By defining half the country as dependent on government, Romney suddenly opened up the question of who was not dependent. And a series of stories about Romney, Bain Capital, and Romney's taxes began to make clear a revolutionary truth: that the corporations and richest Americans, such as Romney himself, were actually the most dependent, the most parasitical.
...The 47 percent did not have to work hard to see that Bain Capital is hardly the only recipient of "corporate welfare." As of March 31, 2012, the federal government has given investment bankers $4.6 trillion in TARP bailouts of which only $1.3 trillion has been paid back.
Above Quotes from : Romney's "47 Percent" Blunder Reveals the Hidden Heart of His Agenda
By Charles Derber and Yale Magrass, Truthout Oct. 9, 2012
...So, now we have two options: we can make the easy assertion that those people are backward, senseless and violent, or we can take stock of US contributions to the problem, which are enormous.
...With over 200 million people just in the area spanning Egypt to Iran, it's not a stretch to guess that a few are going to express their grievances in the most vicious and catastrophic way they can think of. That's not a justification of what was done, but when the record of what Washington has carried out or abetted in the Middle East over the last 60 years is included in the discussion, 9/11 is then located in a much broader context.
Quotes by Gregory Harms from the article at Truthout It's Not About Religion: A Conversation With Author and Middle East Expert Gregory Harms By David Masciotra, Truthout Oct. 9,2012
Romney's supposed gaffe in saying that 47% of Americans including White Americans, African Americans ,Hispanic Americans etc. is in fact the core of the Ultraconservative Republican Party's ideology of winners and losers, makers and takers or what hitlers called producers and eaters.
We have seen this with other leaders in the GOP such as Newt gingrich who even sees young children as parasites for insisting on free public eduation K-12 . The less fortunate kids economically have a duty he believes to pay for their education since he doesn't want the government to do it . He probly believies that in some cases community organizations such as religious might help such children though he would probably want to make sure everyone knew about it to encourage the stigma to ensure that by doing so wouldn't encourage other poor, lazy shifless kids or their families who by definition are poor, lazy, losers .
Gingrich like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney prefers a cruel uncaring society which sees altruism and notions of community reponsibility towards all members of the community in which the more fortunate members help out the less fortunate which according to Ayn Rand and other fascists and social Darwinists and the Eugenics crowd that this form altruism enables those losers to have children who will be bad for society since they will be born with the "lazy gene" or will be brought up believing in hand outs and a "free lunch".
Romney's "47 Percent" Blunder Reveals the Hidden Heart of His Agenda
By Charles Derber and Yale Magrass, Truthout Oct. 9, 2012
...Romney defined the 47 percent as those Americans who feel entitled to government benefits, don't pay income taxes and are parasitical in the sense that, "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
...The Republican anti-parasite narrative teaches that society can prosper only when the producers dominate the parasites and keep them from destroying wealth, progress, the work ethic and the broader health of society. In an economic crisis, the 47 percent, specifically white workers, could turn against their corporate employers and even capitalism itself. However, the narrative tells them the source of their troubles are government, the Left and shiftless parasites.
In the US, the history of the "parasite" narrative is inseparable from Republican politics. After the 1929 crash, President Herbert Hoover refused to give massive government aid to the unemployed, claiming that it would reward sloth and bankrupt the government, a theme taken up in the 1930s by big business critics of the New Deal, like the American Liberty League and by Right populists like Father Charles Coughlin.
The moocher discourse regained prominence in the 1950s and 1960s, in the presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater and the immensely popular novels of Ayn Rand, who explicitly wrote about the war between "productives" and "moochers." Rand became a hero to the new generation of young conservatives that included Paul Ryan, who helped lead the "New Right" to build a base among white workers, especially in the South.
Under Ronald Reagan, the right-wing charge of parasitical dependency became mainstream. Welfare "queens" and government social programs were demonized to rally hard-pressed workers against liberals. Reagan's success transformed US politics, weaning the white blue-collar class from the Democratic Party and creating a blue-collar class of white "Reagan Democrats" whose anger at employers was replaced by an ironic solidarity with bosses in the struggle against the "parasites."
