Is Tony Blair a member of the US Democratic Party?

I know it’s impossible, Tony Blair cannot both be Britain’s Prime Minister and a Member of the Nancy Pelosi Democratic Party leadership team at the same time! So I guess I’ll just have to blame Neville Chamberlain’s influence for the performance of the British Labor Party when it concerns George W. Bush. Still, I got a sinking feeling that the Democrats do consider Tony Blair to be an honorary Democratic Party misleader.

Lest anybody think that Blair’s falling in line with Dubya on invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan is an aberration, how about this commentary about how Jack Straw, Blairs’ Foreign Secretary , saved the day for Pinochet? How Tony Blair and The Labor Party let Pinochet off the hook

Without Blair and Straw, we wouldn’t have had the experience of Augusto Pinochet shooting the world (including the families of his victims) his finger in his last dying days. And that he did. Because of the British Labor Party’s top officials, he was able to walk away totally unrepentent and unpunished.

In contrast, Milosevic spent his last days jailed while dying in the middle of his show trial under suspicious circumstances. All while in custody of those successful invading troops, which included the countries of Tony Blair’s, Jack Straw’s, Bill Clinton’s and Nancy Pelosi’s. His crime was defending his country against those invading troops. Pinochet’s crime, was overthrowing a lawful and democratically chosen government in a coup effort initiated by the US government, and then murdering and torturing thousands of his fellow countrymen. Contrast the treatment dished out to these two, Slobodan and Augusto.

And what did the Democratic Party of the US ever do to bring Pinochet to justice? Well that would be a big and absolute NOTHING.

Baroness Thatcher is sad

Lady Thatcher is sad today in England. A long time family friend, the Chilean torturer general , Augusto Pinochet, has died. Margaret did what she could to keep this man from ever being held accountable for his crimes against humanity, and she had the help of Tony Blair, too.

Jack Straw, former British Foreign Secretary for Blair and good friend of Condaleeza Rice, allowed the popular Chilean thug to rest in bed under ‘house arrest’. Current Foreign Secretary for Blair, Margaret Beckett, hails Pinochet today as being a model economic genius. Aw shucks, Marge, all he did was follow University of Chicago Professor, Milton Friedman’s advice. And torturerama! All that said, Our lovely Baroness Thatcher today laments that she has seen her last tea with Augusto.

Is it any wonder that our own US and British thugs and warmongers fell in love with the idea of freely and openly using torture themselves? They have been hobnobbing with the Faisals, Saddams, Pinochets, Shah of Irans, Ferninand and Imelda Marcoses of the world for the longest time now. It even almost looks like Margaret Thatcher was carrying on an extramarital affair with Augusto, to see how fiel she has been to the man! And to think that Soviet CPer, Mikhail Gorbachev, also fell in love with the Iron Maiden! Certainly that love affair harmed the Soviet Union’s many peoples even more than Pinochet has harmed Chile.

But what is it that makes the leaders of our Western ‘Democracies’ enamored of the Third World torturers so? It’s like they don’t have even a shred of democratic sensibilities in them, is it not? I guess that’s what being leaders of a corporate model does to them. There is no other explanation. Cut the rebels down; those serfs! Pinochet led the way for them, and now they are sad in London and D.C.

Princess Diana and the end of civility

Princess Diana on Dodi Fayed's yacht a week before her deathThe Queen is the first film to be made about the woman who has presided over England for half a century. The story deals with the days following Princess Di’s fatal crash in 1997 and the personal challenge her death might have posed for the monarchy’s public relations. The same period saw Prime Minister Tony Blair’s ascendancy to power. The story gives Blair credit, where the queen appeared to faulter, for recognizing Diana as being the “People’s Princess.” And then some.

Asked about his fawning depiction of Tony Blair as man of the hour, director Stephen Frears thought it “a mark of my incredible maturity” to cast Blair in the light of his glory days, this at a time when Blair and his government have fallen irrecoverably, adding that “it’s preposterous that he’s not in jail.” In the interview Frears also makes light of whether Queen Elizabeth II is possibly really as bright as her character portrayed by Hellen Mirren. The Queen celebrates the resolve of royal blood facing a crisis. Elizabeth is both humanized and lionized, by sticking to the stiff upper lip “the world expects of us.” Frears interweaves real news footage of celebrities and the flowers flooding the Buckingham Palace gates, counting the days from Lady Di’s death to the climax when the queen finally makes her long delayed statement.

That’s when Frears lies. He lays the behind the scenes personal anguish which might have explained the dishonor the royals paid to Diana, leading to the Queen’s famous address, but then rewrites the ending. As if Mighty Casey, his vainglorious ambitions thwarted in the minor leagues, stays true to his character that day in Mudville, and now because we can all feel a little sympathy for the self-centered fella, he swings and DOES NOT strike out!!

We all were there when Queen Elizabeth took to the microphone, and no close-ups of a fictional Tony Blair’s tearing eyes, proud of his stalwart sovereign, are going to recast the disgraceful blue-blooded reaction for what it was.

And what of lingering accusations of the royal family being behind Diana’s death? What of the rape tape which Diana posited with a servant for safe-keeping which tells, it’s conjectured because the British press are forbidden to tell us, of Prince Charles interrupted sodomizing a valet. What of Lady Diana being, not even arguably, by the power of her personality, the most powerful woman in the world? But unlike Oprah or Martha Stewart, Diana was a loose cannon championing the cause of AIDs in Africa, and the fight to ban land mines, both subjects the powers that be, certainly in America, did/do not want highlighted.

