Folktruther writes, (in a comment that should have nothing to do with me or what I’ve written - no connection)

“Cyrena’s pieces are good examples of standard American pseudo-progressive gibberish: verbose, inconsistent, decep;tive, pretending to support progressive policies while restricting them to the interests of the power structure…”

~~~~

This would actually be OK Folktruther, if you CITED some of these accusations in examples, but of course YOU DON’T!!!!

Because…YOU CAN’T! All you can do is talk shit and level vague rhetorical attacks from out of the blue. You would make an even worse debator than John McCain. That’s all shit talkers can ever do…talk shit. They can never back it up with any kind of an argument.

Quite true, Jackpine, the ECONOMIST is a BRITISH right wing rag and they do have interesting and useful truthpieces about various places in the world.  From, however,  the perspective of the British ruling class.  They were strong supporters of Thatcher and the Falkland war that consolidated her power.  I am ashamed to say that I subscribed to it until their sophisticated defense of imperialism and oppression irritated me too much.

However the Economist is lightyears ahead of American rightwing rags of the neocon variety, although it supports a neoliberal perspective.  American mainstream ideology, of both wings,  is usually such intellectual garbage that any political intelligence like the ECONOMIST is a breath of fresh air. 

Cyrena’s pieces are good examples of standard American pseudo-progressive gibberish: verbose, inconsistent, decep;tive, pretending to support progressive policies while restricting them to the interests of the power structure.

The class division is more explict in Britain and the common mush that arises in the US in pretending to support the policies of the population while in reality supporting the ruling class is finessed more adroitly there.

It is consequently more honest.  And British writers tend to write English better than Americans, possibly as a result of translating all that Latin and Greek.  So I can understand your liking it.

Being fiscally conservative and socially liberal means keep your mouth shut about gay marriage while you fuck people over economically.

Bottom line: they are supporting Obama because they know he is not a threat to corporate control of the world, corporate control of the media, corporate control of health care…

Obama’s health care plan says all you need to know about him.  It leaves corporations in charge to make billions.

Obama’s stump speeches are reruns of Clinton’s from the ‘92 race.  Empty promises about health care, jobs, education, etc., etc.  The same speeches.

Just heard from online CBS news that both Ohama´s & McCain´s tax cuts along with what they will do for the country will still leave the country in debt for trillons. 

Just wondering if we could have a scenario where both the houses of government would debate and argue these bills they promise what would be the outcome.

Jackpine Savage,

Thanks for the info and analysis on the Economist as well as their endorsement. I apprecite it. I wasn’t familiar with that publication (aside from hearing the name)until you’d posted a few links to it, and mentioned it on occassion. So, it was very helpful to get a background of sorts on it.

Same goes for the meaningfulness of their endorsement of Obama. I’m not surprised to learn that this is published in England. I wouldn’t expect such a thing to be published here. The best I’ve found is the Nation.

As for the British ‘right’ not being the same as our ‘right’, that was hopefully something helpful to many here on TD as well. I’m not trying to be a cultural/political anthropologist or socio-political scientist here, but so much mythological based ideology comes from a lack of understanding about these things, generally from Americans who have NO other frame of reference for how the rest of the world lives and thinks.

This is also another example of why I hate using the ‘right’ and ‘left’ as indicators of political ideology. I think conservative and liberal are better indicators, with the universal understanding that extreme and radical versions of each also exist. Like the Thugs currently in power. They are radical reactionaries. Scary as hell.

I’m not sure how you can call The Economist a right leaning rag. For starters, it’s published in England…and their right wing is not quite the same as our right wing. They are most certainly conservative in fiscal matters, but they are socially liberal. Their coverage of American politics is about as fair and balanced as you’ll find.

And, wonder of wonders, when they support something that goes badly they own up to their part. Just about every article on Iraq notes that The Economist supported the invasion and was wrong.

Finally, you won’t find a weekly US publication (main stream) that covers what happens in every corner of the world like the The Economist. Read it every week and you’ll actually have a good idea about African politics and all manner of things that Newsweek et. al. don’t bother with.

They have long been fans of McCain, so this endorsement means something. He was their kind of American conservative (i.e. not Bible thumping) and he lost them…that says a lot.

I am still frightened by how many “conservatives” and their media mouthpieces have quietly thrown their support to Barry. Is this part of a right wing conspiracy to throw this election, full well knowing that whoever wins the white house will be up to their ass in alligators, and everyone will forget who caused this mess in the first place?(just like 1976)

No, trublesum, they are endorsing Obama because they are a very intelligent right wing magizine and Obama is their cup of tea.

Every time I think I will probably vote for Obama something like this endorsement happens.  I’m beginning to wonder if they are doing it to turn progressives off to Obama.

The only thing I think of when I hear “trickle down” is, well, you guessed it I’m sure. We’re in the toilet.

‘Trickle Down’ was Feudalism comes to America and after 30 yrs of endentured slavery, it’s time to burn down the plantation’s mansion!If Sen obama was a Socilaist he would be Freezing and Seizing the top 1%‘s wealth and assets…..That’s what I would be doing if elected, since they won’t be needing it where I’d be sending them. Consider how much they have skimmed and hoarded. How many people are employeed by private Designers (like the one that made Cindy’s 300,000 Convention outfit)...3? how many did it take to craft that ‘Wilma Flintson’ necklace she had around her neck…No doubt handcrafted high heeled pumps too. And how many Americna made Cars do the mcCains Own? Shit they spent 273,000 dollars on domestic help…How many did that total? Crap Sarahs ONE haristylist made 20,000 for what a months work…NO They NEVER spread the Wealth.
Of course they are fearful people may finally figure out the last 30 yrs has been eeriely similar to ‘merry ol’ england’ when Our Founding Fathers said ‘Fuck You’ and fought for OUR Independence- Democracy,Free market and Socio-economic equality.
Trickle Down is the Oppressive Economic stradegy of Monarchies and dictatorships…DUH!!!