Posted 8 months ago on Dec. 9, 2013, 11:01 a.m. EST by shoozTroll
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
"Detroit's recent bankruptcy eligibility was achieved in part by the Michigan governor defying a court order, the Detroit czar defying a court order, and a federal bankruptcy court telling other federal and state courts that their orders and the cases before them challenging the constitutionality of state law and state actions simply don't matter. Since December 3, the dominant media narrative following Judge Steven Rhodes's bankruptcy court ruling suggests, in over-simplified form, that Detroit's one-man government can dispose of most of the city's estimated $18 billion debt and long term liabilities by defaulting on pension contracts and selling off its art collection. This is essentially false as an overview, and false in most of its details. It would be more accurate to say that Detroit is the victim of dishonest politicians colluding with banks and other corporate predators, and we are now witnessing the late stages of an extended municipal lynching that is the natural expression of contemporary American capitalism. That this is essentially true as an overview, and in most of its details, is supported in the question and answer format that follows. But first, here's the sanitized frame for the consensus narrative reliably delivered by American pack journalism - in this instance, The New York Times of December 4, under the headline "Detroit Ruling Lifts a Shield on Pensions" (duplicated verbatim in the Boston Globe and Houston Chronicle): "In a ruling that could reverberate far beyond Detroit, a federal judge held on Tuesday that this battered city could formally enter bankruptcy and asserted that Detroit's obligation to pay pensions in full was not inviolable." You would not know from coverage by the Times and most other outlets that this and other issues involving Detroit are under widespread court challenge, or that the current situation has been created by officials taking actions that would, in ordinary circumstances, be considered contempt of court.