmaskine.
Det får mig til at undre mig, for så er der to muligheder, enten ved Pind godt alt det jeg har nævnt og taler derfor mod bedre vidende eller også støtter han blindt USAs republikanske ledere, fortidige som kommende, udelukkende fordi han mener at være ideologisk beslægtet med dem. Begge dele er rimelig skræmmende når man tager hans ordførerstilling i betragtning.
tirsdag den 9. september 2008
Abonner på:
Opslag (Atom)