Brand awareness

Aaron McGruder, creator of the brilliant and hilarious black animated sitcom The Boondocks, has been the subject of some recent misreporting regarding some comments he made about Barack 'change has come to America' Obama. Now that the 21st of January has been and gone without the crisis predicted by Colin Powell, we can feel safe again to discuss the double standards involved in the coverage of the new President. Though technically Joe Biden's similar prediction may still turn out to be accurate, I don't think we've too much to worry about. McGruder had been reported by pal-item.com, the website of the Richmond Palladium-Item, to have said that Obama wasn't black because he wasn't descended from a slave. Though the article does initially report McGruder's scepticism accurately, this one misrepresented comment has caused quite a stir. In an interview with the Washington Post he noted that:

"Sadly, it no longer matters how carefully you choose your words -- you said what the dumbest person in the audience said you said...this new kind of 'gutter news' from sites ... [is] going to make it extremely difficult to engage in any sort of intelligent discourse." - Washington Post

The saddest thing about this is that the controversy over something McGruder never even said have overshadowed the very important things he was saying.

"It was a simple conversation about the differences between race, ethnicity, nationality, and trying to draw distinctions that most of the media and public seemed to be casually ignoring. That somehow became me calling someone who is obviously black not black." - Washington Post

The majority of the coverage of the new President has made primary reference to his being the first black president. While it is a historical first, and in terms of its symbolism a positive development, this story with McGruder is an allegory for how the issue of his race and what it means has dominated the discussion to the detriment of any genuine attempt to discern what, if anything, Obama can do to alter the course of the world's first and only truly global superpower. This is amusingly illustrated by some commentators who reminded us during the campaign that in 2001 Bill Clinton was honoured as the nation's first black president at the Congressional Black Caucus Annual Awards Dinner. It is ultimately policy, not skin colour or blood, that will determine whether or not Obama is black in the same political sense that got Clinton such an honour. Though I'm no great fan of Bill Clinton, I can certainly understand why after twelve years of Reagan and Bush he was considered by some black political circles to be a great improvement.

The author of the article misquoting McGruder, Rachel Sheeley, seems to have no great background in reporting on the subject of Obama, so it's unlikely it was a deliberate ploy to skew the media coverage of the new presidency. However, it does reflect the broader emphasis of that coverage, particular here in Europe. The day after Obama was elected, the BBC's flagship news discussion show Newsnight featured Jeremy Paxman interviewing Dizzee Rascal, something of a joke in music circles let alone on the subject of politics.



Mr Rascal had little of interest to contribute, as one might expect he was full of comments like:

"I think a black man, purple man, Martian man can run the country ... as long as he does right by the people." - Dizzee Rascal

Despite this, Paxman was criticised by some for his treatment of someone who never should have been on the show in the first place. Singer Estelle accused Paxman of treating Mr Rascal 'like an idiot'. Paul Moody of the Guardian, a music journalist by trade, wrote a lengthy piece slamming Paxman as some sort of 19th century colonialist.

"Could you see this happening in Britain ?" barked Paxo, clearly livid at having Britain's premier MC on the show to add some street-level zing to the debate. - Guardian

The reason why Mr Rascal was on the show was indeed to add 'street level zing'. Not credible opinions from a black commentator, just street level zing. Of course, people on the street are on the street at 10:30 p.m., not at home watching Newsnight. It was a woeful decision by the BBC to even put Dizzee Rascal on the show, so even if Paxman's attitude was dismissive I can sympathise somewhat. Why wasn't Paxman interviewing Trevor Phillips, chief of the Commission for Racial Equality? Or what about the young black MP David Lammy? Or Chuka Umunna, an upcoming hope for the 2010 parliamentary election? Or any number of other writers, academics, commentators, political activists? Or, and this is a radical idea I know, some ordinary people who just happened to have some worthwhile things to say?

No. Instead we get actors and rappers. Not that actors and rappers never had anything interesting to say, but it speaks volumes about the prejudices of the media that when discussing a historic day in the development of African Americans they seek out only people who fit conventional black stereotypes for success. The only thing missing was a few basketballers. Oh, hang on, here's Charles Barkley endorsing Obama. Though it's amusing to read that DMX wasn't even aware that there was a presidential election or a black candidate, the absence of credible, interesting, articulate black people talking about what this might mean is doubly frustrating when just such a person, McGruder, is misquoted and consequently the significance of his comments is lost. Likewise when even a relatively respected interviewer like Paxman shows some discomfort at having to interview people who are largely clueless regarding the issues at hand he is criticised for stepping out of the accepted boundaries of this discussion.

Obama's race (though ambiguous, since technically he is mixed race) is key to what marketers call his brand image, as this Fast Company magazine article shows. Not only does it refer to him initially as a 'black man', it goes on to say:

"Barack Obama is three things you want in a brand," says Keith Reinhard, chairman emeritus of DDB Worldwide. "New, different, and attractive. That's as good as it gets." Obama has his greatest strength among the young, roughly 18 to 29 years old, that advertisers covet, the cohort known as millennials -- who will outnumber the baby boomers by 2010. They are black, white, yellow, and various shades of brown, but what they share -- new media, online social networks, a distaste for top-down sales pitches -- connects them more than traditional barriers, such as ethnicity, divide them." - Fast Company magazine

New, different and attractive. Certainly, anything other than a white upper middle class male makes him new. Different? Basically the same as 'new'. Attractive? Indeed, in that he's black enough that African Americans will see him as one of their own, but not so black that tacitly racist white liberals will have any problem feeling good about themselves for supporting him. Or arranging for rappers to be seen endorsing him, and so on.

Not that his race is the only aspect to the Obama brand that succeeded. As noted by Newsweek:

"Obama is the first presidential candidate to be marketed like a high-end consumer brand." - Newsweek

While it's certainly true that marketing techniques have long been used to sell presidents as products, the Obama campaign set a new standard, even using chain-letter style e-mail strategies. As shown in this 1970s feature by John Pilger, we can go back at least as far as Kennedy in the use of advertising to further political careers.



However, the impact of the Obama brand is like nothing seen before. It is now being used to sell a huge range of merchandise, from t-shirt and medallions to barbecue sauce and action figures, and Ben n Jerry's ice-cream have launched a new flavour, deliciously named 'Yes Pecan'. Even heroin dealers have got in on the act.

As amusing as all this might be, it is a brutal indication of how politics by consent in the world's wealthiest democracy is nothing more than a nice sounding idea, and the reality is that even the candidates representing change are as carefully packaged and marketed to us as high fashion or a blockbuster movie. The election itself is more like the Superbowl, in that it primarily consists of adverts and there's no discernible competition.

Another illustration of this increasing symbiosis between politics and marketing is the War on Terror, as it was initially labelled by George W Bush. This became 'the long war' after criticism, most beautifully from former Monty Python member Terry Jones:

TERRY: The “War On Terror” is nothing more than the act of declaring war on an abstract noun. Now you could say, “No, we’re declaring war on terrorists, not on abstract nouns,” but a terrorist doesn’t even exist until he’s committed a terrorist act. Just substitute something else for the word “terror” to make you see how ludicrous this is. Let’s say you declared war on “murder.” “Now we’ve declared war on murder and we’re not going to rest until ever murderer and every would-be murderer has been caught and brought to justice.” This is completely ridiculous! You can’t catch every one! Besides, they’re not even murderers until they’ve actually murdered someone! You can’t stop something happening before it happens! It’s a very dangerous situation that we’re now in and the people behind Bush, with his concepts of pre-emptive strikes around the world. They are a recipe for permanent warfare, disaster, chaos and I’m sorry to say, more terrorism. - Herecomethewilddogs

The name 'war on terror' was officially dropped by the US in July 2005, rebranding it then as the 'struggle against violent extremism'. The aim was not to clarify the situation, but to downplay the ongoing military aspects of the war. It was officially dropped in Britain in December 2007, though as the BBC notes the British and European media never took the phrase, often employing quotation marks when using it. Around this same period the portrayal of Al Qaeda changed, from being a hierarchical network to a 'brand', as MI5 head Jonathan Evans called it. The importance of this is that even those with no connection to Bin Laden, Zawahiri or any other leading Al Qaeda figure could still be considered a target in this war. As the Boston Globe pointed out:

Though distinguishing between groups that are officially part of Al Qaeda and those that are not may seem like splitting hairs, recognizing that not all jihadist groups or individuals are members of Al Qaeda helps us to understand that the "war on terror" is not just a war on Al Qaeda or groups affiliated with it. Rather, the war on terror is a war on a global jihadist movement of which Al Qaeda is only a part, albeit extremely influential. The common thread between all jihadist groups is that they share a similar ideology. Because this ideology does not derive its legitimacy from Al Qaeda or bin Laden, the jihadist movement will continue to exist whether there is a group called Al Qaeda or not. - Boston Globe

In August 2008 an internal British government document 'obtained' by the press revealed that it has become official policy to spread propaganda, both online and in more mainstream media, to 'taint the Al Qaeda brand':

The campaign aims to "channel messages" through internet bloggers and chatroom members as well as major media outlets such as the BBC.

It will seek to persuade people that the terrorist group is "in decline", and its operatives are "not heroes".

The strategy has been drawn up by the Research Information and Communication Unit (RICU) - which was set up by former Home Secretary John Reid and is staffed by officials from several Whitehall departments...

...However, the document stresses that the West should "avoid suggesting that AQ is no longer a threat". - Daily Mail

Indeed, this leaked document came in between Home Secretary Jacqui's Smith's warning in April that the threat was 'growing and severe', and Security Minister Lord West's claim in October that the security services are monitoring a 'great plot' by Al Qaeda. Strangely, Lord West was criticised for revealing such sensitive information, but hardly anyone said a word when two heads of MI5 and the Home Secretary essentially did the same thing. Moreover, a clearer example of official doublespeak you will not find - a counterterrorism unit is out spreading the news that Al Qaeda is weakened but all the while we're being warned that the threat is real and menacing. Al Qaeda really does show incredible flexibility as a brand, in that it seems to mean whatever the various vested interests require it to mean at different times.

More consolidated is the Obama brand, though in McGruder's response to being misquoted he showed great brevity and honesty in illustrating that there are cracks in the new president's carefully manufactured image. Initially he posted a brief message on his myspace:

Hey guys, never said Barack wasn't Black... please don't bother me with that bullshit. - myspace

However, he felt the need to clarify things further, and I for one am glad he did because his comments are right on the money not only regarding how his words have been treated by the media, but also on the corruption of the American democratic process and how little power the president has in the face of elite corporate-governmental institutions like the Federal Reserve.

For a long time now, I have tried to keep my opinions on the election and Barack Obama to myself. I occasionally do speaking engagements, which are not open to the press, and unfortunately some of my comments have been twisted around in a silly manner. The claim that I asserted our new President was not Black is categorically false. I have seen an endless stream of Black pundits on TV pontificating about the significance of President Obama’s election - many of them making reference to the 3/5th’s clause in the constitution regarding slaves. The point I was making is that this is not an accurate comparison. Barack is the son of an immigrant, not the descendant of slaves. It’s like comparing a half-Japanese man to the oppressed Chinese who built the American railroads. Yes, they are both Asian, but it is not an honest or accurate comparison. We all share the common experiences of being Black in America today - we do not all share a common history. A history that in part makes us who we are - and in some cases (as with the psychological damage that still lingers from slavery) holds us back. These are not, I believe, insignificant distinctions. I did say I was cautiously pessimistic about Obama’s Presidency - but this is simply acknowledging the reality of an American Empire that is out of control and on the verge of collapse. Let us not forget that on the eve of the election, we witnessed a near trillion dollar robbery of the US treasury. That robbery is still taking place. I do not blame President Obama, but I do not believe the financial and corporate interests that own and control this country will fold so easily. I do not question the integrity of the man as much as the power of his office - which I believe has greatly diminished over the years. I believe the Federal Reserve Bank, the Military Industrial Complex, and the massive corporate interests that run this country have more power than our new President. I hope I am wrong. After 9/11, I witnessed most of this country become obsessed with squashing dissent and silencing critics. I hope this election does not turn Black America towards this same, fascist mind state; but already I am starting to see it, and it saddens me greatly. I absolutely wish our new President and his family success and safety. But after all I have witnessed in my lifetime, and especially in the last eight years, I am not ready to lay down my skepticism or my outrage for this government. To do so would be unwise and, ironically enough, anti-American. - McGruder statement in full, Dailycartoonist

