see this informative article about the meltdown, the 25 main cheating money grabbers, and how much AIG, a huge bailer outed had contributed to Obama's recent campaign in 2008 =see
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/economic_meltdown/assets/img/Chart5-fullsize.jpg
see full article by citizens Public Integrity who investigated and crunched actual numbers for us to learn about what we are, will be, forever, paying those who cheated and robbed us, taxpayers. AIG donated $104,332 in campaign contributions = just given to help this man become our top govt official who then turns around to bail out that same company....now this does make sense, right ? See this:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/economic_meltdown/articles/entry/1286/
"The Roots of the Financial Crisis: Who Is to Blame?
Banks that Financed Subprime Industry Collecting Billions in Bailouts "
By John Dunbar, David Donald May 06, 2009
The full informative article cites banks, refers to links for numbers, and exposes lots of banks and institutions we had used and trusted...before... but our
focus here is on CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS and who rec'd most and the question is how does this relate to the big bail-outs that came later ? huh ?
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/economic_meltdown/assets/img/top25-listfull.jpg
here are some quotes, or you can read the whole detailed article for yourself too
"American International Group (AIG), better known for insurance and complex trades in financial derivatives, made the list at No. 18, " [snip]
"The five banks on the list that are still lending are Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, GMAC LLC, Citigroup, and AIG. All have received billions from the government’s bank bailout programs." [snip]
"In addition to the $700 billion bailout, the Federal Reserve began committing hundreds of billions of dollars to guarantee against losses on failing mortgage assets of AIG, Citigroup, and Bank of America." [snip]
" And the bailout of insurance giant AIG may go as high as $187 billion and includes a combination of loans, direct investment by the government, and purchases of shaky assets. " [snip]
another chart of interest = http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/economic_meltdown/assets/img/Chart6-fullsize.jpg
"Many of the lenders coaxed them along by lowering lending standards, failing to require documentation of income on loans, and providing adjustable rate loans with low two-year teaser rates that reset to much higher levels. Ultimately, that fed a wave of foreclosures, leading to trouble for borrowers, lenders, and eventually taxpayers — lots of it"
yeah, yeah, some people are tired of hearing about it, but every review of WHAT DID HAPPEN when and where tells us there are smelly games being played in high places, even with those who promised transparency and hope too.
you may be fascinated by the work done by CITIZEN groups, that are not government nor allied with those who stole our savings and erased our confidence in our money and those who claimed to hold it 'for us'.
(c) maryjanie 2009
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
FLU FEARS spread and spread until we are all.....uh huh
maryjanie also said on http://dprogram.net/2009/05/05/when-government-plays-doctor/ May 5, 2009
It can be called the FEAR FLU syndrome, not the virus physical one that is so dangerous to world health….why are so many governmental and other ‘agencies’ promoting fear with the media as their instrument of choice ?
The CDC top people have said same as Ron Paul, about “36,000 deaths in the USA every year from flu” and no one has made ‘pandemic’ predictions nor shown constant visual cues to provoke fear like those ‘face masks’ used to invoke the dread of being [yuk !] infected…even by the common cold or smog effects.Note the ‘every year’ deaths in USA alone, not the 170 in Mexico or 2 here and there, and unverified ….blah blah blah….fear anecdotes.
There must be a better purpose and plan to scare everyone into not going to schools, stores, and meeting together, without political martial laws in effect yet ! The governments are falling like petals from a withered flower into the same dead pattern of hiding actual information…
of implying extreme dangers and deaths,and even worse…
of exacerbating the actual confirmed infections into predictions of “being like 1918 pandemic” [ going waaaaaaaay back to when there was exponentially lots less hygiene, technological help, health aids, health services in effect everywhere, et al ] which is not where we are in 2009 health advanced and pharmaceutical and medical procedures/ hospital availability and developments.
Why the continual “news” repeating the same implications and scare tactics ? Does anyone near you or your neighborhood appear to have been infected and hospitalized, or even died ? no ? then why fear so strongly?
It appears to be just after the economic scare, of global debasement, loss of savings and jobs, banks cashing in and being bailed out [their lives saved, so to speak] and people of the nation states left out of the solutions. Is this possibly called “COINCIDENCE”?
or what was the just previous scare then to insure everyone focused on saving themselves because there was no time or ways to care for anyone else around…. arbitrary imperialistic invasions, nuclear bomb destruct ions, civil wars created by changing regimes, genocides within a nation-state, the “9/11″ bombers mostly from Saudi Arabia, the state-friend of USA administrators ?
And what other scares are continually shown in all media, the kidnappings, missing children, muslim women stoned, women veiled as keepsakes, and the “they are out to get US” so “let’s kill them all and sort them out later” method.
Why do we join as individuals and private citizens into the scare stories and spread them further ? Do we need to dramatize our boring work lives ?
To further stimulate and arouse us from the easy violence and porno shown on movie & TV screens and to which many have been bored and innervated ?
Do we need that external drama to divert us from finding what moral and values we now lack as a ‘free people’- to do whatever we think we want -when it is that we are pushed by advertising and debt into ever stricter wormholes and constrictions ?
Do we prefer fear to keep our denial in effect by not focusing on what we are not doing, Even tho we like to say we want “peace” or “compassion” or “a clean planet”…but then do nothing much to achieve these ?
Why do so many USAmericans agree to be scared and share their fears and then contaminate everyone around them even further with their agreeing that: oh, they are helpless, we are in mortal physical danger, and only ‘the government’ [with it's PR antics and image as 'the only savior around', ha ! ] can help us now….? why ?
What fools so many have become when we dont question what is being publicized or question who is saying it, repeatedly. Who ever gave the Prez the medical degree to give us any medical advice anyhow ? Was it just another photo-talk op, as if he were still campaigning or is he diverting us from what else he is doing with our taxes and our constitution ?
Why oh Why have Americans allowed the corporate media blitzes to inundate our open public spaces with their filthy fear mongering? Why?
Please…tell us what you know…what else is going on?
(c) maryjanie 2009
It can be called the FEAR FLU syndrome, not the virus physical one that is so dangerous to world health….why are so many governmental and other ‘agencies’ promoting fear with the media as their instrument of choice ?
The CDC top people have said same as Ron Paul, about “36,000 deaths in the USA every year from flu” and no one has made ‘pandemic’ predictions nor shown constant visual cues to provoke fear like those ‘face masks’ used to invoke the dread of being [yuk !] infected…even by the common cold or smog effects.Note the ‘every year’ deaths in USA alone, not the 170 in Mexico or 2 here and there, and unverified ….blah blah blah….fear anecdotes.
There must be a better purpose and plan to scare everyone into not going to schools, stores, and meeting together, without political martial laws in effect yet ! The governments are falling like petals from a withered flower into the same dead pattern of hiding actual information…
of implying extreme dangers and deaths,and even worse…
of exacerbating the actual confirmed infections into predictions of “being like 1918 pandemic” [ going waaaaaaaay back to when there was exponentially lots less hygiene, technological help, health aids, health services in effect everywhere, et al ] which is not where we are in 2009 health advanced and pharmaceutical and medical procedures/ hospital availability and developments.
Why the continual “news” repeating the same implications and scare tactics ? Does anyone near you or your neighborhood appear to have been infected and hospitalized, or even died ? no ? then why fear so strongly?
It appears to be just after the economic scare, of global debasement, loss of savings and jobs, banks cashing in and being bailed out [their lives saved, so to speak] and people of the nation states left out of the solutions. Is this possibly called “COINCIDENCE”?
or what was the just previous scare then to insure everyone focused on saving themselves because there was no time or ways to care for anyone else around…. arbitrary imperialistic invasions, nuclear bomb destruct ions, civil wars created by changing regimes, genocides within a nation-state, the “9/11″ bombers mostly from Saudi Arabia, the state-friend of USA administrators ?
And what other scares are continually shown in all media, the kidnappings, missing children, muslim women stoned, women veiled as keepsakes, and the “they are out to get US” so “let’s kill them all and sort them out later” method.
Why do we join as individuals and private citizens into the scare stories and spread them further ? Do we need to dramatize our boring work lives ?
To further stimulate and arouse us from the easy violence and porno shown on movie & TV screens and to which many have been bored and innervated ?
Do we need that external drama to divert us from finding what moral and values we now lack as a ‘free people’- to do whatever we think we want -when it is that we are pushed by advertising and debt into ever stricter wormholes and constrictions ?
Do we prefer fear to keep our denial in effect by not focusing on what we are not doing, Even tho we like to say we want “peace” or “compassion” or “a clean planet”…but then do nothing much to achieve these ?
Why do so many USAmericans agree to be scared and share their fears and then contaminate everyone around them even further with their agreeing that: oh, they are helpless, we are in mortal physical danger, and only ‘the government’ [with it's PR antics and image as 'the only savior around', ha ! ] can help us now….? why ?
What fools so many have become when we dont question what is being publicized or question who is saying it, repeatedly. Who ever gave the Prez the medical degree to give us any medical advice anyhow ? Was it just another photo-talk op, as if he were still campaigning or is he diverting us from what else he is doing with our taxes and our constitution ?
Why oh Why have Americans allowed the corporate media blitzes to inundate our open public spaces with their filthy fear mongering? Why?
Please…tell us what you know…what else is going on?
(c) maryjanie 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Unemployed ? Here are some thoughts that may help.
Out of a job ? again ? or suddenly scared of losing that job you complained so much about just recently ? You are not alone. Some thoughts of an unemployed. Share your comments and suggestions here too.
Some thinking people actually have become more than full up with all the Obama fawning and the constant admiring of his continual PR and his continual campaigning is getting old too. This Prez said, same as prior one, go buy more to help the economy recover. Huh ? How ?
Some people on unemployment are now saying it is good to 'go on the dole' as the Brits say, and assume that if a job is not easily found quickly, then just take the government's money [ that is= all the taxpayers' money, including your prior employed payments ] and pretend it is all 'for free now'...not to worry...just take a year's vacation on the back of the rest of the hard-laboring-citizens? "Stay on unemployment as long as you can", many like to advise.
But is that called helpful - moral - fair - and honest advice? Some of us differ. That benefit is only a temporary tide-over so we can continue searching, persisting, learning and trying some more. Not a good answer, even if the govt is now giving it up for longer or with more benefits. It's still 'the dole', not to be ashamed of, but not an uplifting way to live.
The easy way out is not the best way, nor is the selfish taking "time off with pay" a socially conscionable act. If you need time off because of some serious emotional or health reason, that is different, but just because work is more difficult to find or with less pay than you had before... that walk-away is not a healthy choice for you, or the rest of us either. In fact, the too-long-time-off creates other attitude problems for returning to employment.
Better yet is learning how to trade and barter and help each other,any other, collectively, cooperatively, and willingly.
Spend less and realize that the good-economic-with-debt- times were a faked up advertised illusion, that you too believed as if no consequences would ever occur when over-consumption was indulged.
Realize the ways USAns have been sold on luxury, regularly eating 'out', buying fancy new items [phones, electronics, clothes, toys] , and always "more" with it's attendant Entitlement Attitude was fun but that was also a fake lure. All that is excessive has it's cyclic turn and then ...plop ! right back into the good earth dirt mud.
And what is wrong with being frugal, sharing sparingly but lovingly with others ?
It's not hard to do unless you have become indulgent, expectant, and spoiled-childlike.
So how can each person share whatever skills they have accumulated in-Trade with someone else's talents and resources ? Barter more. What's so hard about coming back around to where the global citizens had less, saved more, did without all those up-scale extras ?
And....without complaints and self-pity. Without taking advantage of anyone else or even the system?
Can't we do as others do : Share apt. spaces, and learn how to "get along" with others that seemed so difficult before . Not everyone needs a whole apt. for themselves alone, or even just 'for 2'. Like so many other peoples of this world, spaces can be used in shifts, or shared in different ways as work spaces, not just stored as 'sitting rooms'.
And what tragedies occur if time is used more practically with a lot less TV, movie, DVD, and passive other-story-watching ?
Being INVOLVED in real life with real people is a real learning experience...yes, again.
Learning to tolerate, accept and cooperate is a whole level we have easily avoided by the being able to live separately while previously affording 'my very own' for a while now.
Can we now take the challenges we have avoided, like having to live alongside each other, again, instead of separating [like spoiled milk], or instead of looking down at having-to-share, yes, again.
Who ever said this USAmerican life is suppose to always be more filled with more stuff, including electronics, toys, adult toys, and full wallets ? Who ever promised us that we would always get MORE ...while also working longer hours for less and like it too ?
We've heard that actual wages have not risen in real inflated dollars since 1997, but we have demanded to stay in that dream in which we could buy more and more because we "deserve" to keep always buying. Besides buying being a 'national duty' by this and prior Prez's decrees too.
Is it Depression, recession, hard times or just 'harder than we ever thought it Should Be'? The word description is not what is important. It is how we go into the challenges and find creative ways of learning to live...again...differently than we have grown accustomed to...but still not so bad as is feared and complained.
We still have what friends we realize, yes, we can trust and like. We may even have family to which we must re-connect back.. yes, again. We may find that regular home-cooking, doing our own cleaning and laundry, driving less and taking public transportation at times, reading for personal growth and learning, and talking to strangers [who love to share their secrets and advice too] is not as bad as we thought. The simple life. The fuller life.
Hey, why the sour look ? The free paycheck from the govt is not free for all. But while finding clever ways of making just-enough to keep us housed and fed until another job or opportunity emerges, we can still stay free, independent, inter-dependent and be adults.
The welfare roles are not the best opportunity for growth or gain, tho many do lazily prefer them.
Try another way, for a change. Grow. Be willing to do something 'different' than just get. For a change.
(C) maryjanie 2009
Some thinking people actually have become more than full up with all the Obama fawning and the constant admiring of his continual PR and his continual campaigning is getting old too. This Prez said, same as prior one, go buy more to help the economy recover. Huh ? How ?
Some people on unemployment are now saying it is good to 'go on the dole' as the Brits say, and assume that if a job is not easily found quickly, then just take the government's money [ that is= all the taxpayers' money, including your prior employed payments ] and pretend it is all 'for free now'...not to worry...just take a year's vacation on the back of the rest of the hard-laboring-citizens? "Stay on unemployment as long as you can", many like to advise.
But is that called helpful - moral - fair - and honest advice? Some of us differ. That benefit is only a temporary tide-over so we can continue searching, persisting, learning and trying some more. Not a good answer, even if the govt is now giving it up for longer or with more benefits. It's still 'the dole', not to be ashamed of, but not an uplifting way to live.
The easy way out is not the best way, nor is the selfish taking "time off with pay" a socially conscionable act. If you need time off because of some serious emotional or health reason, that is different, but just because work is more difficult to find or with less pay than you had before... that walk-away is not a healthy choice for you, or the rest of us either. In fact, the too-long-time-off creates other attitude problems for returning to employment.
Better yet is learning how to trade and barter and help each other,any other, collectively, cooperatively, and willingly.
Spend less and realize that the good-economic-with-debt- times were a faked up advertised illusion, that you too believed as if no consequences would ever occur when over-consumption was indulged.
Realize the ways USAns have been sold on luxury, regularly eating 'out', buying fancy new items [phones, electronics, clothes, toys] , and always "more" with it's attendant Entitlement Attitude was fun but that was also a fake lure. All that is excessive has it's cyclic turn and then ...plop ! right back into the good earth dirt mud.
And what is wrong with being frugal, sharing sparingly but lovingly with others ?
It's not hard to do unless you have become indulgent, expectant, and spoiled-childlike.
So how can each person share whatever skills they have accumulated in-Trade with someone else's talents and resources ? Barter more. What's so hard about coming back around to where the global citizens had less, saved more, did without all those up-scale extras ?
And....without complaints and self-pity. Without taking advantage of anyone else or even the system?
Can't we do as others do : Share apt. spaces, and learn how to "get along" with others that seemed so difficult before . Not everyone needs a whole apt. for themselves alone, or even just 'for 2'. Like so many other peoples of this world, spaces can be used in shifts, or shared in different ways as work spaces, not just stored as 'sitting rooms'.
And what tragedies occur if time is used more practically with a lot less TV, movie, DVD, and passive other-story-watching ?
Being INVOLVED in real life with real people is a real learning experience...yes, again.
Learning to tolerate, accept and cooperate is a whole level we have easily avoided by the being able to live separately while previously affording 'my very own' for a while now.
Can we now take the challenges we have avoided, like having to live alongside each other, again, instead of separating [like spoiled milk], or instead of looking down at having-to-share, yes, again.
Who ever said this USAmerican life is suppose to always be more filled with more stuff, including electronics, toys, adult toys, and full wallets ? Who ever promised us that we would always get MORE ...while also working longer hours for less and like it too ?
We've heard that actual wages have not risen in real inflated dollars since 1997, but we have demanded to stay in that dream in which we could buy more and more because we "deserve" to keep always buying. Besides buying being a 'national duty' by this and prior Prez's decrees too.
Is it Depression, recession, hard times or just 'harder than we ever thought it Should Be'? The word description is not what is important. It is how we go into the challenges and find creative ways of learning to live...again...differently than we have grown accustomed to...but still not so bad as is feared and complained.
We still have what friends we realize, yes, we can trust and like. We may even have family to which we must re-connect back.. yes, again. We may find that regular home-cooking, doing our own cleaning and laundry, driving less and taking public transportation at times, reading for personal growth and learning, and talking to strangers [who love to share their secrets and advice too] is not as bad as we thought. The simple life. The fuller life.
Hey, why the sour look ? The free paycheck from the govt is not free for all. But while finding clever ways of making just-enough to keep us housed and fed until another job or opportunity emerges, we can still stay free, independent, inter-dependent and be adults.
The welfare roles are not the best opportunity for growth or gain, tho many do lazily prefer them.
Try another way, for a change. Grow. Be willing to do something 'different' than just get. For a change.
(C) maryjanie 2009
Saturday, February 21, 2009
worried about your money or your freedom ? here are some thoughts from others....
this are a partial reposts of various sites below:
- - - --
Maverick News: Small Expectations
Maverick Media - 24 January, 2009 -on Pacificana.org
In describing the current economic crisis, for example, he said, "Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age." But the people suffering the most didn't "fail" to make "hard choices" about the greed and speculation on Wall Street. They didn’t get to choose at all. And they didn’t share in the gains that preceded the crash. Yet now they're being asked to take responsibility and sacrifice he also claimed that "our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." This and other lines could have come from Bush's speechwriters.
Other troubling signs from Team Obama: calling for more US troops in Afghanistan without a clear explanation of what they’ll do there… giving a misleading impression about how soon and how many soldiers will be removed from Iraq by using the term "combat troops" – 100,000 mercenaries and up to 60,000 troops may remain… approving unspecified bailout amounts for unspecified purposes with unspecified oversight… picking a budget director who favors cutting Social Security for those under 60… picking an attorney general who supports continued immunity for illegal wiretapping and secret searches of library and bookstore data files… Plus, support for the war on drugs, the Patriot Act, and the death penalty.
- - - -
from http://pacificana.org/
THE STATE OF FREEDOM. Freedom House, an advocacy group founded in 1941 by Eleanor Roosevelt that fights tyranny around the world, says that freedom was in retreat in 2008. According to the group’s just released annual survey of political rights and civil liberties, this is the third year of decline in a row. Sub-Saharan Africa and the former Soviet Union led the way down, while South Asia showed some improvement.
The report, "Freedom in the World 2009" examines the state of freedom in all 193 countries and 16 territories. It analyzes developments that occurred in 2008 and assigns each country a freedom status – "free", "partly free" or "not free." Overall, 34 countries registered declines in freedom and 14 registered improvements.
The number of countries judged as "free" in 2008 was 89 – 46 percent of the world’s population. Sixty-two countries were listed as "partly free,” 20 percent of humanity. And 42 countries were classified as "not free; that’s the remaining 34 percent. Eight countries received the survey's lowest possible ranking for both political rights and civil liberties: North Korea, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Burma, Libya, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea and Somalia. Two territories are in the same category: Tibet and Chechnya.
Eleven other countries and territories received scores that were only slightly better: Belarus, China, South Ossetia, Laos – all in Asia, Saudi Arabia and Syria in the Middle East, Cuba, and, in Africa – Zimbabwe, Chad, Eritrea, and Western Sahara.
[snip]
The most significant progress occurred in South Asia, where several countries saw improvements linked to elections. In addition to improvements in Pakistan, Maldives and Bhutan, progress was also seen in Nepal, Kashmir, Malaysia and Thailand. Declines were registered in Afghanistan, Burma, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Singapore and Tibet. China increased repression instead of delivering the human rights reforms promised in connection with hosting the Summer Olympics.
In the Former Soviet Union/Central and Eastern Europe, non-Baltic countries continued their decade-long decline in freedom, now ranking below Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East on several survey indicators. Russia and Georgia, which went to war over South Ossetia, were among the notable declines, as well as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and Moldova. Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe remains strong, despite setbacks in Bulgaria and Macedonia.
After several years of modest gains, the Middle East and North Africa are experiencing trouble. Iraq was the only country to show improvement, mainly because of reductions in violence, political terror and government-sponsored Shia militias – although it’s still considered “Not Free.” Jordan, Bahrain, Iran, the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli-Occupied Territories also declined, freedom-wise.
Latin America managed to maintain its democratic character despite economic problems, an increase in violent crime in some countries and the rise of populist demagogues. Paraguay and Cuba saw improvements, although the Castro government continues to be pretty repressive. Colombia, Nicaragua, Mexico and Venezuela were among the countries where freedom took a hit.
Western Europe and North America continued to get the highest scores. The election of Obama could lead to reforms of counterterrorism policies. But freedom did decline in two European countries: Italy and Greece. The survey also expressed concern about potential threats to freedom of expression in Canada and England.
++++++++++
And now, the 10 Worst Corporations of 2008, courtesy of Multinational Monitor. Actually, it would have been easy to restrict the awards this year to Wall Street firms. But the rest of the corporate world wasn’t on good behavior, so this Top Ten list includes only one financial company. And since it’s pretty hard to say who’s really the worst, it’s alphabetical.. Here goes: AIG, Cargill, Chevron, Constellation Energy, Chinese National Petroleum Corporation, Dole, GE, Imperial Sugar, Philip Morris, and Roche. Highlights on some of the top offenders
For the full story, visit Multinational Monitor.
(C) maryjanie 2009
- - - --
Maverick News: Small Expectations
Maverick Media - 24 January, 2009 -on Pacificana.org
In describing the current economic crisis, for example, he said, "Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age." But the people suffering the most didn't "fail" to make "hard choices" about the greed and speculation on Wall Street. They didn’t get to choose at all. And they didn’t share in the gains that preceded the crash. Yet now they're being asked to take responsibility and sacrifice he also claimed that "our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." This and other lines could have come from Bush's speechwriters.
Other troubling signs from Team Obama: calling for more US troops in Afghanistan without a clear explanation of what they’ll do there… giving a misleading impression about how soon and how many soldiers will be removed from Iraq by using the term "combat troops" – 100,000 mercenaries and up to 60,000 troops may remain… approving unspecified bailout amounts for unspecified purposes with unspecified oversight… picking a budget director who favors cutting Social Security for those under 60… picking an attorney general who supports continued immunity for illegal wiretapping and secret searches of library and bookstore data files… Plus, support for the war on drugs, the Patriot Act, and the death penalty.
