Showing posts with label establishment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label establishment. Show all posts

March 24, 2011

Purpose of the Economy

The field of economics is rife with bias due to powerful selfish interests that influence this social science.

Science or art or what? Henry Hazlitt, in 1946, suggested that "The whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence:"

The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

I'm not sure this encapsulates the whole of economics, but it does define what the economy should provide for society. That is, it should operate for the broader benefit of society and not merely for the minority establishment. This is the purpose of the economy and this principle should underlie the study of economics.

gdaeman_scroll_small

February 12, 2011

AP Removes Reference to "Establishment" from Musharraf Article

I recently emailed an AP article to myself on the subject of former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf being linked to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. I was particularly interested in the following reference describing a United Nations investigation of Bhutto's killing:

The U.N. officials were not tasked with finding out who the exact culprits behind the killing were. But they identified two main threats facing Bhutto — Islamist extremists like al-Qaida and the Taliban who opposed her links to the West and secular outlook, and members of the "Pakistani Establishment," the term used locally to refer to a powerful and shady network of military, intelligence, political and business leaders said to actually control the country.

When I went back to the article the reference was gone. Of course, Musharraf was part of that "establishment." Not to loose the main point of my interest, we in the United States have our own "establishment" that strongly influences both major political parties.

It's been a preoccupation of mine very recently; as Egypt was ousting Mubarak a gnawing thought kept surfacing. The ouster of Mubarak doesn't really matter unless they also challenge the broader establishment's hold on power.

Something else that was removed from the AP article was a reference to Baitullah Mehsud, the late leader of the Pakistani Taliban:

"A joint investigation team in its report to the court has found Musharraf guilty of being involved in the conspiracy and abetting to kill Benazir Bhutto," said Zulfikar Ali Chaudhry, the lead prosecutor.

He said the probe has evidence that Musharraf was "completely involved" through Baitullah Mehsud, the late leader of the Pakistani Taliban, and that prosecutors are seeking a murder trial. He did not elaborate.

Musharraf has always denied any role in Bhutto's death and scoffed at critics who said he did not do enough to protect her. Mehsud, who was killed in a U.S. missile strike in 2009, also denied targeting Bhutto.

It struck me as convenient that Mehsud is no longer around to testify.

I found the full original article saved elsewhere (February 12, 2011):

ISLAMABAD (AP) — A Pakistani court issued an arrest warrant Saturday for former President Pervez Musharraf in connection with the assassination of ex-premier Benazir Bhutto, while government investigators accused the retired general of involvement in the slaying.

Though he does not yet face any charges, the developments mark a major escalation of legal troubles for Musharraf, a one-time U.S. ally who went into self-exile in Britain in 2008 after being forced out of the presidency he secured in a 1999 military coup.

The accusations of a role in Bhutto's death were leveled by a government now run by Musharaff's rivals. They make it nearly impossible for him to fulfill pleges to return to Pakistan and lead a new political party.

Bhutto was killed Dec. 27, 2007, in a gun and suicide bomb attack after returning to Pakistan to campaign in elections Musharraf agreed to allow after months of domestic and international pressure. Musharraf blamed the Pakistani Taliban, an al-Qaida affiliated group, for the attack, but government prosecutors now allege he was part of the plot to kill the popular former premier.

"A joint investigation team in its report to the court has found Musharraf guilty of being involved in the conspiracy and abetting to kill Benazir Bhutto," said Zulfikar Ali Chaudhry, the lead prosecutor.

He said the probe has evidence that Musharraf was "completely involved" through Baitullah Mehsud, the late leader of the Pakistani Taliban, and that prosecutors are seeking a murder trial. He did not elaborate.

Musharraf has always denied any role in Bhutto's death and scoffed at critics who said he did not do enough to protect her. Mehsud, who was killed in a U.S. missile strike in 2009, also denied targeting Bhutto.

Musharraf's lawyer, Mohammad Ali Saif, said his client was innocent of any allegations but had no plans to contest them in court, where he's been ordered to appear on Feb. 19.

"This is just a drama. It is all politics," Saif told The Associated Press. He said Pakistani investigators never tried to reach Musharraf about the case, whose proceedings are closed to the public.

The new accusations and arrest warrant stem from a case against two security officials accused of being derelict in their duties to protect Bhutto. Musharraf has not been indicted, but the court is conducting preliminary hearings about the accusations against him, and he will have an opportunity to defend himself.

A U.N. investigation into the assassination said Musharraf's government didn't do enough to ensure Bhutto's security and criticized steps taken by investigators after her death, including hosing down the crime scene and failing to perform an autopsy.

The U.N. officials were not tasked with finding out who the exact culprits behind the killing were. But they identified two main threats facing Bhutto — Islamist extremists like al-Qaida and the Taliban who opposed her links to the West and secular outlook, and members of the "Pakistani Establishment," the term used locally to refer to a powerful and shady network of military, intelligence, political and business leaders said to actually control the country.

After her death, Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party rode a wave of public sympathy to garner the most seats in the February 2008 elections. Months later, the party forced Musharraf to quit the presidency by threatening impeachment. He later left for London, and has since spent a good deal of time on the lecture circuit, including in the United States.

Britain does not have an extradition treaty with Pakistan, but the British government can decide to extradite those accused of crimes on a case by case basis.

Federal Information Minister Firdous Ashiq Awan said if the court requests it, the government will contact Interpol about bringing Musharraf in.

The U.S. backed Musharraf for much of his military rule because he was, at least officially, an ally in the American-led war on global terrorism, and provided Washington assistance in pursuing militants who used Pakistan's soil as a hideout to prepare attacks in neighboring Afghanistan.

But many in Pakistan resented his alliance with the U.S., and his domestic missteps, including attempts to fire the chief justice of the Supreme Court, pummeled his popularity, leading to mass protests that ultimately forced Musharraf to bend and allow fresh elections.

The new Pakistani president and head of the ruling People's Party is Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto's widower. He also supports the U.S. and has backed offensives against militants on Pakistani territory.

Also Saturday, a man detonated explosives as army troops prepared to storm his hideout in northwest Pakistan, killing himself and wounding at least three soldiers, a senior army official said.

The blast occurred outside the town of Bhat Khela in Khyber Pakhtunkwa province after troops acting on a tip from residents surrounded a militant hideout, Brig. Saeed Ullah said. Soldiers killed a second militant in the shootout that followed the explosion.

Ullah said security forces detained five men from the area on suspicion of sheltering the militants, who he said were planning a suicide attack in the Swat Valley. Bhat Khela is located about 30 miles (50 kilometers) west of Mingora, the main town in Swat.

The Pakistani army launched a major anti-Taliban offensive in 2009 in Swat, a one-time tourist haven largely overrun by militants beginning in 2007.

Though the monthslong offensive was hailed a success, militant activity is still reported in the picturesque region and concerns are growing that the insurgents could rise again.

Originally published on Challenge the Establishment Blog.

gdaeman_scroll_small

September 3, 2010

Obama's Bad Numbers: Sign of Something Deeper

It's true that the poll numbers about mid-term election losses could be wrong; but for argument sake, lets assume that the majority of the voting public is now leaning towards the Republicans, or more accurately, leaning away from the Democrats. That's a quick turn-around just two years after removing the Republicans from power in the White House and Congress.

The quick reversal of public support for the Democratic Party is evidence that a large portion of common people have little allegiance to either party. No news there. However, the sense that people are leaning away from the Democrats after having just rejected the Republicans in 2008 says something deeper. People are rejecting both parties.