I have a feeling it will be some time before the mainstream press manages anything as intelligent and succinct as this on the subject of high and deep politics. In the meantime, enjoy one of the best episodes of the Boondocks, where Huey and the rest go to see Soul Plane 2.

Semiotics of Paedophilia

Ten years ago, back when Britney Spears could still sing and dance and wasn't primarily famous for being another messed up white trash celebrity who wanders around with Paris Hilton mutually flashing the paparazzi, Jive Records released ...Baby One More Time. It was the song that turned Britney from a shopping mall-touring ex-Mouseketeer into a superstar. Girls wanted to be Britney, boys wanted to have Britney. Win-win, from a marketing point of view.

It wasn't just the song that appealed, but the music video that stood out. It features the sixteen year old Britney in a raunchy school uniform, in a school setting, imploring her ex-boyfriend to 'hit' her one more time. Leaving the lyrics aside for a moment, it appears that the original plan for the video was to have Britney superimposed on a cartoon setting, but this was scrapped, apparently at the star's request, in favour of a realistic school environment. Similarly, it was allegedly Britney's idea to have the school uniform shirts tied up so as to bear her midriff.

I'm not trying to make out that Britney Spears had some fiendish plan to sexualise schoolgirls, indeed I see her more as victim than villain in this story. But she was, it must be remembered, a product of the Disney corporation. The founder of the company, Walt Disney, attended meetings of the Nazi Party, was an alcoholic, founded the 33 club - a masonic order and has long been rumoured to be a sexual pervert of varying kinds. The company has a relatively long history of employees being convicted of such offences including possession of child pornography and sexual activity with a minor.

More recently the company has been accused of placing subliminal sexual images in movies designed for children. This might seem far-fetched but bear in mind they did market underwear associated with the kids movie High School Musical which bore the slogan 'Dive in'.
Along similar lines, back in the days when they were preparing Britney for stardom the company opposed a law designed to help protect children from online pornography. They've even got involved with the War on Terror:

"But now a land grab is about to take place comparable to the ‘purchase’ of Manhattan Island from the Lenapes Indians for $24 worth of beads and trinkets in 1626, the ‘best real estate deal in history.’

In an ‘agreement’ with the ‘Mayor’ of Baghdad, the fifty acre Zawra Park is to be developed into a trashy Disneyland by the Tigris, complete with malls, hotels, housing, amusements, entertainment and a museum. Iraq’s National Museum with its millennias of treasures and the National Library’s irreplaceable ancient volumes and manuscripts were looted and destroyed under US watch in 2003. A replacement by a Disneyland version is a concept devised by the seriously psychologically challenged." - Felicity Arbuthnot, globalresearch

As noted by Michel Chossudovsky:

"Through the use of motion based simulations and sophisticated entertainment equipment, the harsh daily realities of poverty and military occupation are replaced by a World of fiction and fantasy.

The concept underlying Disney's Imagineering (developed by RSE) is to "overcome the barriers between reality and dreams".

The objective is to replace reality by a dream world.

Iraq's daily realities of death, destruction and torture are replaced by a "Dream World Made in America".

The imagery and motion simulations intended for Iraqi children and adolescents provide a "human face" to the American invaders.

The project constitutes a despicable form of war propaganda. It is a cover-up of the extensive war crimes committed against the Iraqi people in the name of an illusory "American Dream"...

