Dear L,
Thanks for your email.
Your Zimbabwean viewpoint is refreshing.
Mention of relatives who "are not
looking for facts" reminds me of a recent Republican robocall:
"North Carolina needs common sense solutions!"
Given plutocratic manipulation of
"the common man," our common understanding of "common
sense" verges curse.
Under aegis of
financialization, global money movement has become everything while
nuts-and-bolts production is deemed a nuisance.
In consequence, the Moral Void at the top of The
Economic Pyramid sucks ever more wealth into the wallets of The Ungodly Rich.
These deceptive Job Creators defy gravity
by devising complex financial "instruments" accompanied by the
deliberate minimization of job creation. (Automation, robotization and software
enhancement contribute mightily to this effortless "turning of the
crank."
Global capital movement is
pure profit.
Actual job creation - at least here in
the United States - is considered a needless expense.
Who undertake the inconvenience of actual
workers when "deals can be cut" and "killings can be made"
with keystrokes and algorithms? (Here's an eye-popper.
If you have not seen "Inside Job" - the 2010 Oscar-winning
documentary about the 2007-2008 economic collapse - I urge you to view
it.
The following freely-streamable version
of "Inside Job" provides
Spanish sub-titles as well.
Last night, I read a New Yorker article about Mitt Romney
that provided the clearest view I've yet had.
Romney is a remarkably able manager but
one who epitomizes the economic financialization that has
decimated The Middle Class while leeching the "working
class" onto its deathbed. (Have you noticed that the term "working
class" is becoming as anachronistic as "the steel industry?")
"Transaction Man: Mormonism, private
equity, and the making of a candidate" can be read at http://www.newyorker.com/
Returning to my recent GOP robocall...
In a world of staggeringly complex
financial mechanisms -- "all" of them designed to reap fabulous
profits for "The 1%" -- common
sense has nothing to do with
remedy.
Nihil.
Niente.
Nada.
To "see through" the
catastrophic profitability of highly-financialized capitalism -- a mutant beast
as fervently idolized by American conservatives as the wandering Israelites
idolized The Golden Calf -- we need uncommon sense to see the world in the light of
paradox and irony. Typically these qualities lead to conclusions that cannot be
reduced to sound-bite bumper stickers.
The teat we've sucked since The Industrial Revolution has
become internally contaminated by massive amounts of every heavy metal on the
periodic chart while most Americans continue to see this beast as Mom.
Reagan
Budget Director, David Stockman, who
oversaw the largest tax cut in the history of humankind, makes this remarkable
- and unchallenged - claim: “In 1985, the top five percent of the households –
the wealthiest five percent – had net worth of $8 trillion – which is a lot.
Today, after serial bubble after serial bubble, the top five per cent have net
worth of $40 trillion. The top five percent have gained more wealth than the
whole human race had created prior to 1980.” Elsewhere in this CBS “60 Minutes”
interview, Mr. Stockman says: "The Republican Party, as much as it pains
me to say this, should be ashamed of themselves."
Pax on both houses
Alan
PS You may learn more about America's
idolatrous fixation on "Financialization" at:
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 8:54 AM, LL wrote:
Finally got a chance to watch the debate last night. I agree that Mitt came off looking good - to those of us who are already Obama converts we don't need to watch the debate. But for many in my family who are still wondering if they should vote for Mitt, this was good for them. And they are not looking for facts - just the tone and the nuance.
I have already cast my absentee ballot - dropped it off at the US Embassy a week ago on Thursday.LisaPS I don't watch CNN very often - mostly because I hate news that needs to make you feel hooked and i find them offensive. I was surprised at how much before and after 'fluff' I had to fast forward through...
LL
"As much as we need a prosperous economy, we also need a prosperity of kindness and decency." ~Caroline Kennedy
On 4 October 2012 21:49, Alan Archibald <alanarchibaldo@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Maria,Your assessment of the debate is spot on.1.) Obama "won" on actual points, although Romney -- capitalizing on low expectations and spur-of-the-moment "etch-a-sketching" -- won on style. (Check out the following record of Mitt's flip-flops. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/28/ 1040448/-Democrats-unveil- devastating-video-on-Mitt- Romney-s-flip-flops 2.) I also agree that Obama was not aggressive enough. His failure to mention Romney's "47%" comment was inexcusable. Such a "zinger" would have revealed Romney's concealed contempt for America and could have been easily pre-planned. (In the original video clip of Romney categorizing half the nation as lazy and parasitic - http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/ 09/secret-video-romney- private-fundraiser - notice not only his words but his tone. I can easily understand Mitt sucking up to a group of wealthy donors. What amazes me is the vicious animus he brings to bear. Romney holds "these people" in seething contempt.) 3.) Finally, I agree with your view that both candidates mistreated moderator, Jim Lehrer, although I think the ex-Marine could have imposed his will if he wished. I suspect he let himself be "pushed around" to tempt candidates to greater candor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Lehrer) Since the debate, I have fact-checked both candidates' truthfulness and find Obama significantly more honest - an observation few knowledgeable conservatives argue. Obama was also significantly more substantive, which, "on the downside," is part of his professorial tendency to "get lost in the weeds."Also in last night's debate, Romney offered very few particulars, instead adhering to the GOP's theocratic script of invoking "articles of faith," chief among them the catastrophically destructive dogma that taxes must always go down, never (ever) up. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/09/what-would-reagan-really-do.html (Ronald Reagan raised taxes three times after he lowered them.One of the few "particulars" Romney did express was how well he worked with Massachusetts' 87% Democratic legislature when Mitt governed that liberal state from 2003 'til 2007.The (overlooked) point in Romney's boast -- a point central to another debate observation that Reagan worked well with Tip O'Neill's Democratic Congress -- is that Yes! it is possible to work with Democratic legislatures because Democrats are, in the main, reasonable people, willing to compromise.On the other hand, contemporary Republicans - like those currently dominating the House of Representatives - are unreasonable people who refuse to compromise. www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/.../krugman-obstruct-and-exploit.html***Check out these fact-checking blog posts:Obama-Romney Debate: "Who Told The Biggest Whoppers?" - http://theweek.com/article/index/234298/the-obama-romney-debate-fact-check-who-told-the-biggest-whoppers"Did Obama really spend $90 billion on Green Eergy?" Key-word search Green Energy at http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/03/fact-checks-and-analysis/gUsQaIslLte7Znlr17V1oL/story.html***LoveDaddy manPS The Obama campaign posters you painted in 2008 now grace the front lawn. Thanks again!
PPS Check out "Obama: I debated an impostor."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/10/04/will-the-real-mitt-romney-please-stand-up.html
No comments:
Post a Comment