Wednesday, March 23, 2016

March 23: no title.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2016/03/trudeaus-first-budget-about-direct-investments-not-tax-gimmick#.VvHqAjZs8NA.gmail

Above is a balanced analysis of the federal budget plans. It is neither for nor against. It tells us what is in the budget; and it tells us what the risks are. Now, compare this to the story in the Irving press on B2 "Experts skeptical Liberal plan will have desired  effect." And who are these experts?

There are two, count them, two. Both of them represent big money, and one of them is also a fraud. The first is an economic planner for a major bank. The other works for a big business propaganda "think tank", the C.D.Howe Insitute. Apparently, these are the only two experts in the country.

As well, a news editor should know that the purpose of a story is to tell us what happened - in this case, what is in the budget.  A judgement of what happened is an opinion. And that's what opinion columns are for.

Of course, the national budget wasn't big enough to make it the headline story. That was reserved for the announcement that the provincial education department hasn't decided yet what to do about French immersion classes. Another big, big story in Canada&World is that the provincial hasn't yet decided what to do with some empty government garages.

Yes, they do have the story on the Brussels bombing - but I'll come to that later.
__________________________________________________________________________
The front page story is also about the federal budget. I have no idea why since its news is essentially the same as that in the story that appears in Canada&World.  However, the front page story, by Adam Huras, legislative reporter for the Irving press, is far, far better told And, unlike the Canadian Press version, it's honest journalism without propaganda snuck in.

The editorial is nothing much of anything. But it does slip in a kiss-up line that we will have a brilliant future if the oil pipeline deal goes through - and fracking. Damn right, ed. I mean, only a fool would believe our climate is changing. After all we just finished our warmest year since records have been kept, and it's been warming at the greatest rate in millions of years. The climate's not changing. It's just getting better.

Norbert Cunningham tells us he has some  qualms about the journalistic quality of the CBC.

We'll just let that one sit there and smell for a while, then throw it out. The CBC is not what it used to be. But it's still light years ahead of the Irving press.

He then says that newspapers have evolved over the years, mostly for the better. Norbert, I've known many journalists and professors of journalism and historians of journalism. I've never known one of any stature who would agree with your statement. Newspapers have been propaganda sheets from the start. That was true before the invention of modern printing some hundred and twenty-five years ago. And it got much worse with the the cheap newspaper that developed from that. There's a  very fine history of that called "The First Casualty" which deals with  press lying and propaganda about war from the Boer War to Vietnam. And for an example of how this goes back to the earliest days of the modern newspaper, check out the film "Citizen Kane".

Then there's a "commentary" by the CEO of an oil company about how we really, need to develop the oil and natural gas industries.

Hump Cormier has his usual pointless little story. It still announces that he is a communications professional. I have never heard of such a title. Nor have I ever heard of a  university department called "School of Professoinal Communications".  Where does this title come from? And what does it mean?
I have written for newspapers and magazines, have done thousands of radio broadcasts, and hundreds of TV ones. I've also been a consultant and, occasionaly, a voice-over or a performer for film documentaries and TV.   And I have never met or heard of anyone who called himself a communications professional.

Alec Bruce, again, has a well-written column that says nothing.
________________________________________________________________________________
Now, back to Brussels.  (I'm not sure I'll ever get to my usual format of the news of the day. There's an awful lot I have to explain about the Brussels tragedy.
The West (meaning the U.S. and its puppets) has lost the middle east.
Ted Cruz and Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and their like are using the Brussels attack to boost American hatred and fear of Muslims. It will almost certainly work. But, think about it.

Think what the planners of that attack expected the reaction to be. Of course. They expected it to get get anger and threats. The planners of the attack wanted that reaction. Extremist groups like ISIS exist BECAUSE the west has been reacting in that way for a century. Let's take a long look at it.

Most of the nations of the middle east are not nations at all. They exist because the west created them during and after World War 1. Befoe that, most of them were part of the Ottoman Empire. In effect, they were subjects of Turkey.
Britain and France became very interested in the Ottoman Empire early in the twentieth century - for its oil. But first they had to destroy the empire, then divide the remains among themselves. A key figure in that was Lawrence of Arabia, the tall, handsome man who led the 'revolt in the desert' - to get rid of Turkish rule.  (In fact,  he wasn't tall and handsome. He was, though, a remarkable liar, which is why the film about him is mostly false.)

The British and French then divided the countries up to loot their oil.  (notice how many boundary lines in the middle east are straight lines? These were nations created with a ruler.) Royal families were made out of desert bandits. No democracies were permitted. Suddenly, arabs found their social order destroyed - with nothing replacing it.

The second world war brough a partial awakening to the region. Iran moved to democracy, and elected a government. Egypt got rid of its imposed king through a military coup. (I had the pleasure once of seeing the belly dancer advertised as the king's favourite. She called herself Fawzia Amir, and she was certainly worth watching. She became the mistress of a top rank Montreal mobster, and lived in a very toney suburb. You know, the right sort of people that one can find only in toney suburbs.)

Iran became a democracy.

Britain and France were not pleased at the changes. They threatened control of the Suez Canal, and control of the oil of Iran.

The Iran case came to a head when the elected leader of Iran (named Mossadegh) demanded to audit the books of British Petroleum ( as it is now known). He also moved to nationalize Iranian oil. That was not suprising. The British had been arrogant and brutal, even murderous and racist in their treatment of Irainians. It had also taken huge profits from Iranian oil while paying very, very low fees to Iran.

The British response was to invade, with the help of France and the CIA.
Mossadegh was imprisoned as a traitor for three years of solitary, then was confined to his home for the rest of his life. And, with CIA help, he was replaced as ruler by a ruthless dictator named The Shah of Iran. So much for the American love of democracy.

Then Britain and France, with Israel, turned on Egypt when its military rulers decided to nationalize the Suez Canal  (another resource that British capitalists were getting rich on while paying little.) But this time, the U.S. government was furious at Britain, France and Israel. President Eisenhower now realized that American capitalists wanted their turn at looting the middle east. So the invaders had to back off.

Then, in 1948, the western powers gave most of Palestine to European Jews. This had nothing to do with western love of Judaism. It was a way to get rid of a problem.  Jews in most European countries wanted to get out after the horror of the holocaust. But nobody, including Britain, Canada or the U.S. wanted them. We were all anti-semitic.

So the western powers decided to dump them in Palestine.

It was not Judaism that offended the arabs in this. There already was and always has been a Jewish population in Palestine - as in other arab countries. Judaism had nothing to do with the arab reaction. They saw this for what it was - a theft of arab (and Jewish) land by Europeans. Indeed, many of the Palestinian Jews felt the same way.

For fifty years and more, Europeans (mostly British and French) had looted middle east oil, paying little for the privilege, treating workers (and  everybody else) with a contempt and brutality that included poverty and murder. These had been years of eploitation and humiliation as bad as any period in history. Then,  in the 1950s, U.S. capitalists joined with the French and the British.

Somehow, life staggered on in these nations that actually were not nations, with traditional societies that had been destroyed and nothing to replace them, with growing poverty even as their oil made foreign billionaires richer. Somehow, life went on in these conditions -- though there must have been burning hatred of Britain, France and the U.S.

Then the U.S. invaded Iraq.

 The reason for that invasion, a reason that never appeared in our press, was that Saddam Hussein was willing to sell oil to Russia. Bush and Blair were and are liars and war ciminals. Many of the people of Iraq loathed Hussein - but the brutality of the invasion of Iraq, like that inflicted on Vietnam, killed well over a million people - they're still dying of illegal US weapons like cluster bombs, mines, artillery shells  made of radioactive material. Basic supply systems for water and and electricity were destroyed, and have not been fixed to this day. Of the billions of dollars assigned to contractors to make repairs, almost all went into the pockets of Americans who were, as Norbert would say, 'corporate citizens'. Hundreds of thousands of children were killed in the carpet bombing.  Millions of children were orphaned, crippled, mutilated.