...The Baghdad Disneyland-style project has all the essential features of a PsyOp. It is intended to instill American values and destroy Iraqi identity.

"The people [of Iraq] need this kind of positive influence. Its going to have a huge psychological impact," said Mr. Werner of C3.

In a cruel irony the PsyOp target group are Iraqi Children:
“There are all sorts of investment opportunities all over Iraq. But it’s not just hydrocarbons. Half the Iraqi population is under the age of 15. These kids really need something to do,” (Mr. Brinkley, quoted in The Times, April 24, 2008)

Iraq's cultural heritage is destroyed.

The historical memory of Mesopotamia is wiped out.

US investors are to "bring badly needed fun" to the war theater.

The sponsor of project Mr. Llewellyn Werner says the time is ripe for a "fun park":
"I think people will embrace it. They'll see it as an opportunity for their children regardless if they're Shia or Sunni. They'll say their kids deserve a place to play and they'll leave it alone."(Ibid)

According to a spokesman for the US installed Iraqi regime:
“There is a shortage of entertainment in the city. Cinemas can’t open. Playgrounds can’t open. The fun park is badly needed for Baghdad. Children don’t have any opportunities to enjoy their childhood.” Mr al-Dabbagh added that entry to the park would be strictly controlled." (Times, April 24, 2008)" - Chossudovsky, globalresearch

Reminds me somewhat of what they did in Germany after the Second World War, when it was deemed necessary to deNazify the population. Indeed, Paul Bremer used debaathification as his excuse for disbanding the Iraqi army in 2003, though this did not stop private military firms (not to mention people looking for potential terrorists) from employing them.

Back to Britney, and the song that made her a star, the lyrics contain numerous uses of the word 'baby' to refer to (presumably) an ex-boyfriend. This, along with 'babe' has become a very popular idiom, so much so in the case of the latter that it's new meaning of an attractive person, usually a teenage female, has usurped its old meaning of a newborn or young baby. This may seem trivial, but when you combine a young but sexually attractive girl dressed in a school uniform with throatily expressions of 'baby baby' and I'd say you've got a pretty comprehensive image of the sexualisation of youth.

On top of that there's the punchline at the end of the chorus 'give me a sign, hit me baby one more time'. This young, evidently emotionally vulnerable female is imploring the listener, or at least her ex-boyfriend, to give her a 'sign' by hitting her, again. This is the line with the most emphasis in the entire song, and is sung in the most aggressively, so there's not much room for ambiguity that the word 'hit' is intended literally. Indeed, there was some concern from the record studio execs at the time that the song might be seen to be condoning domestic violence. Their answer? To drop the 'hit me' from the title. Not change the lyrics. Not have Britney or the song's writer give an interview saying what the line means. Not downplay the line in the song's production. Just drop the 'hit me' from the title.

Not that the sexualisation of schoolgirls is anything new. It has recently been in the news that Japan has banned vending machines that sell underwear purportedly worn by a Japanese schoolgirl. These machines most definitely do exist, as these videos and these pictures demonstrate. The Japanese even went so far as to make an advert trying to discredit the product and discourage the customers from buying them:

I think they're fighting a losing battle. For one thing, the Japanese school uniform fetish is pretty well ingrained, and for another it seems they tried the same thing back in 1993 and clearly failed.


I suppose what I'm asking is this: How can we charge a 14 year old girl with raping a 13 year old boy, particularly one who may have been raped herself, or charge three boys aged 8 and 9 with raping an 11 year old girl, or a 12 year old boy with raping two boys aged 8 and 9, or any number of other similar cases when we are the ones who've filled their entertainment culture with aggressive sexual imagery, sounds, ideas and feelings? We create this culture, see it all the time and rarely if ever object, even when something horrific happens. In another recent case a 15 year old girl was accused of possessing and distributing nude photos of herself to other minors and could be placed on the sex offenders register. Apparently a girl now owning a nude picture of herself is a serious criminal offence. Update March 2009 - no 'apparently' about it, today it was reported that a 14 year old girl from New Jersey is to be charged with possession and distribution of child pornography after posting nude pictures of herself on myspace for her boyfriend to see, and will in likelihood have to register as a sex offender.

