Bill McBride: Defeatists Policies #NothingCanBeDone

Bill McBride writes about the Defeatists Policies #NothingCanBeDone attitude of the US Congress.

Over the last several years, I noted on several occasions that Congress has been a disaster.  They've opposed economic policies normally supported by both parties — and by Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan — and this has hurt the economy.  Former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke noted in his book: “I also felt frustrated that fiscal policy makers, far from helping the economy, appeared to be actively working to hinder it.”

I agree with Bernanke.

This seems to part of a defeatists theme of the current Congress — an overwhelming pessimism about several policies —"Nothing can be done" could be their slogan (or worse when they "actively work to hinder" the economy).

Emphasis in original

This is a dangerous attitude for the leading Capitalist state to have. Capitalism is built on a "can-do" stance. If Capitalism admits defeat in the face of problems, then Capitalism has lost the right to be the dominant political and social system.

Read more!

GLW: Terror raids fuel Islamophobia

Pip Hinman writes that Terror raids fuel Islamophobia .

This state harassment campaign will not deter those already worked up and thinking about reacting to police harassment: if anything, it will fuel it. The police know that.

Why, then, do they do it? Clearly, the police, with their media accomplices, want to scare young Muslims. But they are wrong if they think this will deter young people from “radicalising”. This “permanent war” on the streets of Sydney — or at least on some streets — finds its echo in Australia’s support for the permanent wars in the Middle East.

The harassment of young people — either of the Muslim faith or from a Middle Eastern background — serves the interests of the ruling class in deflecting attention away from their rotten policies that result in an array of problems young people have to deal with today: increasing isolation, alienation, mental health problems, entry into higher education and trying to find a job.

Emphasis Mine

Islamphobia distorts the public discourse. The role the US occupation of Iraq played in the rise of Daesh is not discussed. Also, ignorance is professed about the role of CIA in the creation of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. And the list goes on.

If the people are not frightened, they might start to question the Capitalist system, and that is expressly forbidden.

Read more!

Juan Cole: Nigeria's Boko Haram is about Vengeance, not Islam

Gregory Alonso Pirio writes that Nigeria's Boko Haram is about Vengeance, not Islam.

So many people are scratching their heads as they search for an explanation for the extreme acts of violence meted out by such groups as the Nigerian jihadist organization, Boko Haram, and its now allied Middle Eastern Islamic State or ISIS.

Often in normal conversation, people will pull out an explanation, seemingly out of the air, that Islam as a religion lends itself to violence. The facile reasoning does not synch with historic fact certainly for Violent Extremist Organizations (VEOs) that I am familiar with in sub-Saharan Africa. My research on Boko Haram, for instance, shows that the driver of jihadist violence is a narrative of vengeance that was adopted in response to state violence. Historically, this may be true of several other VEOs in sub-Saharan Africa whose radicalization followed a massacre committed by government security forces against peaceful reform-oriented Islamist movements. Such has been the case in Somalia, Uganda and Tanzania.

Emphasis Mine

Admitting the state role in creating these VEOs runs counter to the dominant discourse that the state is defending us against the existential threat of Radical Islam.

The existence of a state is for the protection of the interests of the ruling class. The state is the only legal organ of violence. The state will do whatever it takes to survive.

Because of this, there will be no peacefull transfer of power from the Capitalists to the Workers.

Read more!

Jon Schwarz: A Short History of U.S. Bombing of Civilian Facilities

Jon Schwarz writes about A Short History of U.S. Bombing of Civilian Facilities.

The U.S. first claimed the hospital had been “collateral damage” in an airstrike aimed at “individuals” elsewhere who were “threatening the force.” Since then, various vague and contradictory explanations have been offered by the U.S. and Afghan governments, both of which promise to investigate the bombing. MSF has called the attack a war crime and demanded an independent investigation by a commission set up under the Geneva Conventions.

While the international outcry has been significant, history suggests this is less because of what happened and more because of whom it happened to. The U.S. has repeatedly attacked civilian facilities in the past but the targets have generally not been affiliated with a European, Nobel Peace Prize-winning humanitarian organization such as MSF.

Emphasis Mine

Just Another Day, Another War Crime.

Read more!