The Economist’s weekly repartee arrived with an article on “Obamanomics” entitled “ Hope and fear: Democratic economic policy sounds worryingly populist“. It’s unfortunate (though not exactly surprising, given the source) that policies construed as “populist” — that is, for the benefit of the populace at large, as opposed to in the interests of the elite — are condemned on that account.

The majority of The Economist’s well-heeled readership lives in a bubble world of trust funds and investment banks, prestigious degrees from ancient universities and well-paying jobs arranged by Daddy’s friends. They, and the similarly fortunate friends and relatives they surround themselves with socially, evidently have little concept of what it’s like to live from paycheck to paycheck without any safety net, to live in constant fear that one’s very livelihood will one day be outsourced overseas or obsoleted by technology. Though this grim reality applies to the bulk of the country’s population, it is but a foggy and distant concept in their minds and worldviews, vaguely liked with dirty words like “liberalism” and its even more depraved cousin, “populism”; contemptible doctrines that despise the hard work and self-reliance that they credit for their own positions in favor of a welfare nanny state that coddles work-shirkers — nevermind that the vast majority of those so fortunate to live in the upper echelons are not there by virtue of either hard work or self-reliance in any sense other than their own imaginations and politics.
Read the rest of this entry »

Peter Berkowitz’ harried defense of neoconservativism could only have appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Well, if it was less erudite and shouted, it could probably make it onto FOX News, too. He does a good job of sugar coating a morally bankrupt philosophy based on equal measures of self-glorifying arrogance, greed, and wilful deception of the public in flag-waving red, white, and blue candy stripes. After nearly eight years of application by perhaps the worst president in history, neoconservativism is singlehandedly responsible for starting a war without foreseeable end, causing immeasurable loss of life and human suffering, tarnishing our reputation and moral integrity on the world stage, and saddling us all with an enormous debt that will take decades to pay off. The war was financed by setting dangerously low interest rates for years, sparking the real estate bubble which has led to the current recession. This was all undertaken as a barefaced grab for oil and military contracts for the neocons and their friends, under the cover of blatant lies about nonexistent “weapons of mass destruction” and spurious allegations of Iraqi links to Al Qaeda.

One wonders how, at this late date, Berkowitz can still be repeating Karl Rove’s stale Iraq “stay the course” talking points with a straight face. More stunningly, he claims that neoconservativism “insists that government policy should be judged not by the hopes of advocates and intentions of decision makers, but by real world consequences,” then makes the absurd proclamation that “the failure of today’s neoconservatives to anticipate the challenges of postwar reconstruction does not discredit neoconservativism” in the same breath. Read the rest of this entry »

The Wall Street Journal published a fine piece of propaganda this Saturday, entitled Cuban Revolution: Yoani Sánchez fights tropical totalitarianism, one blog post at a time. This article is no lunatic passing out Xeroxed copies of his manifesto on a streetcorner; the Wall Street Journal attracts a rather well educated readership, and thus requires propaganda of a much higher caliber. Half truths are smoothly worked in via the omission of important details rather than through brazen lies, which would easily be detected by many readers. A few mildly neutral statements about the Cuban government are carefully inserted; contrasted with the blatant attacks present throughout the article, these function to lend it a sheen of objectivity. Let’s take a look in more detail at how the WSJ’s top editors carefully groom their presentation of reality so as to shepherd the public along the opinion paths they’ve chosen for us.

Through careful selection of facts, the reader is fed information that is technically true though lacking critical context necessary to fully understand its import. This allows the WSJ to maintain a charade of journalistic neutrality while still accomplishing their propaganda goal of creating and reinforcing negative attitudes towards socialism generally and the current government of Cuba in particular. Read the rest of this entry »