The same mindset is applied to paedophiles. The news invariably seeks to demonise 'predatory paedophiles' and overlooks the popular culture of making youth an object of sexual desire. Not that I'm in any way seeking to defend paedophiles, they are ultimately responsible for their actions, but it's immensely hypocritical that if a private citizen steals a picture of a topless 14 year old girl and publishes it somehow they are open to serious prosecution but when FHM magazine published a topless picture of a 14 year old girl they were merely 'rapped' by the Press Complaints Commission, not charged with distributing child pornography. The magazine's publishers of course plead ignorance, claiming the girl looked much older. Why is it so difficult to tell the difference between a 14 year old and an 18 year old? Because of the very culture spread by magazines such as FHM.

What is a crime for an individual is a mere disciplinary issue for a major publication. Indeed, what is a crime in one country is legal in many others, when age of consent is the issue. The hypocrisy was reaffirmed to a horrible extent when, in 2001, Channel 4 broadcast a 'Brasseye' special - a spoof new program satirising the media's treatment of the subject of sex offenders. The tabloid response to criticism of their shoddy, hate-inspiring reporting was predictable, with the Sun and the Daily Mail branding it the 'sickest TV show ever'. It got worse, as reported by the BBC:

"The Home Office's child protection minister Beverley Hughes described the show as "unspeakably sick" - then admitted that she hadn't actually seen it.

At this point, I was feeling pretty sickened myself - not by "Brass Eye", but at the fact that I'd voted Labour and thus helped to put these people in power.

Then, some surprising things happened. People refused to be told when to be outraged. True, Channel 4 received hundreds of complaints - but the station also received hundreds of calls supporting the show. Significantly, among those who wrote to politicians and newspapers in support of "Brass Eye" were people who were themselves survivors of child sexual abuse. And suddenly, the government line changed dramatically.

Ms Jowell now announced:
"I've made it absolutely clear that programme content and regulatory issues that arise from this are a matter for broadcasters and regulators, not government"." - BBC

There are two different relevant watchdogs in the UK, and they received numerous complaints and messages of support concerning the show. The Independent Television Commission received 1000+ complaints and 750+ supportive comments, whereas the Broadcasting Standards Commission received 213 complaints and 179 supportive comments. Sadly, this distaste for hypocrisy didn't extent throughout the BBC as a few years down the line they commissioned and broadcast Drop Dead Gorgeous, a show about a young model growing up in Runcorn. The protagonist, Ashley, is 15 when the show begins but the BBC thought it prudent to cast an actress who was around 10 years older.

Regardless, when Channel 4 rebroadcast the Brass Eye Special the Daily Star responded with more inflammatory coverage. The irony they perhaps missed was that on the same page as the hit piece on Chris Morris and Channel 4 was an article, complete with picture, about the development of Charlotte Church's breasts, who as the article noted was only 15 at the time.


I invite you to make up your own mind about the show:

The Club

El Presidente Negro has now announced his economic team and as expected Geithner is Treasury Sec. and his mentor, Lawrence Summers, will be head of the White House's National Economic Council. The other economic appointment of note is Christina Romer.

While the first two have long standing ties to both the world of governmental economics in the US, e.g. Summers used to be Treasury Sec. and Geithner used to work for the treasury, and globalist financial institutions, Geithner with the IMF and Summers with the World Bank, Romer is a lifetime academic. This might inspire a certain degree of confidence that she isn't just another member of the club finding a way to warm their own feet at the fire or toe the party line. As the Wall Street Journal economics blog put it:

That the Romers are so well-regarded by their peers of both parties has many economists cheered that the Obama administration is going for the top minds in the field rather than those who adhere most closely to party lines. - WSJ

However reassuring academic expertise may be to poorly educated people, it is no guarantee of credibility or freedom from corruption. Earlier this year, UK television's Channel 4 broadcast a documentary show titled The Artful Codgers. The show told the story of two working class pensioners and their son who successfully defrauded the high class art world of hundreds of thousands of pounds for works faked by the son in the shed of their council house. You can watch part one of the show here, and the rest on youtube:

This single story illustrates how education and letters following your name can be rendered useless by someone willing and able to deceive and defraud. And there are plenty of more adept deceivers and defrauders in this world than George and Olive Greenhalgh.