...But Romney made a fatal error. Parasites had always been defined as a minority of America, mostly African-Americans. But with the "47 percent," he suddenly turned a huge percentage of whites into "parasites." This deeply alienated the millions of whites who had always gained self-respect by identifying with the class of the "productives" or "creatives," a world apart from the minority parasites...
... By defining half the country as dependent on government, Romney suddenly opened up the question of who was not dependent. And a series of stories about Romney, Bain Capital, and Romney's taxes began to make clear a revolutionary truth: that the corporations and richest Americans, such as Romney himself, were actually the most dependent, the most parasitical.
...The 47 percent did not have to work hard to see that Bain Capital is hardly the only recipient of "corporate welfare." As of March 31, 2012, the federal government has given investment bankers $4.6 trillion in TARP bailouts of which only $1.3 trillion has been paid back.
--------------------------
The issues which are most troubling to people in the Middle East that is Muslims ,Arabs, Persians, Kurds have little to do with religion but have to do with Western and especially American interference in the region.
Like Empires before it such as the British and Spanish Empires the American Empire has a notorious and shameful history when it comes to thwarting the wishes and ambitions of the people as opposed to those friendly despots and dictators that time and agin the US props up and defends no matter how brutal the regime as long as they give America what it wants easy access to cheap oil and gas. So it is a no brainerto realize the USA is more concerned with easy access to cheap oil and gas while ignoring the plight of the avearge citizen in those countries.
The USA though is not above using in a cynical manner human rights issues to defend a despot or authoritarian regime which is still acquiesing to America's demands or on the other hand to take down a regime which is no longer doing its bidding. The USA will use notions such as security , law and order , stability and maintaining the status quo where that fits with its own agenda.
It's Not About Religion: A Conversation With Author and Middle East Expert Gregory Harms By David Masciotra, Truthout Oct. 9,2012
...(Gregory ) Harms' new book effectively undresses the insipid and insidious propaganda that distorts America's perception of the people in the Middle East and often turns them against Muslims at home. In a succinct 90 pages, Harms educates readers on the history of the Middle East, how the West has prevented democracy from taking shape throughout the region, and how America has continually invaded its countries, interfered with its elections, and simultaneously managed to convince many Americans that all the aggression and intervention is innocently committed in defense of American lives. Harms shows how our perceptions of Islam are dangerously wrong and how our beliefs about US foreign policy are often naive.
(all quotes below are Gregory Harms from interview by David Masciotra)
"...After World War I, Western Europe - mainly Britain and France - divided up the Ottoman Empire into the states that now comprise the modern Middle East. It's important to bear in mind that these countries are relatively young - about 90 years old. When this system was forced upon the region, Europe installed leaders who would basically provide two services: cooperate with Western interests and keep their respective populations under control. Well, it's no surprise why you need population control under these circumstances, because the interests of Western power are not exactly in sync with the interests of the people living in the region
..The desire for global preponderance remains fixed, which explains the continuity since 1945. There are certainly differences from one executive to another, but the overarching program is the same. One doesn't rise up that high in government without possessing the requisite assumptions, inclinations and drives. Despite the personality differences, these are team players who are willing and able to defend the faith. Party politics serve more as a distraction for the public than they do as an actual boundary for where legislators stand on Capitol Hill.
A second Obama term might see some measure of peace process theater regarding the Palestine-Israel issue. But that's a maybe. So far, he's continued the carte blanche given to Tel Aviv by the Bush II administration. On balance, Obama's foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan, has been aggressive and violent...
...So, now we have two options: we can make the easy assertion that those people are backward, senseless and violent, or we can take stock of US contributions to the problem, which are enormous. The United States is perhaps the freest country in the world, which means we can influence our government with the least amount of restriction. I mean, let's be honest: what restrictions are there?
Calling a halt to these foreign adventures would help those at the receiving end immensely. Had Afghanistan been allowed to evolve, with foreign support instead of foreign assault, it might not be Norway right now, but it would be much farther down the road and the abuses at far lower levels.
...With over 200 million people just in the area spanning Egypt to Iran, it's not a stretch to guess that a few are going to express their grievances in the most vicious and catastrophic way they can think of. That's not a justification of what was done, but when the record of what Washington has carried out or abetted in the Middle East over the last 60 years is included in the discussion, 9/11 is then located in a much broader context.
No comments:
Post a Comment