The Daily Servant of Power

Standard

Today’s servant of power is:

Thomas L. Friedman

Friedman is an American journalist, columnist and author who currently writes a twice-weekly column for The New York Times. [1]


Political views:

  • Support and justification provided for the Iraq war (I was unsure of my stance on war during the invasion, but I was also only in High School at the time.)
  • Support for economic imperialism and subservience to corporations by developing nations cloaked in the “what’s best for them”-mentality [2]
  • Servicing the economy of the developed world by scolding developing nations and independent opposition movements for getting in the way of mindless growth and expansion [3]
  • Desire for energy independence only because it allows for greater leverage in international relations
  • Defence of Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon as a form of “educating” Israel’s opponents [1]

Journalistic Tactics:


Rewards granted for subservience to unethical power structures:

  • Triple Pulitzer Prize wins
  • His entire career

As a servant of power only concerned with his own lot, what does he care whether others are ruled by authoritarian regimes or not? (·Outside of it being inconvenient for corporate expansion and domination, that is.)

References:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman
[2] “One of Friedman’s theses states that individual countries must sacrifice some degree of economic sovereignty to global institutions (such as capital markets and multinational corporations), a situation he has termed the “golden straitjacket”.” via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Is_Flat

Advertisements

The Daily Servant of Power

Standard

Today’s servant of power is:

The Economist

The Economist

Taking a cue from Time magazine and their annual “Person of the Year” feature, today’s servant of power is not a single person but a group of people · a group of very shady people · who lurk in the shadows and refuse to show their faces and take accountability for their own writing.

I think the internet is a fitting place for anonymity.  There are a lot of truths I still can’t discuss at this point because they would be considered far too radical and unsettling.  I started blogging anonymously and feel justified in doing so because I was worried about financial security as a result of holding certain beliefs that are considered out of the norm.  As I see it, anonymity as a reaction to fear of persecution is a fitting karmic counterweight to the injustice of being forced to work against one’s will.

However, when you are a well-distributed magazine like The Economist, it’s an entirely different scenario.  There is no fear of persecution or fear of losing one’s job by owning up to your own words because that’s what you are getting paid for.  The Economist writers are required to live up to the standards of professional responsibility and accountability in writing as a result.

There is such an extreme level of cowardice to the men and women working for The Economist.  Not only are they not willing to step on any toes in order to maintain their well-funded “professional” aura, they’re not even willing to own up to their middle-of-the-road dribble passed off as advanced insight.

I can’t say I have much respect for a team of writers who want to pass off their words as “high truth” the rest of us are supposed to look upon as professional and mature, but who are too dastardly to step out from behind the shadows long enough for the public to see who is responsible for which piece.  Are you people grown men and women or are you a single amoebic blob who somehow got the idea that your collective omnipotence permits your pedantic didacticism?

A name and a face, please.