This also isn't news. Most of the news has been about Tea Party activists rejecting establishment Republican candidates; however, it wasn't long after the 2008 election of Barack Obama that people were predicting he would loose his base of support if he took the corporate track. Obama has taken the corporate track on the bail outs, health care and financial reform. Now the predictions are coming true, including Gallup poll figures showing a lack of enthusiasm among people registered as Democrats; Obama has lost many of his ground troops for getting out the vote.

The loss of Congressional seats by the dominant party during a mid-term elections is a decades old pattern and much has been said of this. What has not been said much is that this back-and-fourth is a sign of the public rejecting both establishment political parties, but having little other choice. This insight of a general repulsion of the establishment political parties by a large swath of the public has not yet become an accepted part of the mainstream narrative. This is in part because the establishment media controls the narrative to a large extent.

That's the setting, or the political landscape. Where do things go from here? That's a topic for another post.

Sources:

First Posted at Challenge the Establishment Blog.

gdaeman_scroll_small

April 8, 2010

Are we Stuck in Status Quo Due to Insanity?

We all gripe about the two-party system that caters to the establishment, thereby entrenching the status quo. That is, we gripe about our pathetic system that we're told is a "democracy," or a "republic" by purists, yet the "viable" candidates are shills for the corporate establishment, regardless of Party.


I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Albert Einstein, a definition of insanity:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -- Albert Einstein, (attributed)

It's with these thoughts that, back in 2009, I started another blog entitled, "Challenge the Establishment".

More recently, on GDAE Podcast Episode 29, and in a blog post entitled, "A New Politics", I've begun exploring the question, stated in several ways,

Can principled people on the left and right unite to recapture our democratic institutions from the minority establishment?

Many people react to this with a rolling of the eyes, and thoughts of Sarah Palin in mind... but she's not "principled."

I'm not talking about "uniting" in terms electoral party politics, e.g., a third party. Rather, uniting on issue advocacy, with the result that law makers, and administrations, that don't heed the unified voice of the people will pay a steep price.

Surely I'm not alone in this thinking. There is evidence of the left & right uniting, to greater or lesser success:
  • Challenging Clinton's 1995 Anti-terrorism legislation on civil liberties grounds.
  • Turning back 2003 media regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that would have allowed more consolidation of ownership (and power).
  • Challenging the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United? Surveys show vast majorities of the general public, left and right, oppose the decision*.
So, in an effort to break from the path of insanity, I'm engaging in this exploration. I invite others to join me, and point me to people who might be further along this path.

* A February poll by ABC News/Washington Post found that 80 percent of Americans oppose the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United, including 73 percent of self-described conservatives. Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, at 80-years of age, hit the speaking circuit to denounce the decision due in great part to concern about it's effect on State judicial elections.


Sources:

ABC News poll on Citizens United, Summary & Link to Poll Questions & Results.

Art: Break the Mould by lex-strat

gdaeman_scroll_small

January 29, 2010

Cornell West to Obama: Don't be a Wimp

Cornell West to Obama: Take a Stand. Have the courage to Challenge the Establishment.



Sources:

Thanks to Anderson @ Shockfront and Ladypolitik for this tid bit.

Cross-posted at Challenge the Establishment blog

gdaeman_scroll_small

January 24, 2010

Is it Too Late for Obama to Become a Populist?

We watched feeling helpless as Obama appointed Geithner and let the investment banks off the hook instead of extracting real reform of the financial gambling scheme that Geithner helped create while Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. I know that's a long sentence, but but the things we've witnessed leave us in shock and awe; in such a state long sentences are symptomatic.

So, now that TIME Magazine says Obama is turning a new leaf, "signal[ing] a new approach" with tough talk toward the banks on financial reform, are we to believe it? Is this just another case of a politician using cheap words?

MORE


Sources:

gdaeman_scroll_small

December 24, 2009

Night Before Christmas Debacle


'Twas the night before Christmas and all through the Senate
Evidence was mounting of democracy's limit.

The People dismayed by what they were seeing
Sixty votes it takes to do just about anything.