The Queen‘s smartest character, Tony Blair’s advisor who supposedly coins the term People’s Princess is let to murmur early on, “It wasn’t the press that killed her.” But the subject is dropped there. Instead Blair and his crew seize upon Diana’s death like Mayor Giuliani to 9/11, being seen offering bedside comfort to a traumatized populace, and reaping the accolades. Except director Frears offers nothing behind such scenes. Blair is shown as the earnest surrogate, standing in for his monarch until she can regrasp the helm.

With the ensuing years having shown us Blair’s true colors, what do you think was the more likely scenario? A self-effacing Danny Kaye Pauper Prince or a Rudy Giuliani? I find Frears’ characterization of Blair even more disingenuous, showing Tony living in a modest flat strewn with children’s messes, taking the dinner plates to do the “washing up,” and keeping watch on world events on a television with a Nintendo game atop it. This coming from a “labor” minister who was leading the conservative counter-revolution to restructure the British economy for the elites. Perhaps Frears’ adopted class.

The Queen owes its entire first act to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911, the music, the build, the black out of the familiar awful moment, and the protracted montage we needed to absorb the tragedy and understand how it’s changed us.

The great disservice that Stephen Frears does to history, and to all of us because we are still living it, is amplified by the fact that he did get Diana’s death right. Princess Di’s sudden death did change the world, perhaps more than did 9/11. The World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 was a comeuppance. If the American people did not see it coming, the world did. That such a terrorist act was bound to happen was attested to the fact that the same people had already tried it and at the very same location.

But Diana’s death marked the end of civility, and people felt it. The third world may have been fit to burst under the weight of its post-colonial oppressors, but a great English civility had prevailed since the days of Ghandi. This was a sense that disagreement could be visceral, but apart from the brutality of the unwashed French or the uncouth Americans, a British sense of decency would rule out. Britain, not long ago the Empire, was where we got the rule of law, our rights, and everyone’s concept of a representational parliament.

The circumstances around Diana’s death would present an incredibly interesting lesson in power usurped from the people; Tony Blair’s arrangement with Rupert Murdoch for starters, instead of showing Blair reacting to the newspapers and coaxing his old queen along. The Queen is a marvelous story of two people facing adversity introspectively. Fine, except those personages were at the center of the unification of global corporate power and could not have been idle participants. As if Frears had made a film about the Titanic and chose to focus on the captain’s preoccupation with feng shui.

The 1990s saw a decline in every aspect of benevolent leadership, and I believe the premature death of Lady Diana was the curtain. It was hard those days after her death to imagine a world without her, and indeed events have proved that we were to face the worst. The turn of the century marked the ascendency of the Neocons, the political face of the globalization overlords. It meant corporate overseers with gloves off, Zionist zealotry unabashed, banks with no limits on their usury, and the world media watchdogs in the hands of the wolves.

The ruling few have their hands bloody in genocides the world over, endless wars, massacres, slavery, epidemics, poverty, famine and reckless abandonment. Before Diana’s death at least I believe they would have been concerned to wash the blood off.

The Economist shows its hue

The British press is held to a higher standard than the US media. Maybe because it’s thought they have a reputation to uphold, maybe the English accent lends an air of being better educated. The BBC is certainly trusted where their American counterparts are not, Cover of December 8 The Economisteven though the BBC is explicitly government controlled and Blair’s Labor Party has been complicit with Neocon adventuring everywhere there’s oil.
 
You might still hear even journalists revere London’s The Economist as the preeminent news weekly. If the magazine’s stance was on the whole conservative, at least it appeared thoughtful. What to make of this week’s cover, their response to the recommendations of the ISG report? I’d say The Economist has tipped its hand. Bravo. Oxford accent be damned, they are goose-stepping Neocon prigs.

Bush the yapping idiot

Gotta get Hezbolla to stop this shitIn Al Gore’s film AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, much is made of Gore’s new found demeanor. Yes he’s a lot smoother and passionate. It helps that the camera captures him more intimately, and that he had directorial control over how he is portrayed. Contrast this to a hostile media determined in 2000 to make Gore look as bad as possible. Corporate media made Gore’s I-discovered-Love-Canal, I-invented-the-Internet, and Love-Story-was-written-about-me remarks look buffoonish instead of the remarkable half-truths they really were.
 
Juxtapose Gore’s role with George W’s microphone gaff at the G-8.

Not just his expletive, not just his eating with his mouth open and talking with his mouth full, but the inanity of his statements. “Syria has got to get Hezbolla to stop this shit” duh. (See a GREAT musical lampoon at the Huffington Post!)
 
What about his earlier observation: “Russia’s big. So’s China.” Wow.

Our media made hay with Bush’s expletive. The world press came to the bigger conclusion. Idiot. The British saw and heard their Tony Blair, normally of impeccable intellect, play lap dog to a yapping idiot.

To compare Bush and Gore reminds me of the 2000 presidential debates when it was clear as day that Bush was Edward E. Neuman to Gore’s everyman. Bush was Lilliputian.

Yet when the cameras went out to “spin alley” to consult the pundits, wee conservative dweebs told us giddily that Bush had won.