Things to consider—

Since early 2011, Obama's been waging proxy war on Syria. Imported death squads masquerade as freedom fighters. The scheme's familiar. It repeats. It reflects US imperialism's dark side. In the 1980s, CIA-recruited mujahideen fighters battled Afghanistan's Soviet occupiers. Ronald Reagan called them "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers." He characterized Contra killers the same way. —Stephen LendmanFor over a century now US ambassadors have acted as fifth columns in the nations they are embedded in, their role chiefly to foster corporate and plutocratic power and coordinate machinations against any truly pro-democratic government.•••••"The dead end identity politics of SF Pride, which sells out a peace hero like Bradley Manning to curry favor with the American ruling class, is what I had in mind. The empire loves your tameness, irrelevance and cowardice, SF Pride. You don’t bother the American ruling class — a five foot two, 105 pound soldier does because he has a conscience and because he didn’t make comfort the guiding principle of his life...." —Randy Shields
May 102011
 
By Janet McMahon
Crossposted with http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/05-10 

Steve J. Rosen, AIPAC's fallen foreign policy chief.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the last three letters of AIPAC stand for “political action committee.” But since the American Israel Public Affairs Committee does not itself make campaign contributions to political candidates, technically it is not a PAC. Curiously, however, the 30-odd “unaffiliated” pro-Israel PACs, most with deceptively innocuous names, all seem to give to the same candidates—almost as if there were a guiding intelligence behind their contributions. In the eyes of the Federal Election Commission, AIPAC is a “membership organization” rather than a political committee. This means that, unlike actual PACs, AIPAC is not required to file public reports on its income and expenditures. Continue reading »

Did you like this? Share it:
May 102011
 

Hatchet Jobs By the Washington Policy Gang

By DEAN BAKER

Congressman Paul Ryan: a real public enemy by any standard. Problem is he's not the exception, but the rule.

The film Casablanca features one of the greatest moments in movie history. With Humphrey Bogart standing with a smoking pistol over the body of the dead Gestapo major, Claude Rains, in the role of the French colonel tells his troops: “the major has been shot, round up the usual suspects.”

Unfortunately the Washington policy gang is busy following Claude Rains’ instructions. The nation is drowning in endless accounts of how the huge deficit will sink the economy and the country. These accounts invariably feature stories of a Congress addicted to spending and a nation that wants government benefits that it doesn’t want to pay for. Continue reading »

Did you like this? Share it:
May 102011
 

By James Ridgeway

Osama's waning popularity may have been reawakened among those who resent Euro-American meddling.

BACK IN THE 1980s, before the Cold War gave way to the War on Terror, American money and supplies helped Osama Bin Laden create Al Qaeda and build it into one of the world’s most successful terrorist organizations. And without the close alliances between Al Qaeda and our “allies” Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the attack on the World Trade Towers could not have been carried out. What follows are the bare bones of what we know of this world as it existed in the days before September 11, 2001. (Some of the early material in this account first appeared in my book The Five Unanswered Questions About 9/11.) Continue reading »

Did you like this? Share it:
May 102011
 

The high court’s decision to prevent people from bringing class-action suits against corporations is further proof that its conservative majority favors businesses over consumers, employees and others suffering injuries.

By Erwin Chemerinsky May 10, 2011

Supremely corrupt: Antonin Scalia wrote the majority decision favoring corporate power. He was joined by his usual accomplices on the court, Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas. Robed in impunity, another wanton act against the public interest.

The Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 decision preventing consumers from bringing class-action suits against corporations is part of a disturbing trend of the five most conservative justices closing the courthouse doors to injured individuals. This is nothing other than a conservative majority favoring the interests of businesses over consumers, employees and others suffering injuries

The case involved Vincent and Liza Concepcion, who purchased a cellphone from AT&T Mobility. The form contract they signed provided for arbitration of all disputes between the parties. Such clauses are now widespread in a vast array of contexts. Doctors frequently ask patients to sign agreements that any claims for malpractice will go to arbitration and not to court. Employers commonly require employees to sign agreements that disputes, including discrimination claims, will go to arbitration.

AT&T had advertised that the phones were free but charged the Concepcions $30.22 in taxes. The Concepcions’ suit was consolidated with other similar claims into a class action alleging that AT&T had engaged in false advertising and fraud by charging sales tax on phones it advertised as free. Continue reading »

Did you like this? Share it:
May 102011
 

Fox’s series 24 called prescient

How the Killing of Osama bin Laden Mirrored a Popular TV Show

Hillary Atkin ■ Posted May 3, 2011 on TvWeek

Hillary Atkin at the Cartier 100th Anniversary In America bash with a fellow sophisto.

Prefatory Note: Talk about being clueless about the reality that defines the world today! The below, reproduced in its totality, is a good example of what abounds in the infotainment industry these days. Not only a ludicrous gushy accolade to a repugnantly fascistic show, “24″, which, like the smelliest miasma, suitably emanates from Fox, but florid prose toward folks who seem to spend more time going to awards and receiving awards than doing serious work.  In other words an eloquent document of how appallingly mediocre the mainstream media personnel have become, even discounting for the fact that Ms. Atkin obviously doesn’t see herself as Cronkite’s heir.

Why do we run this rubbish? Simply to remind our readers how the corporate-dominated mind sees current events, and how obviously seductive the bubble they inhabit is. In fairness, the author of this article is no more obtuse, vapid or evil than the average corporate media apparatchik. Perhaps the main difference is that Atkin makes a few grand a year while Couric and Brian Williams walk away with millions. As for TVWeek, this is one more of a bunch of gossipy trade publications, chiefly directed at fellow media people. Being online, however, has now diversified its audience. Here’s what the Wiki tells us:

TelevisionWeek is a trade magazine delivering news, analysis and data on television and media. It was founded in 1982 as Electronic Media. It is currently owned by Crain Communications Inc., the same firm that owns Advertising Week, long the bible of Mad Ave practitioners. The current editor is Greg Baumann. The corporate and circulation departments are based at Crain’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. However, the editorial department is based in Los Angeles, California. Continue reading »

Did you like this? Share it:
May 102011
 
The   B u l l e t Socialist Project - home
Socialist Project • E-Bulletin No. 500
May 10, 2011

Unionism, Austerity, and the Left:
An interview with Sam Gindin

Andony Melathopoulos (AM): Clearly these are not very good times for public sector unions, not only in Canada but worldwide. What characterizes the current situation? How does it differ from what unions have faced historically and how they could respond, not only in the 1990s, but during their formation in the 1960s?

Sam Gindin (SG): In the 1960s, there was an explosion of the public sector and also, an environment dominated by militancy. But militancy can only take you so far. You have to develop the capacity to challenge structural constraints, and that wasn’t on the agenda for labour. The result was its defeat, and, simultaneously, the strengthening of capital. At the time we didn’t see the scope of this defeat – our present moment has really shown its scale. One would think the current crisis resolutely delegitimizes capital and the financial system, creating an opening for the radicalization of labour. Instead, labour is weaker than before and capital stronger. This should be recognized as the product of a generational defeat of the labour movement, itself connected to the militant movements of the 1960s. Continue reading »

Did you like this? Share it: