Within minutes viewers were arrested by the sight of a frail Biden rasping through incoherent answers in a pivotal debate for which he had supposedly spent days preparing: https://t.co/u3RH0TMS6gpic.twitter.com/iGMYnvohul
Vprašanje je le, ali so v Demokratski stranki včeraj namerno pustili, da je Biden na soočenju pogorel do tal, da ga bodo lahko zdaj zamenjali z nekom “živim” in koherentnim. Toda tudi če gre za kontrolirano, namerno sproženo paniko, se demokrati ne morejo rešiti. Za kaj takega je veliko prepozno. Za inflacijo in dve vojni prepozno.
Thing we know:
1. The insiders knew Biden was like this.
2. They didn’t have to agree to any debate at all. They certainly didn’t have to propose and show up for the earliest debate in history.
3. So they humiliated Biden deliberately, but only after the primary voters get no…
Po pričakovanju pred začetkom soočenja – Bidna nič ne more rešiti. Zato se je panika v Demokratski stranki razširila in poglobila, saj Bidnov potop utegne za seboj potegniti celo stranko. Vprašanje je, kako se ga (čim prej) znebiti.
Tako se je odprla diskusija na CNN po soočenju:
“Right now, there is a deep, a wide, and a very aggressive panic in the Democratic Party. It started minutes into the debate, and it continues right now. It involves party strategists and involves elected officials.
It involves fundraisers, and they’re having conversations about the President’s performance, which they think was abysmal, which they think will hurt other people down the party on the ticket.
They’re having conversations about what they should do about it. Some of those conversations include: Should we go to the White House and ask the president to step aside? Should prominent Democrats go public with that call?”
Je pa seveda res, da demokratom nobena menjava kandidata ne more pomagati, da bo Trump zmagal in da Trump kot alternativa Bidnu pomeni zgolj novega norca na področju zunanje politike na čelu ZDA. V tisti matriki, ki jo je lepo pojasnil Branko Milanović, spada Biden med ameriške hegemoniste, Trump pa med socialne darviniste. Prvi bi urejali svet v skladu s potrebami ameriške hegemonije in to prodajali kot “zaščito svobodnega sveta”, drugi pa bi dovolili, da se države pobijejo med seboj in naj pač zmaga močnejši.
CNN: "Right now, there is a deep, a wide, and a very aggressive panic in the Democratic Party. It started minutes into the debate, and it continues right now. It involves party strategists and involves elected officials.
Pred nocojšnjim prvim soočenjem med pretendentoma za nov predsedniški mandat, Josephom Bidnom in Donaldom Trumpom, pri demokratih gorijo vse rdeče lučke. Čeprav je ameriško gospodarstvo (kljub ali pa prav zaradi enormnega povečanja fiskalnega deficita in javnega dolga) v dokaj dobri kondiciji z rekordno nizko brezposelnostjo, pa večina vprašanih v anketah javnega mnenja meni, da gre ameriškemu gospodarstvu zelo slabo, da je brezposelnost visoka, kapitalski trgi pa v razsulu. Ključni razlog za to razhajanje med podatki in sentimenti naj bi bila pretekla visoka inflacija. Visoka inflacija naj bi povsem distorzirala percepcijo volilcev. In za to percepcijo slabega stanja volilci krivijo aktualnega predsednika Bidena.
Biden se torej v soočenju (če bo sploh sposoben slediti diskusiji in obdržati fokus, kot se bojijo v demokratskem štabu) ne bo mogel sklicevati na dobro gospodarsko situacijo (na Clintonovo »It’s the economy, stupid!«). Zatorej mu svetovalci svetujejo naj se drži piarja in poosebljanja zaslug za vse ukrepe.
Bojim pa se, da Bidnu ne more nič pomagati k političnemu preživetju. (Glede na zdravstveno oziroma mentalno stanje mu resnici na ljubo tudi politično preživetje ne bi pomagalo. Dopuščam pa, da je v ozadju načrt z ustreznejšim podpredsednikom, ki bi Bidena zamenjal takoj v začetku mandata, ko Biden več ne bi bil opravilno sposoben) Pa tudi zaslužil si ga Biden ne bi glede na dizaster v zunanji politiki (podpihovanje vojne v Ukrajini in Palestini, iniciranje hladne vojne s Kitajsko, destabilizacija sveta z destruktivno zunanjo politiko).
Branko Milanović je naredil čudovito razlago 4 tipov ideologije, ki se krasno ujame v delitvah med podpornike ali nasprotnike vojskujočih se v dveh aktualnih vojnah – v Ukrajini in Palestini. V spodnji matriki lahko določite, kateri ideologiji pripadate – legalistični proti vojni, hegemonistični (“ameriški psi”), real-geopolitični ali socialno darvinistični.
Recently, a Chinese author (as seems from the text and the Chinese characters used) proposed the following understanding of international relations. (I am grateful to a friend who shared it with me yesterday.) The author noticed (as I think many have) that regarding the two wars currently being fought, very interesting (2×2) ideological coalitions have been formed. There are people who support Palestine and Ukraine, those who support Israel and Ukraine, those in favor of Russia and Palestine, and finally the group that supports Russia and Israel. What is interesting, even to a casual observer, is that neither of the four quadrants is empty, and that there is a logic in the defense of each. The Chinese author in fact even proposed the names for the four camps, which I would, in some cases, for perhaps better understanding, change.
Ministrstvo za okolje, podnebje in energijo je končno, po več kot 10 letih, izdalo okoljevarstveno dovoljenje za ureditev tretjega voznega pasu na štajerski avtocesti.
Dodatna tretja vozna pasova na avtocestnem odseku Domžale – Zadobrova se bosta izvedla na račun ukinitve sedanjih odstavnih pasov, ki se bosta preoblikovala v vozna pasova. Zgrajene bodo le odstavne niše. To bo velika pomanjkljivost v smislu zagotavljanja prometne varnosti in pretočnosti, ob motnjah kot so prometne nesreče ali vzdrževalna dela.
Prometna stroka že več kot 10 let opozarja na nujnost širitve avtocest s tretjimi pasovi na odsekih, kjer je že dolgo prekoračena kapaciteta in ni zagotovljena raven kvalitete za to kategorijo cest. Pri tem ima velik vpliv visok delež tovornega prometa in njegovo vsakoletno povečevanje.
V tem obdobju se nam je zgodila ideologija trajnostne mobilnosti, ki je prepovedovala vlaganja v širitve avtocest, ker bi to povzročilo še več dodatnega (induciranega) prometa na njih. Kljub dokazovanju nekaterih, da je ta ideologija škodljiva, so jo podpirali številni predsedniki vlad, ministri in državni uradniki, ki so bili odgovorni za prometno politiko zadnjih 15 let v Sloveniji.
Mediji so glede Juliena Assangea odigrali podobno vlogo, kot so igrali v primeru ameriškega napada na Irak, Libijo, Afganistan in kot jo igrajo v primeru vojne v Ukrajini – igrajo po notah, ki jih pišejo ameriške obveščevalne agencije. Morda se nekateri novinarji tega niti ne zavedajo. Ne poznajo (ne)subtilnih pritiskov lastnikov, financerjev in oglaševalcev na vsebino medijskih objav. In tudi ko so se ex post kot faktično lažne izkazale narative ameriških obveščevalnih agencij v vseh teh dejanjih, si mediji ne upajo objaviti dejstev o vzrokih in posledicah kriminalnih dejanj ameriškega režima. Pa čeprav so javno dostopna. Tudi v primeru Assangea in Ukrajine ne bo drugače. Mediji so sostorilci.
Mar ni perverzno, da so najbolj nesvobodni mediji prav v času kapitalizma in zaradi kapitalizma?
It was the media, led by the Guardian, that kept Assange behind bars. Their villainy will soon be erased because they write the script about what’s going on in the world.
It is only right that we all take a moment to celebrate the victory of Julian Assange’s release from 14 years of detention, in varying forms, to be united, finally, with his wife and children – two boys who have been denied the chance to ever properly know their father.
His last five years were spent in Belmarsh high-security prison as the United States sought to extradite him to face a 175-year jail sentence for publishing details of its state crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
For seven years before that he was confined to a small room in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, after Quito awarded him political asylum to evade the clutches of a law-breaking US empire determined to make an example of him.
His seizure by UK police from the embassy on Washington’s behalf in 2019, after a more US-aligned government came to power in Ecuador, proved how clearly misguided, or malicious, had been those who accused him of “evading justice”.
Everything Assange had warned the US wanted to do to him was proved correct over the next five years, as he languished in Belmarsh entirely cut off from the outside world.
No one in our political or media class appeared to notice, or could afford to admit, that events were playing out exactly as the founder of Wikileaks had for so many years predicted they would – and for which he was, at the time, so roundly ridiculed.
Nor was that same political-media class prepared to factor in other vital context showing that the US was not trying to enforce some kind of legal process, but that the extradition case against Assange was entirely about wreaking vengeance – and making an example of the Wikileaks founder to deter others from following him in shedding light on US state crimes.
Intervju z Davidom Wolffom o padcu ameriškega povojnega imperija in vzponu novega svetovnega reda pod vodstvom Kitajske v navezi z državami BRICS+. Spodaj je še nekaj odstavkov transkripta.
David Wolff je upokojeni profesor ekonomije na Univerzi v Massachusettsu v Amherstu, kjer je poučeval ekonomijo od leta 1973 do 2008. Zdaj je gostujoči profesor na podiplomskem programu mednarodnih zadev Univerze New School v New Yorku.
Once upon a time, after 1945, there was one dominant economic power: the United States. It built an alliance with the former dominant powers: Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and (Western) Europe. For most of the last 75 years, the G7—comprising the United States, Canada, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy—was dominant.
Over the last generation, the last 20-25 years, that situation changed with the spectacular rise of China. From being the largest country by population and one of the poorest on Earth, China achieved an economic growth rate never seen before. For the last 25-30 years, China’s GDP growth has been 6-9%, which is two to three times that of the United States and greater than 99% of the rest of the world.
China became a modern powerhouse economic unit.
Then, a few years ago, China began wisely to build up alliances very carefully with everyone and anyone it could find willing to do so.
In a rational political world, the key issues on the table in next Thursday’s debate would be the Biden administration’s foreign policy: that is, the president’s unwavering support for Ukraine in the war with Russia and his inability to have any significant impact on Israel’s continuing war in Gaza.
Of course on debate night the main attention will be on Joe Biden’s ability to stay focused and on point, both verbally and physically with the sure-to-be garrulous and off-topic Donald Trump.
So here is a breakdown on some of the issues, as I understand them from my contacts with various military and political insiders over many decades.
First of all, there is a serious concern among the Democratic Party leadership and the major Democratic fundraisers, primarily the big donors in New York City, about Biden’s ability to defeat Trump in November. This is, of course, not to be spoken of in public.
A major touchstone for many will be Biden’s performance in the debate. The president is going to need to match the intensity he demonstrated at his State of the Union address in March next week to keep his contributors happy. A shaky performance, I have been told by two longtime politicos who have direct knowledge, will increase pressure on Democratic Party to do something drastic, and unprecedented, before the November election.
Volitve v Evropski parlament so prinesle pričakovan zasuk v desno. Čeprav so oblasti v večini EU držav in najvišji predstavniki EU poskušali minimizirati izid volitev kot manjši zasuk v skrajnost, ki ne bo bistveno spremenil političnih razmerij, pa je nervoza očitna. Kaže se v sprožitvi sistemskih mehanizmov, ki bi omejile možnosti skrajnim političnim silam za prevzem vzvodov odločanja in učinkovito vladanje.
Evropske volitve zaradi specifične strukture delitve oblasti v EU, kjer je Evropski parlament šele na četrtem mestu, niso zelo pomembne, so pa pomembne kot vmesni signal vladajočim glede sentimentov volilnega telesa. V polovici EU držav, tudi v Sloveniji, so se pozicije strank, ki so precej desno od centra, okrepile. Zaradi njune velikosti in specifične vloge v odločanju na ravni EU so pomembni predvsem politični premiki v Nemčiji in Franciji. V obeh so se dramatično okrepile stranke močno desno od sredine, pa tudi močno levo od sredine. V Franciji je predsednik Emmanuel Macron takoj po prvih objavah volilnih rezultatov razpustil parlament in razpisal predčasne volitve, medtem ko se nemška vladna koalicija kljub bolečemu porazu ni odločila za tak korak.
Glede političnih premikov na evropski ravni je po mojem mnenju potrebno vzeti v obzir predvsem troje – najprej razumeti vzroke za te politične premike, nato kratkoročno predvideti možne sistemske mehanizme za omejitev manevrskega prostora populističnim voditeljem in predvsem, kako srednjeročno nasloviti frustracije volilnega telesa.
DAMIJAN blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.