A few blogs ago, I mentioned an excellent book "The War on Truth" by a Canadian journalist who tells what he saw, of American soldiers who laughed at the sight of an Iraqi girl who was burning alive

You think the killings in Brussels were terrible? ISIS could learn from the U.S. military what real terrorism is like.

Perhaps Bush should not be blamed for this. He was just the retarded son of a family which had, for a hundred years, made its fortune out of  doing murders and other dirty jobs for American government.  (I know he had an MBA from an ivy league university. But that was almost certainly  bought. He didn't have the grades to get into the programme. He was heavily into booze and drugs at the time. It's not possible he could have earned that degree. But, if you're the son of a rich family, you can get any degree you want, even from the most respectable of ivy league schools.)

That may explain why the only corporate jobs he ever had were set up by his father.

The real president was Dick Cheney. And the effect was disastrous. Coupled with the Afghanistan war, it inflamed the already smouldering hatred of the arabs and of most Muslims, for the US - and its toadies, notably Britain.

The final touch, if any were needed, was the attack on Libya, and the murder of Ghadaffi who, for all his faults, had done a pretty good job of keeping Libya stable. Now, the British and French and some Americans are there fighting a war against an ISIS which did not exist until the U.S. created it.

The problem in the middle east is not ISIS. The problem existed long before ISIS. The problem is what created ISIS (and al quaeda) and all the others. The problem is that the United States is far the biggest terrorist organization in the world. But one should not blame the American people for that.

Blame a lying news media. Blame politicians who are owned by some of the greediest and most ruthless people, the ones (most of them) who are leading capitalists in the oil industry. American foreign policy is not set by the Clintons or Bushes or even the Donald Trumps of this world. It is set by the few, the very few, who own the politicians.

That's why the powerful U.S. has not been able to defeat the 'terrorists' despite fiteen years of fighting and monstrous spending. The U.S. is not run by people are are caring or principled. It's run by people who are some of the greediest and cruelist in world history.

So what happens next? Watch Europe. It's cracking under the strain of the refugees created by oil billionaires. One result is a distinct move toward the very far right - something like naziism or fascism. There is also a great unease that American billionaires also treat their countries just as they do arab countries. It's also worried about the U.S. moving up its forces and weapons to the Russian border. Any war on that border means the end of Europe.

European countries ( such as Greece) are also being driven to the financial wall by western bankers. It is quite possible they will consider it wiser to be satellites of Russia rather than of the U.S.

We have long ago stepped over the line to insanity. The American leadership races reflect that.  I have never seen political debates with such lack of substance, with such refusal to seriously look at dangerous conditions that have been created all over the world - and within the United States.
_______________________________________________________________________________
So what should we do? Well, first, we have to get out of the middle east. We can still get the oil. Gettinng oil isn't the problem. The problem is that big oil is taking immense profits, abusing the people of the region, and using our tax money to keep on abusing them.

We might defeat ISIS. But such victories haven't solved the problem for over fifty years. And they won't. If we destroy ISIS, new versions will spring up - and will spread around much of the world.  The problem is not that Muslims are attacking us. The problem is that we have been attacking, abusing, starving, cheating. killing them for a century. We haven't won that way. We son't win that way. And I cannot believe there is any way we can help the muslim world except to get out of its face. Nothing in the last century indicates that we can help them or that we will help them in any other way.

We have to get out of the middle east.

Or we can all prepare the way to hell by screaming insults at Muslims, electing governments that are the puppets of 'corporate citizens'.  accusing others of being 'terrorists' when the biggest terrorists in the world are us.