- - - -
from http://pacificana.org/
THE STATE OF FREEDOM. Freedom House, an advocacy group founded in 1941 by Eleanor Roosevelt that fights tyranny around the world, says that freedom was in retreat in 2008. According to the group’s just released annual survey of political rights and civil liberties, this is the third year of decline in a row. Sub-Saharan Africa and the former Soviet Union led the way down, while South Asia showed some improvement.
The report, "Freedom in the World 2009" examines the state of freedom in all 193 countries and 16 territories. It analyzes developments that occurred in 2008 and assigns each country a freedom status – "free", "partly free" or "not free." Overall, 34 countries registered declines in freedom and 14 registered improvements.
The number of countries judged as "free" in 2008 was 89 – 46 percent of the world’s population. Sixty-two countries were listed as "partly free,” 20 percent of humanity. And 42 countries were classified as "not free; that’s the remaining 34 percent. Eight countries received the survey's lowest possible ranking for both political rights and civil liberties: North Korea, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Burma, Libya, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea and Somalia. Two territories are in the same category: Tibet and Chechnya.
Eleven other countries and territories received scores that were only slightly better: Belarus, China, South Ossetia, Laos – all in Asia, Saudi Arabia and Syria in the Middle East, Cuba, and, in Africa – Zimbabwe, Chad, Eritrea, and Western Sahara.
[snip]
The most significant progress occurred in South Asia, where several countries saw improvements linked to elections. In addition to improvements in Pakistan, Maldives and Bhutan, progress was also seen in Nepal, Kashmir, Malaysia and Thailand. Declines were registered in Afghanistan, Burma, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Singapore and Tibet. China increased repression instead of delivering the human rights reforms promised in connection with hosting the Summer Olympics.
In the Former Soviet Union/Central and Eastern Europe, non-Baltic countries continued their decade-long decline in freedom, now ranking below Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East on several survey indicators. Russia and Georgia, which went to war over South Ossetia, were among the notable declines, as well as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and Moldova. Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe remains strong, despite setbacks in Bulgaria and Macedonia.
After several years of modest gains, the Middle East and North Africa are experiencing trouble. Iraq was the only country to show improvement, mainly because of reductions in violence, political terror and government-sponsored Shia militias – although it’s still considered “Not Free.” Jordan, Bahrain, Iran, the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli-Occupied Territories also declined, freedom-wise.
Latin America managed to maintain its democratic character despite economic problems, an increase in violent crime in some countries and the rise of populist demagogues. Paraguay and Cuba saw improvements, although the Castro government continues to be pretty repressive. Colombia, Nicaragua, Mexico and Venezuela were among the countries where freedom took a hit.
Western Europe and North America continued to get the highest scores. The election of Obama could lead to reforms of counterterrorism policies. But freedom did decline in two European countries: Italy and Greece. The survey also expressed concern about potential threats to freedom of expression in Canada and England.
++++++++++
And now, the 10 Worst Corporations of 2008, courtesy of Multinational Monitor. Actually, it would have been easy to restrict the awards this year to Wall Street firms. But the rest of the corporate world wasn’t on good behavior, so this Top Ten list includes only one financial company. And since it’s pretty hard to say who’s really the worst, it’s alphabetical.. Here goes: AIG, Cargill, Chevron, Constellation Energy, Chinese National Petroleum Corporation, Dole, GE, Imperial Sugar, Philip Morris, and Roche. Highlights on some of the top offenders
For the full story, visit Multinational Monitor.
(C) maryjanie 2009
Mother Jones article about Obama and our concerns exposed now
this is a partial repost from
http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2008/12/eugene-jarecki.html
by Political filmmaker Eugene Jarecki
" I think a lot of people see in Barack Obama a chance to feel young again.....
Eugene Jarecki: America tends to fall victim to an overzealous belief in the cult of personality. For Americans, history seems to begin way back with Jesus, Mohammad, and Genghis Khan, and then sometime later there is Hitler and Martin Luther King, until we reach George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and now Barack Obama. That is a wrong-headed view of history. Surely the big individuals in our collective history matter, but they are always a reflection of mass movements underneath them. ....
What is happening right now is that the public voted for change, so it has a great deal of idealism invested. It is imperative that the public look at these appointments and ask itself, "So far, does this look like what I was expecting?" Instead, what is happening is that the public has gone lame duck. We cannot afford that. Left to its own devices, Washington will absolutely devour Barack Obama. .....
This country is a work in progress, you are a vital part of it, and it will go to hell in a handbasket without your vigilance," is hard…And yet it's true. "
-----
Has anyone yet admitted and explained to us, the gullible public, why most of the news media promoted Obama so fervently and diligently ? and how they definitely continously helped create his ordination into sainthood, also by using both FDR and Lincoln as collaborating pillars of the past- implying openly that he was now fulfilling their programs / missions too. Such significant forefathers to lean on for fame and fortune and future programs. my, my...
And while the now Prez claimed he did not run a racially slanted campaign [except when he spoke in an obvious dialect to certain crowds, slyly laughing along with everyone who pretended they didnt get the joke on others ] and while he instead assisted and let 'others' say it for him - as all the pop talk was about being a "black president" vs. being a effective president - or we can use any adjective other than a color-bound one to describe what was now wanted.
He did not have to say or openly imply that race was an issue, everyone else was saying it for him and insuring that "America fulfill it's promise" to one group within it's national boundaries anyhow.And right after winning, everyone could say it aloud, like one of the 7 deadly prohibited words in TV, he was "black", not mixed, not mulatto, not ...well just "black", obviously so with a dark toned wife and children to prove his choice of lifestyle and genotype. But...he was not admitting to be that before the game was over. He won. Now he could be ...well, anything he chose to image and status himself as being, having won the power to rule. Wow. That's a great trick.
A small, if the USA census numbers are correct,the portion of USA - about 14% are African-American - our grouped populations [check the stats out please ]. So Obama's image as a minority is correct, but as representing more of the USA population is a questionable statement. He does not represent a majority across this nation, and his experience is also not full or wide. His intelligence, charm, charisma and personality is clearly a big benefit, especially as an American President. Diplomatically anyhow.
Of course, looks make images and our choices in marriage make our alliances & appearances seem stable too. Who do we CHOSE to be ? How wonderful to have these choices not every person worldwide has, to chose to be in this group or that one or another preferable group. But the adulation this man bought, in the pre-winning days, in the alternative Democratic votes and the obtaining the USA elections, was evident.
All the media was full of propaganda,and [not announced as ] PR,and all the hard-soft-any-but-sell-us promotions, along with fancy grandstanding... and lots of money-paid-for-campaign manuevers too [ all the advertising - selling - of an image to get those votes, and maybe more ? ]. And the clever sales stories like all consumer advertising was fed repeatedly and grandly by the [paid] news media and so people engorged on the ideal that many now may doubt any human man can fulfill.
But the work was not all done by one political party's due diligence or Democrat's appea. Some of the work was done by those voting against, the prior-old-ruler, opposing what was, as usual,as much wanting & voting for a 'new' image for America. After 8 years. Of course. Time for change, no matter who said it. It was an obvious and good line.
Bush insured that the next prez would not look like him in any way, especially in his last harsh sad years. The economic catastrophe also happening deep into the future insured that a "new" paradigm had to be presented, no matter if it doesn't work...yet...if when it can or ever does .... and the regeneration of younger voters via the internet and cell phone technology gadget proliferation helped turn the dream into a promise that instant change and improvement are as good as the consumerist stuff bought. And the fun & games of such media confirmation also gave Obama the advantage that prior presidents never even had - to be able reach their "millenium" little ones anywhere they happened to be at that moment, to come to vote and to wear colorful t-shirts advertising their dreams in full colored face [red,white & blue]. New times, but old advertising ploys, played well, once again.
and now... after the fact and the elections have been completed and shifted over
the results are ......?????? hmmmmmmmm......
fear and difficult worries and dismay are entering the public dialogues once again. even in the news media, that was so sure and repetitively conformist to PC idealism, is saying the same as has been newsworthy & sensationalist all along... we are not in a new millenium with new gadgets to get us to change out of our losses and difficulties.
welll
we'll see...sadly...but we must see clearly now.
no prez is powerful enough to make the changes he promised so blithely before.
not even if his race is now openly stated and used to build up his power. Black Power! the shout of 3-4 decades ago. Has it become a better reality ?
http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2008/12/eugene-jarecki.html
by Political filmmaker Eugene Jarecki
" I think a lot of people see in Barack Obama a chance to feel young again.....
Eugene Jarecki: America tends to fall victim to an overzealous belief in the cult of personality. For Americans, history seems to begin way back with Jesus, Mohammad, and Genghis Khan, and then sometime later there is Hitler and Martin Luther King, until we reach George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and now Barack Obama. That is a wrong-headed view of history. Surely the big individuals in our collective history matter, but they are always a reflection of mass movements underneath them. ....
What is happening right now is that the public voted for change, so it has a great deal of idealism invested. It is imperative that the public look at these appointments and ask itself, "So far, does this look like what I was expecting?" Instead, what is happening is that the public has gone lame duck. We cannot afford that. Left to its own devices, Washington will absolutely devour Barack Obama. .....
This country is a work in progress, you are a vital part of it, and it will go to hell in a handbasket without your vigilance," is hard…And yet it's true. "
-----
Has anyone yet admitted and explained to us, the gullible public, why most of the news media promoted Obama so fervently and diligently ? and how they definitely continously helped create his ordination into sainthood, also by using both FDR and Lincoln as collaborating pillars of the past- implying openly that he was now fulfilling their programs / missions too. Such significant forefathers to lean on for fame and fortune and future programs. my, my...
And while the now Prez claimed he did not run a racially slanted campaign [except when he spoke in an obvious dialect to certain crowds, slyly laughing along with everyone who pretended they didnt get the joke on others ] and while he instead assisted and let 'others' say it for him - as all the pop talk was about being a "black president" vs. being a effective president - or we can use any adjective other than a color-bound one to describe what was now wanted.
He did not have to say or openly imply that race was an issue, everyone else was saying it for him and insuring that "America fulfill it's promise" to one group within it's national boundaries anyhow.And right after winning, everyone could say it aloud, like one of the 7 deadly prohibited words in TV, he was "black", not mixed, not mulatto, not ...well just "black", obviously so with a dark toned wife and children to prove his choice of lifestyle and genotype. But...he was not admitting to be that before the game was over. He won. Now he could be ...well, anything he chose to image and status himself as being, having won the power to rule. Wow. That's a great trick.
A small, if the USA census numbers are correct,the portion of USA - about 14% are African-American - our grouped populations [check the stats out please ]. So Obama's image as a minority is correct, but as representing more of the USA population is a questionable statement. He does not represent a majority across this nation, and his experience is also not full or wide. His intelligence, charm, charisma and personality is clearly a big benefit, especially as an American President. Diplomatically anyhow.
Of course, looks make images and our choices in marriage make our alliances & appearances seem stable too. Who do we CHOSE to be ? How wonderful to have these choices not every person worldwide has, to chose to be in this group or that one or another preferable group. But the adulation this man bought, in the pre-winning days, in the alternative Democratic votes and the obtaining the USA elections, was evident.
All the media was full of propaganda,and [not announced as ] PR,and all the hard-soft-any-but-sell-us promotions, along with fancy grandstanding... and lots of money-paid-for-campaign manuevers too [ all the advertising - selling - of an image to get those votes, and maybe more ? ]. And the clever sales stories like all consumer advertising was fed repeatedly and grandly by the [paid] news media and so people engorged on the ideal that many now may doubt any human man can fulfill.
But the work was not all done by one political party's due diligence or Democrat's appea. Some of the work was done by those voting against, the prior-old-ruler, opposing what was, as usual,as much wanting & voting for a 'new' image for America. After 8 years. Of course. Time for change, no matter who said it. It was an obvious and good line.
