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
Apr 062013
 
PrintFriendly and PDF

An excerpt from Noam Chomsky’s Power Systems, interviews with David Barsamian

110509_FW_chomskyTN.jpg

Cambridge, Massachusetts (January 17, 2012)

Noam Chomsky – Power Systems: Conversations with David Barsamian on Global Democratic Uprisings and the new challenges to U.S. Empire’ [Hamish Hamilton, 2013]:

DB:… In late 2011, ‘New York Times’ columnist David Brooks reported that a Gallup poll showed that in answer to the question “Which of the following will be the biggest threat to the country in the future – big business, big labor, or big government?” close to 65 percent of respondents said the government and 26 percent said corporations. Is that an example of the persuasion and manufacturing of consent that you alluded to? Continue reading »

Did you like this? Share it:
Apr 022013
 
PrintFriendly and PDF

Editor’s Note: The broad daylight scandal of gouger industries like Big Pharma, energy, etc., is common and inherent in US society, where one of the most savage and cynical forms of capitalism reigns practically unopposed. Now, as The New York Times reports (Low-Cost Drugs in Poor Nations Get a Lift in Indian Court), an Indian court has sided with the public in a matter of critical interest, something rarely seen in America, despite the fact that populist senator Estes Kefauver exposed the drug industry racket as a public enemy in the 1950s, and nothing much has changed since (Cf In a Few Hands).  One of the things that Kefauver systematically demonstrated was precisely that much of new drug R&D expense was actually underwritten by taxpayer allocations, with most of the hard part of the R&D conducted in government and academic facilities, even if the profitable selling of the drugs was later handed over to Big Pharma. If that is not a sweet backroom deal, what is?  

While on the topic, we should keep in mind that the US is one of the few countries in the entire world where we can witness both the President and Congress move in unison to block a measure that would have allowed volume discounts to government agencies.  Canada and many other capitalist nations don’t dare go that far openly injuring the public interest, but here, where the ruling cliques have little to fear from the largely passive if not politically comatose masses, they do it every day, with almost total impunity. One more thing: Observe in the select comment thread we have included how public opinion, except for some likely shill for the drug industry or misguided libertarian,  is overwhelmingly against Big Pharma and anxious to see it forcefully reined in, or kicked out of the game of for-profit medicine altogether, where it really belongs in a truly rational and decent society.—P. Greanville

________________

Low-Cost Drugs in Poor Nations Get a Lift in Indian Court

Big Court Ruling Favors Generic Drugs: The Times’s Katie Thomas explains why a ruling in India favoring generic drugs has rippling effects around the world.

Big Court Ruling Favors Generic Drugs: The Times’s Katie Thomas explains why a ruling in India favoring generic drugs has rippling effects around the world.

By  and Published: April 1, 2013

NEW DELHI — People in developing countries worldwide will continue to have access to low-cost copycat versions of drugs for diseases like H.I.V. and cancer, at least for a while. Continue reading »

Did you like this? Share it:
Mar 292013
 
PrintFriendly and PDF

By Gary Brumback

 corporatismEditor’s Note: This is a sweeping and provocative assessment of the situation we face as a result of runaway corporatism—technically “finance capitalism”, or, as some call it, the age of “financialization”—which many Marxian historians expect it to be not just the most destructive and parasitic of all incarnations, but the last stage of its accursed evolution.

On many points we agree with the author, on others we see things differently. But since the object of publishing this piece is only to inform and spark discussion not engage in intramural polemics, we won’t go into a detailed critique of the aspects we regard as subject to amicable debate. A single point of divergence requires mention at this juncture: after a very persuasive analysis of the ravages of corporate power, Brumback inexplicably—and some of us think illlogically and quite ahistorically— avers that there is actually a possibility of simultaneously destroying corporate power as it exists and substituting a new model of capitalism, this time responsive to human needs. The idea of a “capitalism with a human face”, or “people’s capitalism,” has been floated umpteen times before only to be shown as little more than a defensive propaganda ploy for the system, so we are surprised that Brumbeck gives credence to something that is a historically demonstrated dead end.  In so doing he reminds us of libertarians who continue to claim that “real capitalism” never existed; that big government’s tentacles have killed free enterprise’s supposedly beneficial purity, and that we should give it another go, this time with more laissez faire ferocity than the first time around. Such arguments, besides ignoring Dickens and Marx, and turning a blind eye to the organic evolution of all systems of social organization, conveniently forget that capitalism, as long as it remains capitalism,  follows an internal inflexible dynamic which will transform it over time into the sort of horrid, amoral, predatory system we inhabit today. In particular, Gary’s notion that, “Neither is capitalism inherently corrupt and socialism the only alternative,” strikes us bizarre.  If a system unabashedly based on selfish pursuit is not inherently immoral, what is?—P. Greanville

________________________________________________

Is America Going to Hell in a Handbasket

By Gary Brumback

“Going to Hell in a handbasket” is a time-worn phrase, probably dating back a millennium or more and referring to captured and decapitated losers in wars. It could be an appropriate metaphor for America’s fate sometime later this century. Continue reading »

Did you like this? Share it:
Mar 262013
 
PrintFriendly and PDF
AlterNet [1] / By Alyssa Goldstein [2]
comments_image
March 19, 2013  |
many men think that women make themselves more attractive for purely sexual reasons, but it's a lot more complicated than that.

Many men—including sophistos— think that women make themselves more attractive for purely sexual reasons, but it’s a lot more complicated than that.

In the 1600s, a man named James Mattock was expelled from the First Church of Boston. His crime? It wasn’t using lewd language or smiling on the sabbath or anything else that we might think the Puritans had disapproved of. Rather, James Mattock had refused to have sex with his wife for two years. Though Mattock’s community clearly saw his self-deprivation as improper, it is quite possible that they had his wife’s suffering in mind when they decided to shun him. The Puritans believed that sexual desire was a normal and natural part of human life for both men and women (as long as it was heterosexual and confined to marriage), but that women wanted and needed sex more than men. A man could choose to give up sex with relatively little trouble, but for a woman to be so deprived would be much more difficult for her. Continue reading »

Did you like this? Share it:
Mar 172013
 
PrintFriendly and PDF
Role Reboot [1] / By Emily Heist Moss [2] / Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
comments_image

onlineDating

The following piece first appeared on Role Reboot. [3] Click here to read more of their content.  [4]

I tell all my single girlfriends to give online dating a try. Why not? I say, what’s the worst that could happen? You set up a profile, pick some cute photos, write something witty about the things that you love (Beyonce, Hillary Clinton, Battlestar Galactica), list some books you like, and then sit back, kick your feet up, and wait for the messages to roll in. Your inbox will fill with notes from 19-year-olds in the ‘burbs, 40-somethings who find your taste in music “refreshing,” addled idiots writing “id fck u,” and a handful of age-appropriate, nice-looking guys who can string some sentences together and like to cook. With those, you will send a few messages back and forth before he invites you for a drink. You will put on some mascara, plunge out into the snow, meet a stranger, and after an hour of slightly stilted conversation, he will grab the check. You will try to split it, but he will pay, and you will stand to re-wrap yourself against the frigid wind. You will part ways, and you will probably, almost certainly, begin again the next day with another “Hey there…” message from the next contender. Continue reading »

Did you like this? Share it:
Feb 252013
 
PrintFriendly and PDF

Note: The following critique on the state of Hollywood cinema was sent to the World Socialist Web Site by a reader from South America. He’s so much on the mark that we’re reposting it here for your appreciation, with our thanks to wsws.org. 

Django_Unchained_Poster

I wanted to congratulate David Walsh for his article entitled “The intellectually bankrupt defenders of Django Unchained and Zero Dark Thirty ,” for his previous negative notes about those films and also for his praise of Lincoln. In South America, particularly in my country (Uruguay) and in Argentina, several commentators have been kind to Bigelow and Tarantino and critical of Spielberg. Lincoln explores with dignity the public and private life of the Republican president in the last months of his government and his existence. Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner did not create a hagiographic portrait or a bronze statue, but a human, ambiguous character. They show the hero yelling at his wife, slapping his eldest son and lobbying to get the votes needed to pass the amendment which abolished slavery. But, at the same time, they knew how to pay tribute to the legacy of this great historical figure. Continue reading »

Did you like this? Share it:
 Posted by at 12:45 pm