Re: An letter to Against the Current

[Borba100@xxxxxxxxxxx]

In a message dated 5/18/01 7:32:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
abradley1@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:

<<
 By that I mean leftists who form a vague impression of a situation from the
 bourgeois media, build an elaborate schema around this vague impression, and
 start anathematising people who don't appreciate their brilliance.
  >>

Now I get it.  By studying the  media I demonstrate ignorance.  Whereas you
study your party's statements and based on them deliver short baiting
remarks: your opponents are sectarian or ignorant or fly in the face of
majority Left wing opinion, or other non sequitors  (This are all you say in
any of your posts disagreeing with me or any one else - NEVER any
information!)

Obviously my brilliance or lack is irrelevant, that's just feeble spite.  I
am a minor voice among MILLIONS who discern a consistent pattern, both in the
world and in groups like your little sect.  In the world: U.S. intervention
in the guise of fighting corruption/human rights abuses/-protecting
minorities and whenever possible hiding behind a phony national face -
kostunica, Thaci, and so on.  IN sects like yours: positions that dovetail
with the U.S. stance. Justifying intervention from the "Left." Why?  I'll
tell you what was said by Milosevic, whom I had the honor with two other
journalists, of talking with for 2.5 hours. He made the following charge:
"The Americans realized that the Left understood the need to defend national
sovereignty, so they penetrated the Left."  Harsh words - but remember, the
Serbian government had very sophisticated International connections.
Milosevic didn't just read the NY Times.

Speaking of which, the 'Times' has proven, over the past 40 years, an
excellent indicator for judging the foreign policy stance of the U.S.
establishment.  My observation (and that of MILLIONS of other people,
including, according to all accounts, the ordinary, that is very poor, people
of Philippines ) - our observations is that the anti-Estrada coup was
obviously backed by the U.S. which, for the hundredth time, does not mean
Estrada is ideal or close to it - it is the INTERVENTION we must oppose, and
the coup was U.S. intervention. The people have the right to a government
they choose without the ihntervention of Imperial NGOs and money and so on -
even if said government  does not meet your party's  dubious standards.

Newspapers reported - without noting the class significance - that this
latest 'democratic revolution' was made by that part of society that has
cellular phones. When these (obviously better-off people) overthrew Estrada
the Times called it democracy.  But later, when masses of POOR people took to
the streets, in defense of Estrada, the Times worried about threats to
democracy.  And your guys backed the cellular phone camp?

Instead of repeating endlessly that I don't know, etc., why don't you explain
why the cellular-phone-and-military coup was NOT an expression of U.S.
policy, despite the following giveaway editorial from the 'Times' which not
only supports the coup, but delivers a clear warning to the Estrada
supporters:

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
The New York Times

January 23, 2001, Tuesday, Late Edition - Final

Editorial: New Leadership in the Philippines

:
"President Joseph Estrada of the Philippines, ethically discredited and
politically abandoned, spared his country needless turmoil over the weekend
by yielding his office to Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. He should
drop any plans to challenge the constitutionality of that transfer.

[JARED NOTES: THIS IS A REMARKABLE STATEMENT.  THE 'TRANSFER' WAS COMPLETELY
ILLEGAL - ESTRADA BACKED DOWN IN THE FACE OF A MOB AND MILITARY THREATS. THE
TIMES DOES NOT WARN ESTRADA AGAINST TERRORISM.  IT WARNS HIM AGAINST
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES!  COULD IT BE ANY CLEARER THAT THE 'CELLULAR PHONE
COUP' REPRESENTS A U.S. ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY?]

"Mrs. Arroyo's ascension gives Manila a fresh chance to address longstanding
problems of political corruption and disappointing economic growth. This
former American colony, once one of Southeast Asia's richest nations, is now
one of its poorest. Twice in the past 15 years its people have courageously
taken to the streets to turn out failed leaders. They deserve better
governance and a better life.

"Like Corazon Aquino, who succeeded Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, Mrs. Arroyo was
carried to office by a wave of demonstrations and military defections from
the ruling camp. Mr. Marcos was a venal dictator. Mr. Estrada's failings were
limited to cronyism and incompetence.

"Mrs. Arroyo comes to the job well prepared. The daughter of a former
Philippine president, she studied economics in the United States. She served
in Mrs. Aquino's administration, won election as a senator and then, in 1998,
was elected vice president.

"She must make clear that business interests will no longer be able to buy
political influence and government contracts through campaign contributions
to top legislators. Contracts should be submitted to open bidding. [JARED'S
NOTE: THIS ALWAYS MEANS LET IN THE U.S.!] Independent judges should be named
and insulated from political pressures. It would set a healthy example if
prosecutors were allowed to follow through on the plans they announced
yesterday to pursue criminal corruption charges against Mr. Estrada. [JARED
NOTES: THE TIMES IS INTERVENING IN THE JUDICIAL AFFAIRS OF A SOVEREIGN
COUNTRY DICTATING A VENDETTA AGAINST FORCES IT WANTS CRUSHED.]

"With wise leadership, the Philippines, a country of more than 80 million
people with a favorable geographic location, charter membership in the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations and historic ties to the United
States, could again become an economic leader in Southeast Asia. It could
also become a positive example to its less democratic neighbors, like Vietnam
and Myanmar. That is the formidable challenge awaiting Mrs. Arroyo.

http://www.nytimes.com