Doctor and activist


Notice: Undefined index: hide_archive_titles in /home/chesterf/public_html/wp-content/themes/modern-business/includes/theme-functions.php on line 233

Category: International

A Coup in Bolivia- How it was Reported in Oz

21 November 2019

There was a coup in Bolivia which has had minimal coverage in Oz, but I have 3 worries:

  1. Australian media coverage is very distorted in the interests of US foreign policy
  2. Facebook bans sites that do not suit US interests and
  3. The pattern of the US waging economic war on South American countries that do not allow their multinationals to plunder the resources, and arranging coups seems almost standard.

The SMH coverage was from Bloomberg and seemed unable to figure out why there were two governments in Bolivia:

For all reasonable observers Morals won the election with 47% of the vote and with more than 10% lead over his nearest rival, should not have needed a run-off election.  Irregularities were alleged, (but then again they always are when foreign interests are threatened).  Morales offered a re-run, but was not allowed to stand by the guy who came second and the Army!!  So Morales fled, which is very odd thing for a President to do if it were not a coup.

But the SMH article is written as if the Bolivian coup is very hard to understand.

www.smh.com.au/world/south-america/bolivian-crisis-there-are-two-groups-of-people-claiming-to-be-the-government-20191115-p53b01.html?ref=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_feed

Consider the following:
The article has two journalists, Matthew Bristow and John Quigley but is attributed to Bloomberg, a US media company. Bloomberg  owned by Michael Bloomberg, who is publicly contemplating standing as a Democrat presidential candidate, but is considered too right wing.
It talks about the ‘interim ‘President’ Jeanine Anez, who was an ‘Opposition Senator’. How did she get to be ‘interim President’ when the government has a majority in both houses? How is she ‘appointing her Cabinet’- with what legitimacy?
Why is the information sourced from the ‘Andean Information Network’, a ‘Think tank’? Who pays for ‘think tanks’? Are there no journalists in Bolivia?
Why were their riots just after the election, when the economy was doing quite well?
Why are the leaders of the government in power all resigning?
Why is Morales not allowed to stand for the run-off election?
Why is the army not supporting the existing elected government? Who trained them?
Why did the President Evo Morales, who just won the presidential election by more than 10% ahead of his nearest rival flee to Mexico? For no reason? He was standing for a 4th term. which had been challenged in the High Court but he had won there. Presumably the Army was against him and in favour of the opposition.

President Evo Morales had nationalised a big oil company, and wanted his people to get a larger share of the country’s big lithium deposits. He claimed that this was why he was deposed.

https://external.fsyd3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQDRtvCEvRlzzso7&w=540&h=282&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FxMXmkbTRNw4%2Fhqdefault.jpg&cfs=1&upscale=1&fallback=news_d_placeholder_publisher&_nc_hash=AQDaylo2tk_5eS_X

A Venezualan perspective is given at

https://orinocotribune.com/the-coup-in-bolivia-five-lessons

I tried to post this on my Facebook page and it was denied as offending ‘Community Standards’!  I just put the name of the paper, Orinoco Tribune, not the url and it was still denied with the same- ‘Community Standards’.

So what with the major media giving very one-sided coverage and Facebook censoring material, presumably for being anti-US, how do the Australian public ever get to know what is going on. 

I will attach what I attempted to post separately..

I did manage to post some material critical of the SMH article and the RT article and they have remained there.

(A more radical view is at:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52534.htm)

Continue Reading

Reflections on Einstein.

9 September 2018 At a recent visit to Berne to look at Swiss democracy, I visited two Einstein museums.  I do not propose to give his biography, but merely to point out a couple of points that struck me as his life was proudly displayed.  He had been a pacifist all his life and in […]

Continue Reading

Political Change or Economic Change? Which comes first?

14 October 2017 There is an interesting book review in the SMH today entitled ‘Endgame for the Russian Revolution’ in the print version.  The book is ‘Gorbachev: His Life and Times’ by William Taubman.  It points out that Gorbachev was a hero in the West as the man who modernised the Soviet Union, but he […]

Continue Reading

Poland Revisited

17 July 2017 I have recently visited Poland and wanted to record some impression while they are fresh in my mind.  I had previously visited Poland in 1989, which was only a few months before the Berlin Wall came down with the collapse of the USSR under Gorbachev. This had immense implications for Poland, and […]

Continue Reading

Trump’s Win- why? 9/11/16

Here is my theory.  Basically democracy in English speaking countries has been taken over by private entities.  There are only two entities who can win power in the UK, USA and Australia.  They are called political parties.  They are not in the constitution, but because they vote as a bloc, they control the parliament.  Because they are private entities they do what their donors want.  Few citizens want privatisation, but the donors to the parties do- so we get privatisation.  Few want to go to war, but for some reason the parties do, so we go to war.  We want universal health cover- Medicare, but it gets rolled back and we have to buy private health insurance, which suits that lobby.  Unemployment is rising and the government fiddles the figures and no longer takes responsibility for the problem, it just talks about ‘the market’.  What the people think or want does not actually matter.  The parties continually put their interests and power ahead of what the people want.  The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the political parties do not seem to care.  They get donations from the rich, and run campaigns to convince the poor to vote for them.

Faced with this situation and two political parties, people are accustomed to voting for the lesser of two evils, or making a protest vote, which is what they did.  Trump was anti ‘the system’, so although he was deeply flawed personally that was enough.  The Democrat Party machine had got rid of Sanders, the leftist challenger to the status quo, so it became status quo Clinton v. Non status quo Trump.  Then the polls got it totally wrong. How come?  Part of the same thing- the whole polling establishment obviously had a large segment of the population missing from their sample, but did not know it- like the government really.  So if some people did not vote for Clinton because they were disgusted and thought it would not matter, they were wrong.

But if the level of disgust in the process of government is enough to turn a US Presidential election, one must also wonder about the effect of the media.  For years, news has been replaced by infotainment.  What is important is replaced by what is titillating or exciting.  News is trivial, what is important is often not covered, particularly things like falling middle class jobs and stagnating wages.  The media is the message.  If you are not in the media, the message is that you do not matter.  But also note the rise of ignorance.   Quiz shows used to ask historic or scientific facts.  Now it is TV trivia.  And ‘shock jocks’ on commercial media are there to shock and to push products.  They do not have to be consistent or informed- just entertaining enough to rate and bring in advertising dollars.  So the non-expert, pontificating and criticising overcomes the expert discussing sensibly- how many of those are on TV?  The shock jock has become more important than the politician.  So why are we surprised when it now happens in real life?  The shock jock beat the politician.  And the pollsters got it wrong again- just like in Brexit.

What will happen with Trump in charge? He will destroy Obamacare, the relatively minor improvements made towards a universal health system, appoint Conservative Supreme Court judges and officials in public policy such as Climate Change, and boost gun ownership.  More significant changes to corporate power will take the approval of Congress and the House, now both Republican-controlled.  Obama was elected on the slogan, ’Change is possible’.  Obstruction by the Republicans ensured it was not.  Now Trump will try, but the same obstructers now have even more power and are not about to let one of their own damage their interests.  So Trump is unlikely to be a force for good unless he has unexpected foreign policy triumphs.

So what is the long-term solution to government ruling for the rich by buying political parties?  Democracy has to be taken back to the people.  The Parliament is controlled by parties and they are private entities and so can be bought by other private interests.  This has ever been the case in systems that evolved in Westminster.  It is Anglo-Saxon arrogance that makes us think that our democracy is best.  Quite simply, it isn’t. Our political power structures, like our corporate structures concentrate power at the top.  Swiss democracy involves power being moved down as low as possible with politicians merely enacting what public referenda decide, and with no opportunity for individual politicians to get long-term power structures assembled for themselves.  It is time we looked at these models and worked for constitutional change based on a real change of philosophies, priorities and power.

Continue Reading

Trump’s Win- Why?

9 November 2016 Here is my theory.  Basically democracy in English speaking countries has been taken over by private entities.  There are only two entities who can win power in the UK, USA and Australia.  They are called political parties.  They are not in the constitution, but because they vote as a bloc, they control […]

Continue Reading