Bush insured that the next prez would not look like him in any way, especially in his last harsh sad years. The economic catastrophe also happening deep into the future insured that a "new" paradigm had to be presented, no matter if it doesn't work...yet...if when it can or ever does .... and the regeneration of younger voters via the internet and cell phone technology gadget proliferation helped turn the dream into a promise that instant change and improvement are as good as the consumerist stuff bought. And the fun & games of such media confirmation also gave Obama the advantage that prior presidents never even had - to be able reach their "millenium" little ones anywhere they happened to be at that moment, to come to vote and to wear colorful t-shirts advertising their dreams in full colored face [red,white & blue]. New times, but old advertising ploys, played well, once again.
and now... after the fact and the elections have been completed and shifted over
the results are ......?????? hmmmmmmmm......
fear and difficult worries and dismay are entering the public dialogues once again. even in the news media, that was so sure and repetitively conformist to PC idealism, is saying the same as has been newsworthy & sensationalist all along... we are not in a new millenium with new gadgets to get us to change out of our losses and difficulties.
welll
we'll see...sadly...but we must see clearly now.
no prez is powerful enough to make the changes he promised so blithely before.
not even if his race is now openly stated and used to build up his power. Black Power! the shout of 3-4 decades ago. Has it become a better reality ?
Salon.com's Greg Greenwald on Obamania and now.....
this is a partial reposting from
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/14/brooks/
this was written in salon.com and is also about Greg Greenwald's talk on Bill Moyers PBS show about how media operates with political interests
[snip]
"Indeed, if one reviews most of the political controversies of the last decade, one finds exactly this dynamic: the political and media establishment joining together to deliberately distort American public opinion [snip]
The overarching role of the Beltway journalist is to obscure and distort those widely-held views on the part of the citizenry and thus prevent them from having any impact, protect political power from those beliefs.
What makes this journalistic servitude to the Washington establishment most repellent is that these same pundits generally -- and David Brooks in particular -- endlessly hold themselves out as the Spokespeople of the Ordinary American, even as they work tirelessly to protect the Washington political class from their beliefs, interests and sentiments. That's how people like David Brooks pile media deceit ("we speak for ordinary Americans") on top of political deceit
The most significant fact of American political life is that political journalists (of all people) see their role primarily as defenders of, servants to, spokespeople for the Washington establishment. That's how they obtain all of their rewards and remain relevant. The concept of journalists as watchdogs over political power has been turned completely on its head by power-revering servants
Brooks is about as typical and illustrative as it gets. They benefit substantially from the prevailing rules of political power and, thus, their only concern is to preserve and strengthen it and protect it from the growing dissatisfaction and anger of the peasant class. The more they do that, the more they are rewarded."
[snip]
"Shrillness" – the first cousin of "Unseriousness" – is the conceptual instrument used to deter and (when that fails) demonize those who view the political and media establishment as corrupt at its core. It's a way of demanding that everyone just calm down, avoid impetuous and inflammatory language, and stop acting as though there's anything seriously wrong with our political and media elites:
But it's not as though there's anything to get excited or angry about
And fine: there are some narrow disagreements among people of good faith and some small problems here and there that require some modifications -- little things like torture, chronic high-level lawbreaking, immunity for the political class (juxtaposed with the sprawling prison industry for ordinary Americans), rampant domestic spying, sky-high walls of government secrecy, full-scale economic meltdown, massive and growing inequities in wealth, endless wars, sleaze and corruption oozing from every Beltway pore, complete media complicity with all of it -- but there's no reason to get all indignant or agitated by it or act as though crimes are being committed or radical changes are needed or anything.
[snip]
During the 2008 election, Obama co-opted huge portions of the Left and its infrastructure so that their allegiance became devoted to him and not to any ideas. Many online political and "news" outlets -- including some liberal political blogs -- discovered that the most reliable way to massively increase traffic was to capitalize on the pro-Obama fervor by turning themselves into pro-Obama cheerleading squads. Grass-roots activist groups watched their dues-paying membership rolls explode the more they tapped into that same sentiment and turned themselves into Obama-supporting appendages. Even labor unions and long-standing Beltway advocacy groups reaped substantial benefits by identifying themselves as loyal foot soldiers in the Obama movement.
The major problem now is that these entities -- the ones that ought to be applying pressure on Obama from the Left and opposing him when he moves too far Right -- are now completely boxed in. They've lost -- or, more accurately, voluntarily relinquished -- their independence. They know that criticizing -- let alone opposing -- Obama will mean that all those new readers they won last year will leave; that all those new dues-paying members will go join some other, more Obama-supportive organization; that they will prompt intense backlash and anger among the very people -- their members, supporters and readers -- on whom they have come to rely as the source of their support, strength, and numbers.
As a result, there is very little political or media structure to Obama's Left that can or will criticize him, even when he moves far to what the Beltway calls the "center..[snip]
Part of the political shrewdness of Obama has been that he's been able to actually convince huge numbers of liberals that it's a good thing when he ignores and even stomps on their political ideals, that it's something they should celebrate and even be grateful for. Hordes of Obama-loving liberals are still marching around paying homage to the empty mantras of "pragmatism" and "post-partisan harmony" -- the terms used to justify and even glorify Obama's repudiation of their own political values
Political ideas and values that have no meaningful pressure being exerted on their behalf will always be those that are most ignored. That's just the most basic rule of politics.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/14/brooks/
this was written in salon.com and is also about Greg Greenwald's talk on Bill Moyers PBS show about how media operates with political interests
[snip]
"Indeed, if one reviews most of the political controversies of the last decade, one finds exactly this dynamic: the political and media establishment joining together to deliberately distort American public opinion [snip]
The overarching role of the Beltway journalist is to obscure and distort those widely-held views on the part of the citizenry and thus prevent them from having any impact, protect political power from those beliefs.
What makes this journalistic servitude to the Washington establishment most repellent is that these same pundits generally -- and David Brooks in particular -- endlessly hold themselves out as the Spokespeople of the Ordinary American, even as they work tirelessly to protect the Washington political class from their beliefs, interests and sentiments. That's how people like David Brooks pile media deceit ("we speak for ordinary Americans") on top of political deceit
The most significant fact of American political life is that political journalists (of all people) see their role primarily as defenders of, servants to, spokespeople for the Washington establishment. That's how they obtain all of their rewards and remain relevant. The concept of journalists as watchdogs over political power has been turned completely on its head by power-revering servants
Brooks is about as typical and illustrative as it gets. They benefit substantially from the prevailing rules of political power and, thus, their only concern is to preserve and strengthen it and protect it from the growing dissatisfaction and anger of the peasant class. The more they do that, the more they are rewarded."
[snip]
"Shrillness" – the first cousin of "Unseriousness" – is the conceptual instrument used to deter and (when that fails) demonize those who view the political and media establishment as corrupt at its core. It's a way of demanding that everyone just calm down, avoid impetuous and inflammatory language, and stop acting as though there's anything seriously wrong with our political and media elites:
But it's not as though there's anything to get excited or angry about
And fine: there are some narrow disagreements among people of good faith and some small problems here and there that require some modifications -- little things like torture, chronic high-level lawbreaking, immunity for the political class (juxtaposed with the sprawling prison industry for ordinary Americans), rampant domestic spying, sky-high walls of government secrecy, full-scale economic meltdown, massive and growing inequities in wealth, endless wars, sleaze and corruption oozing from every Beltway pore, complete media complicity with all of it -- but there's no reason to get all indignant or agitated by it or act as though crimes are being committed or radical changes are needed or anything.
[snip]
During the 2008 election, Obama co-opted huge portions of the Left and its infrastructure so that their allegiance became devoted to him and not to any ideas. Many online political and "news" outlets -- including some liberal political blogs -- discovered that the most reliable way to massively increase traffic was to capitalize on the pro-Obama fervor by turning themselves into pro-Obama cheerleading squads. Grass-roots activist groups watched their dues-paying membership rolls explode the more they tapped into that same sentiment and turned themselves into Obama-supporting appendages. Even labor unions and long-standing Beltway advocacy groups reaped substantial benefits by identifying themselves as loyal foot soldiers in the Obama movement.
The major problem now is that these entities -- the ones that ought to be applying pressure on Obama from the Left and opposing him when he moves too far Right -- are now completely boxed in. They've lost -- or, more accurately, voluntarily relinquished -- their independence. They know that criticizing -- let alone opposing -- Obama will mean that all those new readers they won last year will leave; that all those new dues-paying members will go join some other, more Obama-supportive organization; that they will prompt intense backlash and anger among the very people -- their members, supporters and readers -- on whom they have come to rely as the source of their support, strength, and numbers.
As a result, there is very little political or media structure to Obama's Left that can or will criticize him, even when he moves far to what the Beltway calls the "center..[snip]
Part of the political shrewdness of Obama has been that he's been able to actually convince huge numbers of liberals that it's a good thing when he ignores and even stomps on their political ideals, that it's something they should celebrate and even be grateful for. Hordes of Obama-loving liberals are still marching around paying homage to the empty mantras of "pragmatism" and "post-partisan harmony" -- the terms used to justify and even glorify Obama's repudiation of their own political values
Political ideas and values that have no meaningful pressure being exerted on their behalf will always be those that are most ignored. That's just the most basic rule of politics.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
News is turning 'funny' and religious instead of being factual now....
WHAT RECESSION?
the $170 MILLION INAUGURATION:
"OBAMA'S inauguration has been financed partially [but how much actually ?] by BAILED-OUT WALL STREET executives: [you did not know this either ? right !]
so while OUR country is in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, but this isn't stopping them rich donors and the OUR government [read: our paid to govt taxes] from spending $170 million, or more, on the inauguration of the new Prez Obama . The actual swearing-in ceremony will cost $1.24 million, according to Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies."
Who is paying for what here ? Who agreed to those image-boosting fancy-militaristic ceremonial shows to be paid for by US, the ones who can barely afford that old TV?
and
ARE OUR OLD NEWSPAPERS ARE SHIFTING ALLIANCES OR JUST BEING TORN UP TOO ?
It has been reported that "USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Baltimore Sun, The San Jose Mercury News and The Kansas City Star have something in common, aside from some of the biggest names in an endangered industry. By the start of February, not one of them will have the same top editor it had when 2008 began. Most of them will have different publishers, too."
Does this mean we have a new slant and new commercial owners to tell us what is happening and how to think about our new "news"? Where do the truth & facts lie?
then, "the Vatican will soon have its own channel on YouTube, where the Catholic faithful or the curious will be able to see Pope Benedict or Church events."
Is that cool or more publicity for strict religious teachings to those who do not want to belong or be preached to or convinced of that Catholic or Christian point of view?
(C) maryjanie 2009
the $170 MILLION INAUGURATION:
"OBAMA'S inauguration has been financed partially [but how much actually ?] by BAILED-OUT WALL STREET executives: [you did not know this either ? right !]
so while OUR country is in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, but this isn't stopping them rich donors and the OUR government [read: our paid to govt taxes] from spending $170 million, or more, on the inauguration of the new Prez Obama . The actual swearing-in ceremony will cost $1.24 million, according to Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies."
Who is paying for what here ? Who agreed to those image-boosting fancy-militaristic ceremonial shows to be paid for by US, the ones who can barely afford that old TV?
and
ARE OUR OLD NEWSPAPERS ARE SHIFTING ALLIANCES OR JUST BEING TORN UP TOO ?
It has been reported that "USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Baltimore Sun, The San Jose Mercury News and The Kansas City Star have something in common, aside from some of the biggest names in an endangered industry. By the start of February, not one of them will have the same top editor it had when 2008 began. Most of them will have different publishers, too."
Does this mean we have a new slant and new commercial owners to tell us what is happening and how to think about our new "news"? Where do the truth & facts lie?
then, "the Vatican will soon have its own channel on YouTube, where the Catholic faithful or the curious will be able to see Pope Benedict or Church events."
Is that cool or more publicity for strict religious teachings to those who do not want to belong or be preached to or convinced of that Catholic or Christian point of view?
(C) maryjanie 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