The Constitution took care to protect the minority
A wealthy elite exploiting the majority.

Obama a prisoner of establishment power
Claims "victory" with words that surely taste sour.

As the healthcare battle appears to be done
the people are told, "Go to sleep now, you've won!"

The dejected masses comply and act tame
While Obama unabashedly calls out some names

Now Geithner, Now Orszag, Emanual, and Baucus
On DePearle, On Lieberman, Nelson and Sebelius

A man with a smile audaciously says, "hope"
surrounded by insiders who think I'm a dope.

"We stood up to special interests," he says as he winks
But his words are cheap, this deal really stinks.

The man with a smile says "The struggle is on"
More people look askance as they detect a con.

And when the dust settles the people will see
No healthcare reform from the powers that be.

Though believers continue to heap on their praise
Their numbers dwindle with the passing of days.

The media, corporate owned, just plays along
while the people say, "something's terribly wrong."

The Empire teeters, the establishment takes fright
But with happy faces say, 'To all a good night."

Sources:

GDAEman

gdaeman_scroll_small

December 21, 2009

The Establishment Control in Copenhagen

What's the relationship between the Kyoto Protocol and the U.S. Articles of Confederation (the original U.S. Constitution?).

Read More.

gdaeman_scroll_small

November 15, 2009

Is Obama a Prisoner?

Is Obama a prisoner of the establishment elite?

MORE

gdaeman_scroll_small

November 7, 2009

Clinton Link to CIA Operatives Convicted in Italian Court

As all should already know:

In a landmark case, twenty-three Americans, mostly CIA operatives, have been convicted in Italy for kidnapping a Muslim cleric from the streets of Milan in 2003.... The case marks the first time any American has been convicted for taking part in a so-called “extraordinary rendition.” [1]

The 2003 operation has been described in terms of the "Keystone Cops," ridiculed as inept and corrupted by by excesses:

CIA people had stayed, in five-star hotels, eating expensive meals with vintage wines, rented luxury automobiles—all at taxpayers’ expense. [1]

It's true that this particular operation was conducted on the watch of George W. Bush, and it might be tempting to for liberals to point out this conviction as another strike against Bush administration excesses. Sure, there's some truth in that; however, the reality is that this behavior is indicative of an establishment orientation that goes beyond Bush:

The case marks the first time any American has been convicted for taking part in a so-called “extraordinary rendition,” a practice the CIA has used, dating back to the Clinton administration, to kidnap wanted individuals anywhere in the world. [1]

More on "Challenging the Establishment."

Sources:

1. DemocracyNow!, "Italian Prosecutor in Case Against CIA Operatives Hails Convictions for ’03 Kidnapping of Egyptian Cleric," November 6, 2009.

gdaeman_scroll_small

July 14, 2009

More Reading and Less Writing

A more "personal" post... My blogging frequency has been down lately. With travel and partying, including preparing to host festivities, the world .... just keeps on keep'n on.

GDAE Podcast Episode 16 is under development, but admittedly behind. I've started another blog entitled "Challenge the Establishment " blog I'm inviting people to co-write with me... of course, the posts would have to be about challenging the staus quo and those who seek to impose it on the unwashed masses... that's us... we? ... the people.

OK. Enough said to constitute a legitimate post. Now for a little eye-candy.







Sources:

Photo Credit: lilminx16

gdaeman_scroll_small

June 26, 2009

Women are Smarter....

I'm in "Challenge the Establishment" mode, and today I provide another strategic element. Women are at the front of the movement in Iran, and have been through out history.

The Greatful Dead knew it:

It ain't me
It's the people that say
Men are leading the women astray
But I say, it's the women today
Smarter than the man in every way

The People are hungry for real change, which is why they voted for Obama, a man whose words, and past deeds, resonated with that desire for changing the established system ... Unfortunately, the Office of the US President is not controlled by Obama, nor his senior staff... it's controlled by the establishment powers that helped put Obama into that office.

