Good Morning, Yall!

I’m doing Over Easy today, for a change, and here’s some stuff I’ve got from the Foreign Dept.

Chomsky

”[In] the 1950s and the 1960s, which was the biggest growth period in American history, financial institutions were regulated. The New Deal regulations were in place and there were no financial crisis, none …. Starting in the 1970s it changed pretty radically. There were decisions made – not laws of nature – to reconstruct the economy.”

And decades later, these decisions have resulted in a situation which “really is a catastrophe,” he says.

But Chomsky also feels that “nothing’s ever gone too far. Anything can be reversed; these are human decisions.”

He emphasises: “The more privilege you have, the more opportunity you have. The more opportunity you have, the more responsibility you have.”

And then there’s this:

AIPAC is, like most professional lobbies, highly protective of its role. Its associates and friends, widely quoted in the media as demanding that Hagel not be appointed, would never have been so aggressive without AIPAC’s go-ahead. That is how it works. It always has.Frankly, I am surprised that the president went ahead over the lobby’s opposition. I am well-known for my belief that it could not be beaten, although I have always offered the caveat that it would be if a president fought back hard.

Obama did, and Chuck Hagel will almost surely be the next Secretary of Defence.

That is good news but far less significant than the implications for peace. As Dine told me all those years ago, if a president pushes for a peace agreement that advances US interests while not harming Israel’s, he will prevail.

That means that he can insist on an end to the occupation and the creation of a viable Palestinian state in the lands Israel has occupied since 1967. As long as Israel’s security is not put at risk (and no president would put it at risk), the president will prevail. This is especially the case because an end to the occupation (with security guarantees for Israel and the new state) would advance Israel’s security not damage it.

The lobby will not be able to block a president determined to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on terms fair to both sides. It is like the father of modern Zionism, Theodor Herzl, said: “If you will it, it is no dream.”

How fun is it that Al-J has entered the Amurkin media market? I want to see the mess that people are cleaning up since that, given all the wingnut haids that have assploded since that development.
Africa. What do you know about what is happening there? Drop your stuff here.

Iraq. You know, that place which is a libertarian paradise, because they have gunz and freedum and school children there are armed?

Mali. Have you heard about what’s going on there?

For me, it’s always a bit of a test. Call me a snob, but I find it fascinating. When I meet a new person, I’ll occasionally talk about international issues. I find myself thinking about a person on the basis of what they say about the rest of the world. Which is 7+B large, and growing. But I find the ignorance of that fact interesting, when I think of my countrymen.

i may be a little lax today in my hostnpost’n. I’m taking care of Ruth, who is mourning. Stuff is Ruff, as it were. I know yall will understand. And gosh darnit, this formatting is really cheesing me off. I swear, I’m proficient in HTML. /mumbles and grouses about silly blogs.

Photo by daydayxvi under Creative Commons license