http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10535003
There is so much bullshit in this it's hard to know where to begin exactly. It's contradictory within its own premises. It fails to mention Martin Torrijos's approval ratings of 59.4%. Ah, but his "grip may be faltering." Excuse me? Is Bush's "grip" faltering with an approval rating of 25%?
A vague positive reference to a canal-widening project but no mention whatsoever of one of the most important "green" projects in the hemisphere, a $16 billion cleanup of the Pacific bay. Maybe the so-called "Republic Of Santa Monica" could learn a lesson in how to mix environmentalism with sound fiscal policy from us pagans down here. Si o No? Oh, wait, I forgot for a second, The Economist is AGAINST environmentalism just on principle even when the main beneficiaries will be the developers!
It refers to Panama's "inflation" without giving a figure, yet refers in the final graf to "Panama's booming economy." And had referred earlier to President Torrijos's bringing fiscal discipline to the country. What's unsaid, of course, is that the discipline he had to impose was to clean up his right-wing predecessors messes. Remind you of anyone? To be honest, maybe this is why I back HRC. All the Republicans and Obama can do is fuck our shit up, while the Clintons have been nothing but supportive.
"Many business leaders are appalled" are they because Torrijos hasn't finalized a deal with GEORGE FUCKING BUSH and hasn't used un-constitutional means to eject the equivalent Senate Majority Leader because of something that may or may not have happened in 1992 when Panama was experiencing what Colombia is today with Bush Sr using Guillermo Endara much as Bush Jr has used Uribe until last week? How many "business leaders" does the author of this piece know? I know them all because I play cards with them every night and I swear on my mother's eyes that I haven't heard anyone express disdain for President Torrijos because some U.S. Army Sergeant got killed in 1992. Torrijos is pretty popular because he's been good for both business and in terms of providing for the poorest.
Sorry, the death of a U.S. Army Sergeant is not the end of the world. If it were, the world would have ended 1000x over since George Walker Bush took over. I have no doubt that should the U.S. push this they will not like the result. A truth and reconciliation commission which will find wholesale slaughter of Panamanians at the hands of the U.S. military, the CIA it's local "assets" and private contractors. And then you know exactly what Panama's response will be. It will say "fine, no harm, no foul, we're no longer dollarized; as of tomorrow the Balboa will be backed by the Euro." And then dominoes begin to cascade how long after? I like The Economist, but man, I fucking hate it sometimes.
Of course, Torrijos doesn't want anything signed, sealed and delivered until Clinton is President. First of all, they are friends. Second of all, the Clintons have been very helpful to Torrijos throughout his career and finally why should Torrijos be in any hurry to help a scion of the family that did so much to fuck up Panama?
I hate The Economist because it's realpolitik if Kissinger does it but it's barbaric if ANYONE else anywhere in the world to the left of Pat Robertson does it. And there's no fucking proof anywhere, just innuendo. There's a libel case here if Gonzalez wants it which he doesn't because it took a lot of work by Bill Clinton and the Panamanian government to get to a position where Panama can do its own thing and have sweet fuck all to do with American civil or criminal procedure. Why does The Economist assume Gonzalez is culpable at all? I'm sorry to say that no one here really cares one way or the other.
They like innuendo, do they? OK, they refer to the "dictator" General Omar Torrijos. He was assassinated after having signed the pact with Carter to install which U.S. ally again when which former CIA director was Vice President? Right, right, now I remember that would be Noriega and Bush.
Oh, this article scalds my nuts. But it doesn't really matter because the U.S. can cry and scream all it wants. Panama's got the canal and a LOT of hidden Republican money in its banks. And is a democratic capitalist republic recognized as such the world over. That's the point, though, isn't it? The Economist cannot tolerate that a country can have a capitalist economic system, one more entrepreneurial the U.S. is, while having social views that are antithetical to those of Mike Huckabee. And macroeconomic views that marry the best of the free-marketeers with the best of Keynes with the best of the socialists. Gee whiz, that sort of describes every developed nation other than the U.S.!
Maybe what makes the least sense of all is how they figure Balbina's chances of winning the presidency as the nominee of the PRD reflects badly on Martin Torrijos. From what I hear, Balbina's pretty much the nuts to win it. If she's lucky all she'll face is either 85 year old Endara or 85 year old Ford. If she's unlucky, she'll face Varela and beat him by 15 points.
But do the Oxbridge genuises at The Economist really believe that a PP or UP president would be better than Balbina or whomever, however they define better which I think has to do with no national health and no unions and loving reconciliation with the USA? That they would revert to the post-Operation Just Cause constitution written by the Carlyle Group? Panama is not a banana republic. It's a modern nation and the opposition is center-right, not DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, FIRST ANTIOCH BAPTIST CHURCH RIGHT. Gee whiz, I guess Anglos of all sorts are dummies, not only the gringos can claim title. Tony Blair surely showed us that.
All I was looking for was the results of the by-elections and the choices of San Miguelito delegates today. And I came across this bullshit. Urgh. I'm absolutely seeing red.
Here's a deal I propose to The Economist. If they stop lecturing Panamanians, I won't lecture them on the shit they get up to in those English boarding schools which anywhere else in the world would be called forcible rape and sodomy.
No more blogging for me until I feel like blogging again. But for now: fuck Obama and every Republican very much. HRC ALL THE WAY.
Kelso's Nuts love you
P.S. NYG/GB go to overtime as I type. This has, surprisingly, relaxed me. Congratulations also to Senores Carasquilla and Butcher.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment