Now, for the record, "The world is run by crazy people" is also something said by the disgusting KKKate Makkkmillan of smalldeadbraincells infamy.
But KKKate is the sort of person who would wonder why you spat in her face after she called for the re-opening of the residential schools and who believed that Iraq had WMDs.
It's also believed by people like kryntgathf-adfadf, who trolls at Dr. Dawg's blog.
But kdrerayf-asdlfkj also believes that if politicians in a government commit war crimes, they can be absolved from their war crimes if they win a subsequent election. (There's an extended "debate" about this asinine contention in the comments section.)
So, who cares what those miserable deluded shit-heads think? They're part of the bad craziness that I'm talking about.
Let's pause to remember (since all the assholes who talk about Iran, Libya, Syria, etc., fail to remind us) that the handsome, articulate, intelligent President Barack Obama has given himself the power to declare anyone a terrorist and kill them and their children with impunity.
That's fucking crazy.
We Canadians have a government with a finance minister whose projections for the government's finances were off by over $50 billion and they campaigned on their economic competence.
They altered government documents, lied to Parliament about it, refused to tell Parliament how much their policies would cost, and shut-down Parliament twice (once to evade responsible government, and the second time was to shut-down an inquiry into the possibility that they are complicit in war crimes) and then they went on to win a majority government through the ignorance or authoritarianism of more than a quarter of the voters!
And, now, proof is out that NAFTA has been a disaster:
But KKKate is the sort of person who would wonder why you spat in her face after she called for the re-opening of the residential schools and who believed that Iraq had WMDs.
It's also believed by people like kryntgathf-adfadf, who trolls at Dr. Dawg's blog.
But kdrerayf-asdlfkj also believes that if politicians in a government commit war crimes, they can be absolved from their war crimes if they win a subsequent election. (There's an extended "debate" about this asinine contention in the comments section.)
So, who cares what those miserable deluded shit-heads think? They're part of the bad craziness that I'm talking about.
Let's pause to remember (since all the assholes who talk about Iran, Libya, Syria, etc., fail to remind us) that the handsome, articulate, intelligent President Barack Obama has given himself the power to declare anyone a terrorist and kill them and their children with impunity.
That's fucking crazy.
Many expected President Obama to re-establish the accountability of government to law. Instead, he went further than Bush/Cheney and asserted the unconstitutional power not only to hold American citizens indefinitely in prison without bringing charges, but also to take their lives without convicting them in a court of law. Obama asserts that the US Constitution notwithstanding, he has the authority to assassinate US citizens, who he deems to be a “threat,” without due process of law.
In other words, any American citizen who is moved into the threat category has no rights and can be executed without trial or evidence.
...
This great danger that hovers over America is unrecognized by the majority of the people. When Obama announced before a military gathering his success in assassinating an American citizen, cheers erupted. The Obama regime and the media played the event as a repeat of the (claimed) killing of Osama bin Laden. Two “enemies of the people” have been triumphantly dispatched. That the President of the United States was proudly proclaiming to a cheering audience sworn to defend the Constitution that he was a murderer and that he had also assassinated the US Constitution is extraordinary evidence that Americans are incapable of recognizing the threat to their liberty.
We Canadians have a government with a finance minister whose projections for the government's finances were off by over $50 billion and they campaigned on their economic competence.
They altered government documents, lied to Parliament about it, refused to tell Parliament how much their policies would cost, and shut-down Parliament twice (once to evade responsible government, and the second time was to shut-down an inquiry into the possibility that they are complicit in war crimes) and then they went on to win a majority government through the ignorance or authoritarianism of more than a quarter of the voters!
And, now, proof is out that NAFTA has been a disaster:
NAFTA has become an international example of severe structural problems in the food chain, from how it produces its food to what and how much (or how little) it consumes.But our elites like watching millions of people starve so it's all good. And we're all too busy doing nothing really to stop it.
Mexican malnutrition has its roots in the way NAFTA and other neoliberal programs forced the nation to move away from producing its own basic foods to a “food security” model. “Food security” posits that a country is secure as long as it has sufficient income to import its food. It separates farm employment from food security and ignores unequal access to food within a country.
The idea of food security based on market access comes directly from the main argument behind NAFTA of “comparative advantage.” Simply stated, economic efficiency dictates that each country should devote its productive capacity to what it does best and trade liberalization will guarantee access across borders.
Under the theory of comparative advantage, most of Mexico was deemed unfit to produce its staple food crop, corn, since its yields were way below the average for its northern neighbor and trade partner. Therefore, Mexico should turn to corn imports and devote its land to crops where it supposedly had a comparative advantage, such as counter-seasonal and tropical fruits and vegetables.
Sounds simple. Just pick up three million inefficient corn producers (and their families) and move them into manufacturing or assembly where their cheap labor constitutes a comparative advantage. The cultural and human consequences of declaring entire peasant and indigenous communities obsolete were not a concern in this equation.
Seventeen years after NAFTA, some two million farmers have been forced off their land by low prices and the dismantling of government supports. They did not find jobs in industry. Instead most of them became part of a mass exodus as the number of Mexican migrants to the United States rose to half a million a year. In the first few years of NAFTA, corn imports tripled and the producer price fell by half.
3 comments:
not sure if you saw this one:
http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2011/10/do-we-now-assasinate-teens.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Newshog+%28NewsHog%29
"Do We Now Assasinate Teens?" - murdered by the US, sanctioned by Obama, no charges, no proof he was a militant.
- 900ft j
I always thought "food security" meant that a country could produce enough to feed it's citizens? Obviously I'm stupid.
900ft j,
I hadn't read that excellent account, but it was his murder I was referring to.
Obama nauseates me more than bush II did, and I didn't think that would have been possible.
double nickel,
"Food security" as NAFTA (or whoever) defined it would make sense if those geniuses had considered whether the people who they were displacing from subsistence agriculture got access to any of the nation's money that was supposed to pay for the food imports.
Since neoliberal economists don't care about real people, that wasn't considered, hence the malnutrition and forced exile as "illegal" immigrants in the US of A.
Post a Comment