Can we change that? If so, how?

The simple answer is that "we the people" need to expose the illegitimacy of that establishment control and assert/insert our control. Simple in concept, yet difficult in practice.

This question of how to change the establishment power structure is at the root of so many other questions about creating positive social change. How? There is no silver bullet; however, women must and will play a central role if we are to succeed.

Examples across history demonstrate that women have the moral authority and courageous capacity to affect deep social change. This theme will be revisited in the weeks to come.

gdaeman_scroll_small

June 25, 2009

Strategic Framework for Challenging Establishment Power

It's difficult to ponder changing the status quo... the powerful establishment seeks, in general, to maintain the staus quo. Where does one start? Having a strategy helps. Here's a strategy shared with me by a college friend who has committed his life to promoting deep social change.

A Three-Element Strategy for Personal Activism:

It's certain that many of us share the sense that we need to move "beyond" the status quo, but we don't know how to do that. This sentiment is, in part, a reflection of the fact that our social construct is strongly defined by corporate power. An example of this might be that a corporation commits clear abuse, yet it is practically impossible to challenge that abuse because the channels to do so are filled with barriers that have been accumulated over decades of insider corporate tinkering with our judicial and legal systems. Add to that a pervasive control of mass media, and hence public awareness, that effectively isolates progressive activists from the rest of society.

So, how do we go forward? Here are three broad strategic elements by which to invest your activist energies:

Element 1: Invest part of your time in the multi-generational struggle to retract corporate constitutional rights that have been accumulated over decades. This sounds abstract, but think of it as being similar to ending slavery, which was once a legal business practice until the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the constitution were adopted. (Ironically, corporations have abused these amendments by getting the US Supreme Court to recognize them as "persons" within this Constitutional context.)

Element 2: Invest part of your time on time-sensitive issues, like saving that 700-year-old tree in your neighborhood that "needs to be chopped down" to widen a road. It's easy to become solely devoted to urgent issues of the day, so making linkages between this element and the other two is a helpful way to integrate your activism into this holistic strategy.

Element 3: Invest part of your time in identifying and promoting alternatives to status quo systems. It's easy to expose the flaws in the current "system," but difficult to develope and implement workable alternatives. Concrete steps in this regard include educating yourself and others about alternatives models of social interaction, supporting fledgling experiments into alternative models, like worker-owned businesses and so on.

By working within this construct on our own, we will be working together in a distributed way. It is a low-cost way to be organized, in the broad sense of the word.

Sources:

Dave Henson, one of the founders of the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy (POCLAD).

gdaeman_scroll_small

June 24, 2009

Is it Time to Challenge the World Establishment?

Ten Percent Blog concludes today's post with an open request for how to help Iranian's challenge their establishment without becoming tools of our own imperialist establishment:

Now, I am sick of writing about it, I want to find concrete practical things we can do to help. Suggestions welcome.

My suggestion follows:

One way we can help Iranians challenge their establishment is to challenge our own western establishments… what a “farce.” The inertia remaining from the fairly recent Greek uprisings, which spread around the world, provide a useful asset upon which to build.

On an individual level, we should use our strengths. You are a clear thinker and good writer. You should continue to make use of that strength, while others use their particular strengths.

We need to organize, and can do so in a distributed way… We should keep this impulse alive. My brief blog entry today reflects this impulse. Briefly, it concludes:

“I’m starting to feel like withdrawing all support from Obama, because he’s become the figurehead of a crime syndicate. Does anyone else feel this way?”

Psssst... Do Something

gdaeman_scroll_small

April 9, 2009

Phony Wells Fargo "Profits"?

If we've only learned one thing from the financial industry melt-down it's that we can't trust the establishment. Can't trust the big financial institutions, can't trust most of the regulatory agencies, can't trust the White House or Treasury (regardless of which party is in power), can't trust the rating companies, can't trust the establishment media to give us the truth.