It is terrible that so many people in Brussels died. It's even more terrible to think of the millions who have died over the last fifty years and more because of us.
What we are watching - and doing - is insanity.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Well, Canada made the opinion columns of The Guardian with the death of former Toronto mayor Rob Ford. It helps to explain why I have never liked Toronto.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/23/canada-justin-trudeau-rob-ford-donald-trump
_____________________________________________________________________
And just before supper, here is a reaction to the Brussels bombing that I'm quite sure could be called a Christian one.
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2016/03/trudeaus-first-budget-about-direct-investments-not-tax-gimmick#.VvHqAjZs8NA.gmail
Above is a balanced analysis of the federal budget plans. It is neither for nor against. It tells us what is in the budget; and it tells us what the risks are. Now, compare this to the story in the Irving press on B2 "Experts skeptical Liberal plan will have desired  effect." And who are these experts?
There are two, count them, two. Both of them represent big money, and one of them is also a fraud. The first is an economic planner for a major bank. The other works for a big business propaganda "think tank", the C.D.Howe Insitute. Apparently, these are the only two experts in the country.
As well, a news editor should know that the purpose of a story is to tell us what happened - in this case, what is in the budget.  A judgement of what happened is an opinion. And that's what opinion columns are for.
Of course, the national budget wasn't big enough to make it the headline story. That was reserved for the announcement that the provincial education department hasn't decided yet what to do about French immersion classes. Another big, big story in Canada&World is that the provincial hasn't yet decided what to do with some empty government garages.
Yes, they do have the story on the Brussels bombing - but I'll come to that later.
__________________________________________________________________________
The front page story is also about the federal budget. I have no idea why since its news is essentially the same as that in the story that appears in Canada&World.  However, the front page story, by Adam Huras, legislative reporter for the Irving press, is far, far better told And, unlike the Canadian Press version, it's honest journalism without propaganda snuck in.
The editorial is nothing much of anything. But it does slip in a kiss-up line that we will have a brilliant future if the oil pipeline deal goes through - and fracking. Damn right, ed. I mean, only a fool would believe our climate is changing. After all we just finished our warmest year since records have been kept, and it's been warming at the greatest rate in millions of years. The climate's not changing. It's just getting better.
Norbert Cunningham tells us he has some  qualms about the journalistic quality of the CBC.
We'll just let that one sit there and smell for a while, then throw it out. The CBC is not what it used to be. But it's still light years ahead of the Irving press.
He then says that newspapers have evolved over the years, mostly for the better. Norbert, I've known many journalists and professors of journalism and historians of journalism. I've never known one of any stature who would agree with your statement. Newspapers have been propaganda sheets from the start. That was true before the invention of modern printing some hundred and twenty-five years ago. And it got much worse with the the cheap newspaper that developed from that. There's a  very fine history of that called "The First Casualty" which deals with  press lying and propaganda about war from the Boer War to Vietnam. And for an example of how this goes back to the earliest days of the modern newspaper, check out the film "Citizen Kane".
Then there's a "commentary" by the CEO of an oil company about how we really, need to develop the oil and natural gas industries.
Hump Cormier has his usual pointless little story. It still announces that he is a communications professional. I have never heard of such a title. Nor have I ever heard of a  university department called "School of Professoinal Communications".  Where does this title come from? And what does it mean?
I have written for newspapers and magazines, have done thousands of radio broadcasts, and hundreds of TV ones. I've also been a consultant and, occasionaly, a voice-over or a performer for film documentaries and TV.   And I have never met or heard of anyone who called himself a communications professional.
Alec Bruce, again, has a well-written column that says nothing.
________________________________________________________________________________
Now, back to Brussels.  (I'm not sure I'll ever get to my usual format of the news of the day. There's an awful lot I have to explain about the Brussels tragedy.
The West (meaning the U.S. and its puppets) has lost the middle east.
Ted Cruz and Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and their like are using the Brussels attack to boost American hatred and fear of Muslims. It will almost certainly work. But, think about it.
Think what the planners of that attack expected the reaction to be. Of course. They expected it to get get anger and threats. The planners of the attack wanted that reaction. Extremist groups like ISIS exist BECAUSE the west has been reacting in that way for a century. Let's take a long look at it.
