Mad dog killed in desert

When Paul Simon said 'I don't believe what I read in the papers - they're just out to capture my dime' he was observing the cynical commercial motivation affecting factual news reporting. Since then the relationship between mainstream news and truthful, balanced fact reporting has turned considerably worse, as news media become more than ever, the delivery needle for injecting Government designed public opinion into the heart of the majority.

No news event demonstrates the corrupt nature of press formulating public opinion more succinctly than the decision to demonize and  assassinate Gaddafi. From the moment they failed to 'declare war' while sending in waves of bombers to kill many women and children in pursuit of their one clear agenda, to kill Gaddafi, it was clear to anyone aware of US foreign policy and its controlling use of media that this decision was made before the first wave of bombs fell on the first Libyan kid and that media did not in any way offer reliable reporting of the facts. I have never been more embarrassed by the state of world journalism than I am by the events surrounding the assassination of Gaddafi.

I was reminded at the time when Gaddafi was being so severely bombed, of the way it was for the ANC in the 70's and 80's, when they may have buckled under the weight of  Reagan's American and Thatchers British opprobrium encouraging the mighty bombs of the SADF, were it not for the significant and vital assistance offered to them by Gaddafi, the terrorist sponsor, without whose aid Mandela might still be in an Apartheid jail.  

Unquestionably the list of things that worked out rather well during Gaddafi's leadership tenure, like raising Libya from the poorest Country in the world to the highest in Africa's  'Human Development Index' have either been revised or ignored. The demonisation is so complete that I was told off by an intelligent friend (Lisa) for speaking up for a man 'who used chemical weapons to genocide his own people.' People who know little or nothing about Libya suddenly knew everything about why Gaddafi was a monster who had to be killed because he was a 'Mad Dog'.

I am particularly offended by the blanket postering of his gruesome corpse over every front page in the World - force feeding an image to children without considering parental warnings commonly associated with images of such a damaging and offensive nature - for one reason. To render the name and the memory of Gaddafi beyond redemption. No chance of any Gaddafi heir resurfacing in Libya. No chance of remembering him in any way beyond that bloodied pulp. And then there is this business of leaving his bloodied corpse to ROT in public display until the stench of his decomposing flesh required visitors wearing a mask to stop themselves heaving - when Muslim tradition demands - and he himself requested in his will - that a Muslim be buried as soon as possible (Usually within 24 hours.) As if even his Muslim identity had to be destroyed.  This is pretty shabby behavior on a number of levels.

Whatever atrocities may or may not be associated with Gaddafi's 42 years in office, those responsible for his killing- the NATO controllers and their payroll - are in my book - destined for far worse.
Now that they seemingly have got away with the whole thing - with nary a voice being raised in asking - where was the reporting of this war where so many died - and so many children died.
The basic questions that we might have been interested in knowing more about:

 Who financed the rebels.  How were they financed.  What deal was done in exchange for this financing.  Who are these rebels.  Who paid for the Toyota 4 X 4's.  Who did the mechanical work mounting all those weapons on those 4 X 4's?  How many British bombs were dropped.  How much UK taxpayer money was spent bombing Libya.  How many children did our bombs kill.  How do our RAF pilots feel about dropping bombs on children.  How many schools and hospitals were flattened.  Who is negotiating the Oil contracts now.  Who is negotiating the reconstruction work? What happened to Gaddafi's plan to shift the oil pricing away from dollars to a Gold standard?  What happened to the remains of his grandchild who we blew up in Tripoli.

None of which I expect to hear too much about. 'Mad dog killed in the desert' is the only story they're selling.

Now that we have touched this new low in reporting and blind acceptance, we can expect to see a lot more of this media invention leading to State sponsored assassination. We are all the poorer for the 1% invading Libya, no matter how much they needed the money.

Wealth

Mahatma Gandhi observed,

"All amassing of wealth or hoarding of wealth above and beyond one's legitimate need is theft. There would be no occasion for theft and no thieves if there was wise regulation of wealth and social justice."

With ever increasing numbers falling below the poverty line, it is interesting to see the extent to which extreme wealth is concentrated more than ever in the hands of a small minority.

Possibly 1% of the Earth own the same amount as the remaining 99%. Are these events connected. Does the accumulation of this extraordinary wealth, controlled by so few, have a bearing on the extreme poverty of so many and in economic terms, is there a link between the numeric imbalance between the changing fortunes in either camp?

And what of the opportunities control of this extreme wealth represents.

Consider Mukesh Ambani. India's richest man and the 4th richest in the World. He has a new boat coming. The YACHT.  And of course there is his house overlooking the poor people, where his wife and three children have some 440,000 square feet of space to be waited on by their 600 staff. The HOUSE.  Ambani sold his London Apartment for some £140 Million. The London APARTMENT.

Obscene wealth?

How about the Saudi Defense minister, Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz. Obviously ministerial salaries in Saudi are pretty good when you can afford a $200 Million YACHT.

Oligarch Abramovitch, described in a London Court this week by his former associate as a 'Gangster' spends obscene wealth obscenely. On one boat alone he has spent a rumoured $1 Billion. The YACHT.

Robert Kuok. A Malaysian businessman, 88, spent almost $5 Billion on a boat that is Gold Plated. The Gold Plated YACHT.

Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud owns 3 palaces, a $500 million yacht, and a private Boeing 747 with an Airbus A380 on the way.

In the US, just 400 people have more wealth than  half of all America combined. Add the resources owned by the top 1% wealthy in the world - and the figure will be approximately the same as that shared by the remaining 99%.

Even if the wealth of Putin is not the trillion dollars rumored, he is undoubtedly wealthy to an extraordinary level and those who criticize his wealthy ways seem to end up badly.

Do the 1% super rich warrant their wealth? Is their wealth commensurate with their endeavor? Does this wealth in any way reflect a contribution that has made the world a better place?

The saying 'it takes money to make money' suggests that as these uber fortunes accumulate, the flow of money toward their gravitational pull can only mean one thing. The rich will continue to get richer while the poor will get poorer. Never before has the contrast between the two been so evident. It seems that the 99% exist solely to provide the services required by the Super rich 1%, who own 99% of everything, from the Government, to the Mosques, to the land and to the skies. 

The most likely scenario in respect of change in the distribution of wealth - is that ten years from now the numbers will read 99.2% own the same as .8%.

Unless.