I've been watching the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics. I was disappointed because the music was all this hip-hop and rap, noisy, chaotic stuff, and I'm thinking, where's the samba and bossa nova? And then, it happened: a lone guy at the piano, playing a gorgeous arrangement of Garota de Ipanema, and singing it in good voice, with a giant image of the great Antonio Jobim hovering above him, and all the while, the tall and tan and young and lovely Giselle Bundchen waltzes along representing the Girl from Ipanema. That was cool. That was classy. The Girl from Ipanema has got to be one of the greatest songs of all time; a masterpiece.
Have you noticed that for the last year or more, all the articles on Brazil in the mainstream media have been extremely negative? They weren't going to be finished in time; they were running out of money; the infrastructure was falling apart; the police and fire services were going to be inadequate; the Zika virus; the pollution; the crime; the corruption, etc. etc. etc. But, investors must have thought otherwise because the Brazilian stock market has been one of the best performing in the world this year, doing far better than the US market. And, despite all of that fear-mongering, the Rio Olympics have begun without a hitch and with all the splendor that's anticipated.
So, what I want to know is: who made the decision to run all the negative articles, and exclusively negative articles on Brazil? It was like absolutely nothing good was happening in that country; it was all going completely to hell. How did the entire US media fall into lock-step on that?
Basically, the US media has been treating Brazil the same way it treats Donald Trump: with all negative articles. In Trump's case, I understand why; it's because he's a threat to the Establishment. And, it's not because of his ideas. For instance, let's say he didn't want to build a wall, and let's say he didn't want to make it more difficult for Muslims to enter the country. It's not as though they would have supported him. They would not have supported him regardless, and they would not have been nice to him even if he had no radical ideas. The Establishment does not want him, and it's not just because of his specific ideas; it's because of him.
So, I get that, and I understand why the whole US media is in lock-step against him. I just don't get it about Brazil. Do they have a lot of debt? Yeah, sure, but nothing compared to us. Is their President being impeached? Yeah, just like Clinton was. Is Brazil's infrastructure falling apart? Well, Trump keeps saying that ours is falling apart. Just consider how easy it would be for, say, Brazil or Russia or any other country to write only negative articles about the US. And imagine the impression it would make on a reader if that's all he read about the US.
So, who made the decision to go all-negative on Brazil? Who gave the order? And why?
Of course, the US media also is in lock-step on the JFK assassination, supporting the official story, and even lying about the opposition to it, foisting it that naysayers think Oswald had help, other shooters. Meanwhile, the reality is that the vast majority of JFK skeptics advocate Oswald innocence. But, you would never know that from listening to the US media.
But, I understand it. Look: they have to support the official story, and they have to steer clear of any mention of Oswald being innocent because if you lose Oswald, then you wind up realizing that it was a conspiracy; a government conspiracy; that the government killed Kennedy. The US Government with the support of the US corporate/media complex killed JFK. I'm talking about the Establishment. The US Establishment killed John F. Kennedy.