Say what you see.
That Orwell committed every intellectual crime he complained about in Nineteen Eighty-Four is not something anyone wants to talk about.
Today’s servant of power is:
The Genocide Exploiters
People who are complicit with the blatant exploitation of the Rwandan crisis to justify further Western aggression and intervention (as if such an intervention will ever truly help anybody) should also be held responsible for contributing to human death and suffering.
The mentality of Americans is “we come first and we need to protect ourselves from the rest of the world; no questions asked” as well as “we are benevolent and the sane good guys.”
In “A Problem From Hell,” an uncompromising and exhaustive look at the U.S.’s historic unwillingness to fight genocide…
Uncompromising and exhaustive? She skipped over entire chapters of history and downplayed America’s contribution to the tragedies…
Any mention of East Timor in the book? Any mention of the role the US did play in Rwanda?
On top of that, now that the West is finally shedding some long overdue responsibility on Israel, Goldberg can’t help but chime in with some victim blaming:
People like Henneberger couldn’t care less how many people are murdered in this world. If she did she would be educating the public on genocide exploitation in the Western media rather than being party to it.
I feel Romeo Dallaire was genuine (he even crashed his car in front of Parliament Hill because of the guilt he was experiencing over the Rwandan crisis) but that doesn’t mean the reason people are honouring and reporting on him is genuine. Henneberger is exploiting what this poor gentleman went through, as well.
Here’s an idea: send Power to do some of the civilian protection in these war-torn countries if she truly cares about them so much…
In my opinion, the things I feel I have a responsibility to say and do not only generate no income, they are a hindrance to generating better income. I think I need to put in a lot more work, pain and suffering contributing what I feel is of highest value to society than those who just work full-time their entire lives (and think that all paid work is somehow a real contribution) and get to enjoy a more regular lifestyle.
Even in Canada, it takes months to find (and get approved for) an individual insurance plan (independent of plans paid by employers) that will cover the antidepressants I wouldn’t need to be taking if the system wasn’t set up for the wealthy elites. I feel the moment you stop working, everything is rescinded. The only reason this occurs is because those who support keeping people unnecessarily poor fare better in this system than those fighting against it, (in my opinion.)
Why do American journals, academics and the media at large give unwavering support to Israel?
I’m slightly surprised by Friedman’s stance on China’s one-party autocracy which he describes as being “led by a reasonably enlightened group of people.”  In my opinion, the Eastern ability to reach consensus is pretty impressive and something unfathomable to achieve in the West. Having said that, a consensus amongst an autocratic élite is still not nearly as impressive as a natural ability for people to get along in the face of ever shrinking forms of illegitimate control. That’s why I think the more natural anarchist approach would eventually be the best for the future.
(Also, Friedman may not be praising the Chinese one party state for their ability to reach consensus; he may only be praising them because of their willingness to maintain China’s status as a market economy relatively open to trade and opportunity for the West.)
A major bone of contention I have with Friedman (and his equivalents) is his upholding of “radical centrism”  – one of the most oxymoronic and sinister terms not at all unlike The Economist’s formal declaration of the collective stance for their writers as being “high-centre.” There is a desire amongst people like Friedman, Power, and the elitists working for the Economist to create a cleverly-crafted heir of heroism, radicalism, and dissent for themselves (redolent of a controlled chemical-reaction using a catalyst) only because true radicals and dissenters of the past have been so lauded for their efforts. However, the tactic of sinister sorts like Friedman or Power, who don’t actually want to put up with the backlash or persecution of being a true radical/dissident, is to just pretend/declare that they are while staying squarely in line with whatever’s convenient to those that matter most (ie. those that call the shots.)
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. 
- 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 
- 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 
- 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 
- Attempt to pass himself off as having the sophistication of the gentleman from the Dos Equis commercials.
- Painting any American enemy as being a barbaric, aggressive bully (which even if true is not why he does it)
- Then writing those exact same people off as chickens, cowards, and losers for withdrawing military forces
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.)
 “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
Am I allowed to criticize William Golding? ·Say that his work is poor (at least, in my opinion) and lacking in intelligence and insight? Am I allowed to say such a thing or think such a thing?
(I have absolutely no problem if someone else reveres his work, but am I allowed to abhor it? Do I retain that right?)
When looking at unemployment statistics, remember that many bloggers and full-time social activists would technically fall in the category of “unemployed.” Does this mean we are providing no service to humanity?
For me, I’m doing my work while living off my parents at the moment. I wouldn’t mind being subsidized by some type of monetary subsistence program that provides basic funding for those who are more interested in independent pursuits with no backing from any private organization or institution.