O Pedro Mexia diz no Expresso do último sábado o seguinte sobre Murdoch e a direita norte-americana:
Tido como politicamente conservador, Murdoch é também, trágica ironia, uma das pessoas que contribuiu para o descrédito da monarquia inglesa. E que exibe nas suas televisões o estado demencial da atual direita norte-americana. Há décadas que os jornais e as televisões de Rupert Murdoch [....] contaminam a cultura ocidental.
Penso que o articulista é conservador, e por isso mesmo, aquilo que diz acima, corroborando a opinião de muita gente do que se passa nos EUA, é sintomático e substantiva a minha tese que os conservadores e políticos de direita (democrática) portuguesa e europeia transplantados para aquele lado passariam por perigosos esquerdistas.
O primeiro artigo abaixo, ainda sobre Murdoch, demonstra bem que a propriedade privada dos meios de comunicação social não é panaceia para os males que Pacheco Pereira aponta. Necessitamos de uma componente forte de propriedade pública na comunicação social ainda que, com definição de missão, protocolos de atuação, ligações formais ao poder político e códigos de atuação implacáveis para regular as ligações informais, diferentes e mais exigentes dos que existem agora. Este artigo lê-se como pornografia política e ninguém escapa. Aliás, com o tipo de democracia que temos, o perigo ainda é maior, ou melhor, porque temos o tipo de democracia que temos é que esse perigo se avolumou, como é bom de ver.
O primeiro artigo abaixo, ainda sobre Murdoch, demonstra bem que a propriedade privada dos meios de comunicação social não é panaceia para os males que Pacheco Pereira aponta. Necessitamos de uma componente forte de propriedade pública na comunicação social ainda que, com definição de missão, protocolos de atuação, ligações formais ao poder político e códigos de atuação implacáveis para regular as ligações informais, diferentes e mais exigentes dos que existem agora. Este artigo lê-se como pornografia política e ninguém escapa. Aliás, com o tipo de democracia que temos, o perigo ainda é maior, ou melhor, porque temos o tipo de democracia que temos é que esse perigo se avolumou, como é bom de ver.
When I went to work in the House of Commons as a lobby correspondent nearly 20 years ago, I assumed that the British constitution worked along the lines we had been taught in textbooks at school and university. Which is to say: Britain was a representative democracy; the police were reasonably honest; and the country was governed under the rule of law. I naively expected MPs to be honest and driven by a sense of duty, and ministers to be public-spirited. During my first few years at Westminster, I came to appreciate that most of my assumptions were hardly true.
O que se segue tem como intenção carrear mais informação que substantive o carácter demencial da direita norte-americana:
Michele Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman and Republican candidate for president, is making a muscular showing in the polls. She is telegenic. She is clever. Some of her Republican opponents worry she may be unstoppable. But never fear, oh Republican opponents of Michele Bachmann : I’ve devised a fail-safe way to bring her to a state of cognitive paralysis. This method will require some travel on her part. Bachmann’s destination: the Tel Aviv gay-pride parade [....]
Bachmann has built her foreign-policy platform on the nuance-free defense of Israel. She does this not because Israel is a strategic ally, or because it’s a democracy, but because the Bible states that God will curse those who betray it.
At a recent meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition, she said, “I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States.” She went on: “We have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play.”
Just imagine, then, Bachmann’s paralysis when confronted by the reality of Tel Aviv, which is home to the largest annual gay-pride parade in the Middle East.[....]
Of course, Bachmann would not be surprised by Israeli society’s laissez-faire attitude toward gay rights if she knew very much about Israel. But she doesn’t seem to know much at all, apart from what she reads in the Bible.
Eles são loucos, realmente:
Rep. Michael Burgess’s (R-TX) amendment to block enforcement of more energy efficient light bulb standards just passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote. The House voted against modern efficiency standards that reflect the best technology, which would have saved households an average of $100 annually.[....]For a list of inane pro-pollution GOP amendments the House will vote on see TP Green. Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL) has an amendment “to prohibit websites that teach children about energy efficiency.” We don’t need no education!
Paul Krugman explica as responsabilidades em presença:
Are you surprised by the "extremism and irresponsibility now on display" in the Republican Party?:
Getting to Crazy, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: There aren’t many positive aspects to the looming possibility of a U.S. debt default. But there has been, I have to admit, an element of comic relief — of the black-humor variety — in the spectacle of so many people who have been in denial suddenly waking up and smelling the crazy. ...
But this isn’t something that just happened... Anyone surprised by the extremism and irresponsibility now on display either hasn’t been paying attention, or has been deliberately turning a blind eye.
And may I say to those suddenly agonizing over the mental health of one of our two major parties: People like you bear some responsibility for that party’s current state.
Let’s talk for a minute about what Republican leaders are rejecting.
President Obama has made it clear that he’s willing to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that ... includes ... extraordinary concessions. ...
Yet Republicans are saying no. Indeed, they’re threatening to force a U.S. default, and create an economic crisis, unless they get a completely one-sided deal. And this was entirely predictable.
First of all, the modern G.O.P. fundamentally does not accept the legitimacy of a Democratic presidency — any Democratic presidency. We saw that under Bill Clinton, and we saw it again as soon as Mr. Obama took office.
As a result, Republicans are automatically against anything the president wants, even if they have supported similar proposals in the past. ... Beyond that, voodoo economics has taken over the G.O.P. ...
Which brings me to the culpability of those who are only now facing up to the G.O.P.’s craziness.
Here’s the point: those within the G.O.P. who had misgivings about the embrace of tax-cut fanaticism might have made a stronger stand if there had been any indication that such fanaticism came with a price, if outsiders had been willing to condemn those who took irresponsible positions.
But there has been no such price. Mr. Bush squandered the surplus of the late Clinton years, yet prominent pundits pretend that the two parties share equal blame for our debt problems. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, proposed a supposed deficit-reduction plan that included huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, then received an award for fiscal responsibility.
So there has been no pressure on the G.O.P. to show any kind of responsibility, or even rationality — and sure enough, it has gone off the deep end. If you’re surprised, that means that you were part of the problem.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário