Wednesday, December 28, 2011
As is it wont at year's end, 'The New York Times' its 'Sunday Review' featured a photo essay on the major events of 2011. In featuring 'Occupy Wall Street', the reader's eye got a jolt at the way not only of the way 'the Grey Old Lady' fudged the historical record but chose to rewrite history.
Here's how the 'NYT' saw the end of OWS' occupation of Liberty Plaza [Zuccotti Park]: when the cold weather came, the tents folded, and like caravans of old, moved on. Now, at that a kick in the head?
The newspaper of note in a few words repudiated its own stories and photographs of what was happening on the ground; it simply massaged the record by spinning out a Disney cartoon.
The editors simply came down on the side of the 'one percent', which is not surprising since the 'NYT', a multimillion corporation, listed on the New York Stock Exchange backed up the plutocracy of Wall Street that saw in OWS a direct challenge to its crimes of precipitating the global economic recession of 2008, the widening of economic inequality, and the spread of the sybartic and decadent life style of the coupon clippers, the buying of elections, and ultimately the subversion of American democracy by the rise of a police state at the beckon and call of the corporatisation of the economy and the decadent rule of finance capital.
As every school child know, OWS was uprooted violently by an early morning assault by New York Police at the orders of the billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg who acted on behalf of his class. The tents were uprooted and trashed by the Sanitation department; heads broken by police batons or the raw fists of a police with little respect for the law it is supposed to obey and respect. There were arrests, occupiers roused from sleep in tents, so reminiscent of Nazi storm troopers, the trashing of a 5000 volume lending library, destruction of a medical unit, so on. In sum, the mayor and his thugs acted as though they were in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, and saw in the peaceful OWS as 'terrorists' cut from the same wood as the Taliban or the Vietcong.
And what happened in New York in November 2011 has happened again and again at Occupy protests through out the land smashed by the steel fist of a militarised police force.
Realty has a way of unmasking the 'NYT's' big! lie [shades of Josef Goebbel]. Did Corporate 'NYT' think that it could through sand in the historical eye? Apparently, yes!
GuamDiary cannot leave it at that. It is time to protest and demand that the 'NYT' admit its fudging of history and offer an apology for its primative, crude sleight of hand of 'correcting history' [an old totalitarian trick!]
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
The role of a Grinch does not suit the US president, but it seems that he gladly welcomes it at this Christmastide.
For a leader of the 'free' world, who at the drop of the hat, extols the virtues and benefits of democracy, tying food aid to political gains is hardly worthy of the man.
He exhibits more the 'bah, humbug' posturing of Ebernezer Scrooge in Dicken's 'Christmas Carol'.
GuamDiary does not expect a last minute reversal of Grinch Obama's decision to withhold much needed food aid. It won't worry one whit his conscience as he luxuriates in his Christmas holidays on the beaches of Hawaii.
He is in league with the purveyors of want and ignorance at this time of giving. And you can bet it won't disturb his good Christian conscience!
In the wake of much breast beating about how the two countries intelligence failure on having the finger on the pulse of what's going on in the DPRK, we truly have to wonder about and put under a laser beam the information put out by the two governments, acolytes in the press, the universities and think tanks, business circles & the like. On a cost benefit analysis, neither country is get a big bang for its dollar or won spent.
Yeh, we know the intelligence community has a job to do: we question its quality and output for the results are often sloppy, of inferior analyses, and wandering into the celestial stars.
The death of Kim Jong il proved that the whole ball of intelligence wax had more to do with lunar green cheese than realty. The media and the White House and Blue House keep banging the drums of fear and instability in northeast Asia, if not implying that an outbreak of war is on the horizon owing to a power struggle within North Korea's senior military leaders.
What GuamDiary sees is that the US and ROK intelligence network is being payed to mouth the hoary propaganda of the governments that pay them. You get what you pay for, the saying goes, and forced timelines and hothouse nuturing of bankrupt ideologies are what the US and South Korean people are being asked to swallow.
If instability is on the horizon, look to Washington and Seoul for military adventurism and kick 'em in the stomach when it comes to North Korea. The Obama administration and the revanchist Lee Myung bak government in Seoul have bet on the collapse of the DPRK with the death of Kim Jong il. And, surprise, surprise, that ain't going to happen. GuamDiary scratches its head and wonders aloud 'haven't the US and ROK spooks have the slightest klew as to the motor which has driven and continues to drive North Korean history and behavior, yea, these past 80 years?'
The only logic answer is that they are obvious to anything but their own fears, projections, and scenarios which Freud would 'wish fulfillment'.
So, in the end, can we truly trust US and South Korean intelligence on North Korea? We do not deny that the end product of their work has a pinch of salt of versimilitude, but on the whole, we have to read more widely and weigh their conjectives with a cold, critical eye. So we have more reason to distruct US and ROK intelligence, in the final analysis.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Friday, December 9, 2011
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Her visit was carefully choregraphed as a result of president Obama's meeting with Burmese authorities in Indonesia during a meeting of Asian Pacific states.
A secretary of state has not visited Myanmar or Burma since John Foster Dulles in 1956.
Clinton met with president Thine Sein at Naypyidaw, the new Burmese capital. According to reports, she handed him a letter from Obama and discussed means to open full relations with a Myanmar where the generals have taken to wearing civilian cloth. As a result, reforms are in the air to widen avenues to a civil society, as well as opening a window to a wider world within, it has to be stressed, from a Birman standpoint.
The US is badly informed about what's happening in Myanmar. It, however, does want to seize an opportunity to twist the Chinese tiger's tail. China has never boycotted Myanmar; it has 'rectified borders' with Burma a half century ago, thereby establishing friendly relations. More recently, Beijing's dynamic economy has moved in swiftly overwhelming Myanmar's industries. And the Chinese have acted arrogantly and crudely prompting Naypyidaw to cancel a dam project which China sorely needs.
Although Thein Sein's motives remain unclear, one thing is certain, he's looking to wiggle out from under China's heavy hand. His desire is welcome by the US that is looking to mate China in the Asia Pacific region. Which brings us back to Clinton's presence in Myanmar. In a way, it's a mutal Christmas gift these exploratory talks.
Another concern of Obama is Myanmar's relations with North Korea. Before flying in to the Birman capitol, Clinton had talks with her South Korean allies in Seoul. Isolating North Korea is top priority for these two countries. It is doubtful that Myanmar will distance itself from the DPRK, the more especially since things on the ground there have evolved without the guiding hand of America's bienfaisance. If the US' track record is any signpost, Washington will soon prove as heavy handed as the Chinese in dealing with Birman sensibilities on the matter of North Korea.
For the moment, prospects look bright, but has US diplomacy improved since Foster Dulles visit in 1956?