Most of the nations of the middle east are not nations at all. They exist because the west created them during and after World War 1. Befoe that, most of them were part of the Ottoman Empire. In effect, they were subjects of Turkey.
Britain and France became very interested in the Ottoman Empire early in the twentieth century - for its oil. But first they had to destroy the empire, then divide the remains among themselves. A key figure in that was Lawrence of Arabia, the tall, handsome man who led the 'revolt in the desert' - to get rid of Turkish rule.  (In fact,  he wasn't tall and handsome. He was, though, a remarkable liar, which is why the film about him is mostly false.)
The British and French then divided the countries up to loot their oil.  (notice how many boundary lines in the middle east are straight lines? These were nations created with a ruler.) Royal families were made out of desert bandits. No democracies were permitted. Suddenly, arabs found their social order destroyed - with nothing replacing it.
The second world war brough a partial awakening to the region. Iran moved to democracy, and elected a government. Egypt got rid of its imposed king though a military coup. (I had the pleasure once of seeing the belly dancer advertised as the king's favourite. She called herself Fawzia Amir, and she was certainly worth watching. She became the mistress of a top rank Montreal mobster, and lived in a very toney suburb. You know, the right sort of people that one can find only in toney suburbs.)
Iran became a democracy.
Britain and France were not pleased at the changes. They threatened control of the Suez Canal, and control of the oil of Iran.
The Iran case came to a head when the elected leader of Iran (named Mossadegh) demanded to audit the books of British Petroleum ( as it is now known). He also moved to nationalize Iranian oil. That was not suprising. The British had been arrogant and brutal, even murderous and racist in their treatment of Irainians. It had also taken huge profits from Iranian oil while paying very, very low fees to Iran.
The British response was to invade, with the help of France and the CIA.
Mossadegh was imprisoned as a traitor for three years of solitary, then was confined to his home for the rest of his life. And, with CIA help, he was replaced as ruler by a ruthless dictator named The Shah of Iran. So much for the American love of democracy.
Then Britain and France, with Israel, turned on Egypt when its military rulers decided to nationalize the Suez Canal  (another resource that British capitalists were getting rich on while paying little.) But this time, the U.S. government was furious at Britain, France and Israel. President Eisenhower now realized that American capitalists wanted their turn at looting the middle east. So the invaders had to back off.
Then, in 1948, the western powers gave most of Palestine to European Jews. This had nothing to do with western love of Judaism. It was a way to get rid of a problem.  Jews in most European countries wanted to get out after the horror of the holocaust. But nobody, including Britain, Canada or the U.S. wanted them. We were all anti-semitic.
So the western powers decided to dump them in Palestine.
It was not Judaism that offended the arabs in this. There already was and always has been a Jewish population in Palestine - as in other arab countries. Judaism had nothing to do with the arab reaction. They saw this for what it was - a theft of arab (and Jewish) land by Europeans. Indeed, many of the Palestinian Jews felt the same way.
For fifty years and more, Europeans (mostly British and French) had looted middle east oil, paying little for the privilege, treating workers (and  everybody else) with a contempt and brutality that included poverty and murder. These had been years of eploitation and humiliation as bad as any period in history. Then,  in the 1950s, U.S. capitalists joined with the French and the British.
Somehow, life staggered on in these nations that actually were not nations, with traditional societies that had been destroyed and nothing to replace them, with growing poverty even as their oil made foreign billionaires richer. Somehow, life went on in these conditions -- though there must have been burning hatred of Britain, France and the U.S.
Then the U.S. invaded Iraq.
 The reason for that invasion, a reason that never appeared in our press, was that Saddam Hussein was willing to sell oil to Russia. Bush and Blair were and are liars and war ciminals. Many of the people of Iraq loathed Hussein - but the brutality of the invasion of Iraq, like that inflicted on Vietnam, killed well over a million people - they're still dying of illegal US weapons like cluster bombs, mines, artillery shells  made of radioactive material. Basic supply systems for water and and electricity were destroyed, and have not been fixed to this day. Of the billions of dollars assigned to contractors to make repairs, almost all went into the pockets of Americans who were, as Norbert would say, 'corporate citizens'. Hundreds of thousands of children were killed in the carpet bombing.  Millions of children were orphaned, crippled, mutilated.
A few blogs ago, I mentioned and excellent book "The War on Truth" by a Canadian journalist who tells what he saw, of American soldiers who laughed at the sight of an Iraqi girl who was burning alive
