Re: What Happened to Change We Can Believe In?

October 24, 2010

Re: (Frank Rich’s) What Happened to Change We Can Believe In?

Aside from midterm talking points/apologetic slants which obscure warranted levels of intense criticism (leading to actual “change”):

“President Obama, the Rodney Dangerfield of 2010, gets no respect for” . . . telling us to “look forward, not backward” – after instilling the “forward” as what would be on election day, instead of the opposite.

“President Obama, the Rodney Dangerfield of 2010, gets no respect for” . . . blocking the  release of a second set of torture photos – after promising the opposite.

“President Obama, the Rodney Dangerfield of 2010, gets no respect for” . . . human rights, as he continues the same abuses of his predecessor, with excuses of “possible future threats” (based on Minority Reports?), and information gleaned through torture – after inspiring a hopeful opposite.

“President Obama, the Rodney Dangerfield of 2010, gets no respect for” . . . bailing out Wall Street, without prompting a restoration of the Glass–Steagall Act, or providing relative relief to all the commoners who were purposely plundered – after portraying himself as a special interest opposite.

“President Obama, the Rodney Dangerfield of 2010, gets no respect for” . . . making secret deals with corporate executives, selling out the Public option, then signing a Mandate – after campaigning on the opposite.

“President Obama, the Rodney Dangerfield of 2010, gets no respect for” . . . “the dark cloud cast by” his willingness to defend extensions of unemployment checks, but not a National Jobs Program with teeth (i.e., one that is not $50 billion compared to $700 billion and loaded with even more Cheneyish tax cuts) – after attacking Bush II as his opposite.

“President Obama, the Rodney Dangerfield of 2010, gets no respect for” . . . failing to get his (supposed) party to use the slightest of backbones in letting the Bush II tax cuts expire for the wealthy – after guaranteeing the opposite.

“President Obama, the Rodney Dangerfield of 2010, gets no respect for” . . . appointing a Deficit Commission, dead-set on gutting Social Security as “austerity”/”self-sacrificing” measures (put off until December to guard the midterm results) – after championing privatization’s opposite.

“President Obama, the Rodney Dangerfield of 2010, gets no respect for” . . . refusing to implement a moratorium on foreclosures – after reams of documents and fifty state attorneys general make it certain that those Institutional denials of conspiratorial Fraud actually seal the opposite.

So, yes, within this “relentless drag on a chief executive who promised change we can believe in,” there is a “fatalistic sense that the stacked economic order that gave us the Great Recession remains not just in place but more entrenched and powerful than ever.”  And, within this environment, who gets “punished” “for bad behavior”?  The “Professional Left.”   But, “Should those [Other] forces prevail, an America that still hasn’t remotely recovered from the worst hard times in 70 years will end up handing over even more power to those who greased the skids.”  True, “[President Obama] sometimes looks as if he’s fronting for the industry.”  Yet, “Voters [somehow] are . . . failing to give the White House credit for its . . . successes,” and “finding it guilty of transgressions . . .” (since the “White House is hardly innocent”).  As a result, how could there be an Enthusiasm Gap?

Re: FBI Raids on Anti-War Activists

Bookmark and Share

More Talking Points from the New York Times

April 11, 2010

Another in a series of setups: First, controlling interests decide what direction, or policy, will be implemented.  Next, many months ahead, they dispense “talking points” to certain major publications and pliable “news” sources.  Then, people are incrementally (sold) “informed” as to what is inevitably upcoming.  Under the guise of facts simply being reported, it works like a well-timed machine: “With losses from credit card defaults rising and with capital to back credit cards harder to come by, issuers are likely to increase rates to 16 or 17 percent by the fall. . . .”  The latter facade (of a warning) was presented from a minute marketplace/”business environment” context.  No references to the recent (weak) CARD Act or relative history to rampant abuses which brought its passage were mentioned.  Instead, we are given the usual: a slanted “why” of what will be (for manipulative preparation) – but not a broader “why” of what IS, in an ongoing sense.

In short, credit card companies will continue escalating the Variable floor rate, before the Prime Rate even begins to be altered upwardly, step-by-step.  As an intended result, a new 20% average rate will be on our planned and coordinated horizon.  Remember Providian?  Their predatory practices were the focus of many lawsuits.  Remember their standard 19.9% “Gold” cards – which were enticements for the downtrodden, and fodder for comedians?  Soon, that rate will evolve – from oppressive joke material to a “National Average.”  And, the consequences will be used against us.

Credit Unions and Community Banks: Send a Message

Sugar-Coated Status Quos: Let the Markets Grow

Congress Shocked by Credit Card Predators?

Bookmark and Share

World Stage Actors: Terrorism and Propaganda Rules

January 14, 2010

While acknowledging disturbing facts and ridiculing assertions within the article, “Republican Fear has Given the Terrorists an Easy Victory,” a much more revealing level of clarity could be achieved – if another explicit step was taken.  Some of our (MS) media members convey bewilderment – while calling certain republicans out with terms like (ongoing) “amnesia.”  But, rarely does a member go the extra (bold) mile by directly identifying what they are actually doing – on purpose.  It is not because of momentary “amnesia” or mistaken/uninformed presentations when they publicly state that “no terrorist attacks occurred on Bush’s watch.”  The same applies to their relentless focusing on the three days it took for Obama to respond to the Underpants Bomber – while Bush’s six days to respond to the Shoe Bomber are seemingly forgotten.  They know, precisely, what they are doing.  It is all part of a concerted talking points Act.  (The fronted foundations are as real and genuine as Beck’s Tears: He did not truly believe Sarah Palin was [pretending to quote from his personal journal] “one of the only people . . . that [could] possibly lead us out of where we [were].”  Based on provided lines and theatrical props, two (wholly controlled) players were just filling their roles/reading their lines.  The entire premise was a formulated camera setup: everything seen and heard was simulated for a fictitious FOXworld.)  It is conscious – and on purpose.  This is their (continuing) Big LIES campaign.  To them, it’s just politics – without boundaries.  (Anyone having a problem with that is just weak – and a possible target.)  The “B Movie” outrage is as fake as the utterly insulting Scripts: “Oh My God!”:  “Death Panels!”  Incredible and entirely manipulative equations like “Pres. Obama Reacts to Haiti Earthquake Faster Than Christmas Bomber” (deliberately) serve to allow the following (Staged) reactions.

“Today, it’s Liz Cheney and her fear-mongering commercials.  It’s Peter King, who’s been all over cable news hyperventilating into a paper sack since Christmas.  It never ceases to amaze me how a faction of allegedly tough-talking conservatives can be so easily frightened by a kid with exploding underpants who couldn’t even do it right.”

People like Liz Cheney and Peter King are not “so easily frightened.”  They need to be boldly confronted with what they are obviously doing: acting and lying, beyond all moral senses.

The purpose of terrorism is to provoke an overreaction.  Its real aim is not to kill the hundreds of people directly targeted but to sow fear in the rest of the population.”’

One element of full-scale propaganda is for prominent public figures to intentionally overreact – in unison.  In turn, when other prominent public figures rise to the latter occasions by directly defining their measures, as well as exposing their Acts, tremendous offsetting of the propagandists’ success can be made (while further enlightening / empowering the besieged public).


Bookmark and Share


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 48 other followers