.. "I am not a crook."[1]
-=*=-
There's no doubt about it, America bestrides the world; it dominates in thought, word and deed.
a) thought (Hollywood): the prism through which a lot'a mankind now regards the world is TV; from 'all the world's a stage' we have moved to 'all the world through a (flat-panel) TV.' Apart from 'news' (see next), Hollywood (via its so-called drama) over time presents all possible perversions; the sheople® 'select' (manufactured desire/consent) the bits they particularly like and incorporate these bits (along with a lot'a other unselected stuff) into their minds, however conscious - and most often, mainly not.
b) word (MSM): along with the dramas, we get so-called news, these days filtered through the process tellingly called full-spectrum dominance, in this case of information. One can see examples of this on the AusBC and/or SBS evening newscasts; reports sourced from the USA (in accents accursedly Ami: spit!) - reports largely lacking in both credibility and balance. The US military controls Iraq; no news reaches us that hasn't been sanitised. The day of the intrepid reporter is gone, these days no reporter works (for long, at least) unless embedded.
c) deed (Iraq). What's to say, other than 'murder for oil?'
-=*=-
Too much of a good(?) thing: there are other factors; too many people, greed and CO2.
d) people; currently 6.6Bio, heading for 9bio. Too late to ask why didn't 'we' (i.e. our leaders) do something effective when it might'a done some real good. Quite possibly, the desire for 'growth' over-ruled good sense. On the 'never too late' principle, a controlled population 'crash' could now be a better way to go. We may still get one, but without any control at all. Q: call that leadership?
e) greed; capitalism is said to be triumphant, along with its current stable-mates globalisation and economic rationalism. 'Bigger cake,' we hear; 'jobs, jobs, jobs' - but not too many careers. It used to be 'trickle-down' but that's drying up; competition for resources is hotting up to ever more wars. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" has been over-ruled by "Greed is good," but this can only ever work for the 'haves.'
f) CO2; the 'biggie.' If the wars don't get us, the climate-crash will.
-=*=-
While 'the iron is hot,' anything else? Yep!
g) Mining; rip-offs, soon to be big holes either empty or filling with radioactive waste,
h) Off-shoring; of both jobs and pollution,
i) Terrorism; ignoring "Dying to Win," CIA secret black-ops, refer only to Hermann Göring: "the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders."
There's still more; health, education, housing...
-=*=-
Well, so what? "The sky is falling" is a continuous refrain; what's different now? The argument "Most people know..." or "Most people will agree..." is an appeal to the good sense - of the sheople. But wha'da they know? It is after all exactly why we have leaders; they're supposed to know better.
Time they showed us some evidence. Hmmm?
-=*end*=-
PS Don't think things are getting worse, eh? Recall that Nixon eventually was 'brought to justice;' the forces for good had a win, however temporary. The forces for evil, however, took notice; many of GWBush's henchmen come to us via the 'learning processes' stimulated by Nixon's 'failure.' Q: is the MSM ever likely to repeat its 'Watergate' success? Q: Will B, B & H get away with murder? Q: Does the US plan to exit Iraq? Q: Is anyone doing anything effective to halt CO2 global warming?
A: All 'silly questions,' unless no more of the same.
Ref(s):
[1] If I were asked to name the three worst US presidents, I would ask in return: why only three? The first three worst (from my perspective, and that imperfectly through the venal MSM) are undoubtedly Nixon, Reagan & Bush (the lesser), but I can't say that any impressed with even a balance of known good deeds.
Richard Nixon:
«And so, that is where the money came from. Let me just say this, and I want to say this to the television audience: I made my mistakes, but in all of my years of public life, I have never profited, never profited from public service--I have earned every cent. And in all of my years of public life, I have never obstructed justice. And I think, too, that I could say that in my years of public life, that I welcome this kind of examination, because people have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I am not a crook. I have earned everything I have got.»
[broadcast live on nationwide radio and television]
I find it interesting, that he inserted a 'never obstructed justice' claim into his disclaimer denying any questionable money aspect. These days, the whole paragraph would be considered a failure of framing, so while the circumstances are comparable, we'll never hear the same from Howard.
As we all know, Nixon was driven from office in toadal® disgrace. In short, he was a crook. It may well be, that he didn't fiscally profit (in itself almost impossible to believe, think 'Prime-ministerial wine cellar,' say) - but the pro-capitalists tell us that no-one does anything for nothing; he must'a been a crook precisely because he saw some personal advantage in being so. Hardly as an aside, Nixon (as Howard, think 'AWB scandal,' say) has obstructed justice, not just a little bit but in spades, so that bit from Nixon is an outright lie. But as for Nixon, one supposes, so for the all the other crooks wherever they are. Personal advantage, for crooks, overpowers all morality - the evidence shows this cannot be otherwise.
Q: is this sort'a hypocritical chicanery a) typical or b) non-typical human, or just c) typical or b) non-typical American?
This discussion is about crooks; wha'da 'bout B, B & H? IMHO they lied us into an illegal invasion now followed by a brutal occupation with the eventual aim being the theft of some part when not all of Iraq's oil, this process neatly summarised as 'murder for oil.' This claim is not new, but the murdering continues - in our name.
Q: For how much bloody longer?
PPS The term 'sheople' could be questioned. But surely, sheople is as sheople does; in a democracy the voters are responsible for whom they elect; Howard himself has said something like he'll be held responsible at the ballot-box. Sooo, is it the considered opinion of the majority of voters that we (Ors-tray-lee-ah) partake in murder for oil? Seems like it up till now, but again Q: For how much bloody longer?
No comments:
Post a Comment