So, is there any sign that Romer's education and credentials are in effect meaningless, and that she too is part of the same club as Geithner and Summers? Well, she's regarded as a mainstream economist, and a glance at the titles of her books on amazon certainly suggest that. Talk of 'business cycles' show that she understands the economy as a sort of repetitive progression of peaks and troughs. Nothing particularly suspicious about any of that, until you throw in the fact that she was vice president of the American Economic Association, which for a long time has been a propaganda arm of the elite designed to project this idea that no one is ultimately in control of the economy. That peaks and troughs are natural.

That this is the purpose of the AEA was first noted by historian Anthony Sutton, who explained how the association was set up by Richard T. Ely, a close associate of Andrew Dickson White and Daniel Gilman, both members of The Order, the Yale secret society.

Academic associations are a means of conditioning or even policing academics. Although academics are great at talking about academic freedom, they are peculiarly susceptible to peer group pressures. And if an academic fails to get the word through his peer group, there is always the threat of not getting tenure. In other words, what is taught at University levels is passed through a sieve. The sieve is faculty conformity...
...We have already noted that member Andrew Dickson White founded and was first President of the American Historical Association and therefore was able to influence the constitution and direction of the AHA. This has generated an official history and ensured that existence of The Order is never even whispered in history books, let alone school texts. An economic association is also of significance because it conditions how people who are not economists think about the relative merits of free enterprise and state planning. State economic planning is an essential part of State political control. Laissez faire in economics is the equivalent of individualism in politics. And just as you will never find any plaudits for the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution in official history, neither will you find any plaudits for individual free enterprise. - Sutton, How the Order controls Education

So, Geithner and Summers are there to manage the economy in the interests of their (and Obama's) Wall Street paymasters. Romer is there to provide confidence (after all, that is the political role of expertise) and to ensure that the myth of an arbitrary, evolutionary economy remains the popular view of what's happened. This in turn ensure there is no demand for the criminal bankers who led us to this position to be held to account for their actions. Along with the Israeli terrorist and people who want to destroy Russia we've now got a man who thinks pollution should be outsourced to countries where the dollar cost of a life is lowest. Wonderful prospects abound for this administration.

Across the pond in my home country, Gordon is reportedly looking to borrow record amounts of money to spend on the economy. Now, correct me if I'm wrong about this, but Brown in his lengthy time as chancellor mentioned a thing or two about golden rules. The first of these was that over the course of an economic cycle the government could only borrow money to invest. The oft-repeated example was that borrowing to build a hospital was fine but borrowing to pay the wages of nurses was not. However, Gordon is now borrowing to pay the wages of bankers. In the case of Northern Rock, the pseudo-nationalised British bank, the boss walked away with over three quarters of a million pounds. Now, this dwarfs the near $50 million the former Chief Exec of AIG managed to extort, but it's still a lot of money.

The other rule is that public debt should not rise above 40% of national income. According to the CIA, we already passed that level by 2007, and according to a report by the Centre for Policy Studies, the true figure is something like 127% of GDP, or £1,854 billion. The external debt of over $10 trillion, the second highest in the world behind the USA, suggests Gordon's rules were outdated before he'd even mentioned them. And it seems Gordon has finally realised this, though it took a financial panic of biblical proportions to do it. So what is he going to replace them with? Sikh values, apparently:

"Treating others as you would like to be treated yourself is a rule that I believe has got relevance to every community in this country, building tolerance, building justice, building equality and building fairness," - SIFY news

Doesn't sound too bad if you ask me. We'll see if he follows through, given how strictly he kept to his previous rules...