So, when I read the headline "Stocks jump on Wells Fargo surprise profit announcement" I'm very suspicious. And we have reason to be.

That's because, you can't trust Congress or the little known Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) either. The FASB may be perpetuating the shell game under pressure from Members of Congress that represent the big financial institutions.

In short, during a hearing of the House Financial Services subcommittee on March 12, FASB chairman Robert Herz was strong-armed to let banks, say Wells Fargo, inflate the value of their assets, with the hammer coming down in this final exchange:

Chairman Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA): You do understand the message that we’re sending?

Herz: Yes, I absolutely do, sir.

Here's the way Democrat Kanjorski wants the shell game to be played.

Assigning (Marking) Value to Bank Assets: The value of financial industry assets can be determined in a couple of ways. One way is to let the market determine the value... see what someone will actually pay for the assets. That's known as marking the value of the asset to market (Mark-to-Market).

Another way of assessing value is to create a mathematical model of the value and use that model to mark the asset's value (Mark-to-Model).

Guess which way Kanjorski was pressuring the FASB chairman Herz to let the banks mark their asset values? Mark-to-Model. Tweak the model to assign a little more value to the assets and voila, Wells Fargo "surprisingly" reports a profit.

Bloomberg offers the take from former Lehman Bros. managing director, Robert Willens:

“By letting banks use internal models, instead of market prices, and allowing them to take into account the cash flow of securities, FASB’s change could boost bank industry earnings by 20%.”


Read More Details...

Psssst... Do Something

Sources:

Wiskey and Gunpowder, Tomorrow Mark-to-Model Returns with a Vengeance, Samantha Buker, April 1, 2009 (no fool'n).

gdaeman_scroll_small

April 8, 2009

The Establishment

For the past year or so I've taken to using the phrase "establishment media" instead of "mainstream media." Some people dismiss the word "establishment" as some notion that only exists in the paranoid minds of left wingers. Often, they're just parroting the rants of right wing talk show hosts who play a role in shielding the establishment.

The establishment is real, and establishment media is too. Thanks to Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, we have a frank admission from his April 6 musings about Nobel economist Paul Krugman:

By definition, establishments believe in propping up the existing order. Members of the ruling class have a vested interest in keeping things pretty much the way they are.


They want to maintain their lock on power and wealth, and are willing to do so at the expense of the unwashed masses (that's us).

If you are of the establishment persuasion (and I am), reading Krugman makes you uneasy.


This shows my choice in using the phrase "establishment media" is well founded.... and they should be uneasy.

gdaeman_scroll_small

September 14, 2007

Ouch!

Sometimes the establishment media slips through a poke in the eye of authority:
The president's speech marked only the latest shift in direction — and rationale and packaging — for a war that has lasted 4 1/2 years and cost a half trillion dollars and nearly 3,800 American lives.

- JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press

This indicates that a significant fraction of the establishment have had enough of the Iraq war.

Source:

Associated Press, "Bush preserves big troop level in Iraq," JENNIFER LOVEN, September 14, 2007.

June 5, 2007

GOP Ruse on Iraq by Default?

So we hear that GOP leaders and Bush loyalists are concluding that the Baker / Hamilton Iraq Study Group recommendations are the best way to go. That is, take the establishment route. Duh.

Sorry, but "duh" is what comes to mind. The fact that it is supposedly bipartiasn doesn't mean it isn't imperialist, colonial.

Bush is out at the radical edge of the spectrum, making the establishment position seem middle-of-the-roas; the "bipartisan" plan actually constitutes a diplomatic imperial incursion designed to control Iraq. It's just a smarter way of doing it, that is below the radar of the American public. In other words, its a ruse that looks appealing in contrast to the wacko dominionist position of Bush.

Sources:

Associated Press, June 5, 2007, GOP: Bush should adopt bipartisan plan.