You think the killings in Brussels were terrible? ISIS could learn from the U.S. military what real terrorism is like.
Perhaps Bush should not be blamed for this. He was just the retarded son of a family which had, for a hundred years, made its fortune out of  doing murders and other dirty jobs for American government.  (I know he had an MBA from an ivy league university. But that was almost certainly  bought. He didn't have the grades to get into the programme. He was heavily into booze and drugs at the time. It's not possible he could have earned that degree. But, if you're the son of a rich family, you can get any degree you want, even from the most respectable of ivy league schools.)
That may explain why the only corporate jobs he ever had were set up by his father.
The real president was Dick Cheney. And the effect was disastrous. Coupled with the Afghanistan war, it inflamed the already smouldering hatred of the arabs and of most Muslims, for the US - and its toadies, notably Britain.
The final touch, if any were needed, was the attack on Libya, and the murder of Ghadaffi who, for all his faults, had done a pretty good job of keeping Libya stable. Now, the British and French and some Americans are there fighting a war against an ISIS which did not exist until the U.S. created it.
The problem in the middle east is not ISIS. The problem existed long before ISIS. The problem is what created ISIS (and al quaeda) and all the others. The problem is that the United States is far the biggest terrorist organization in the world. But one should not blame the American people for that.
Blame a lying news media. Blame politicians who are owned by some of the greediest and most ruthless people, the ones (most of them) who are leading capitalists in the oil industry. American foreign policy is not set by the Clintons or Bushes or even the Donald Trumps of this world. It is set by the few, the very few, who own the politicians.
That's why the powerful U.S. has not been able to defeat the 'terrorists' despite fiteen years of fighting and monstrous spending. The U.S. is not run by people are are caring or principled. It's run by people who are some of the greediest and cruelist in world history.
So what happens next? Watch Europe. It's cracking under the strain of the refugees created by oil billionaires. One result is a distinct move toward the very far right - something like naziism or fascism. There is also a great unease that American billionaires also treat their countries just as they do arab countries. It's also worried about the U.S. moving up its forces and weapons to the Russian border. Any war on that border means the end of Europe.
European countries ( such as Greece) are also being driven to the financial wall by western bankers. It is quite possible they will consider it wiser to be satellites of Russia rather than of the U.S.
We have long ago stepped over the line to insanity. The American leadership races reflect that.  I have never seen political debates with such lack of substance, with such refusal to seriously look at dangerous conditions that have been created all over the world - and within the United States.
_______________________________________________________________________________
So what should we do? Well, first, we have to get out of the middle east. We can still get the oil. Gettinng oil isn't the problem. The problem is that big oil is taking immense profits, abusing the people of the region, and using our tax money to keep on abusing them.
We might defeat ISIS. But such victories haven't solved the problem for over fifty years. And they won't. If we destroy ISIS, new versions will spring up - and will spread around much of the world.  The problem is not that Muslims are attacking us. The problem is that we have been attacking, abusing, starving, cheating. killing them for a century. We haven't won that way. We son't win that way. And I cannot believe there is any way we can help the muslim world except to get out of its face. Nothing in the last century indicates that we can help them or that we will help them in any other way.
We have to get out of the middle east.
Or we can all prepare the way to hell by screaming insults at Muslims, electing governments that are the puppets of 'corporate citizens'.  accusing others of being 'terrorists' when the biggest terrorists in the world are us.
It is terrible that so many people in Brussels died. It's even more terrible to think of the millions who have died over the last fifty years and more because of us.
What we are watching - and doing - is insanity.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Well, Canada made the opinion columns of The Guardian with the death of former Toronto mayor Rob Ford. It helps to explain why I have never liked Toronto.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/23/canada-justin-trudeau-rob-ford-donald-trump
_____________________________________________________________________
And just before supper, here is a reaction to the Brussels bombing that I'm quite sure could be called a Christian one.

But I haven't seen such a response in, say, the very Christian newspapers of the Irvings. Nor to I expect to see one on the Faith Page.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/22/islamic-state-brussels-jihadis

_________________________________________________________________________
And now to a (late) supper.

No comments:

Post a Comment