The Bush administration and reactionaries within Venezuela's upper classes have pulled out all stops in a blatant effort to overthrow Hugo Chavez, duly elected in a landslide.
We're seeing exactly the same "pots and pans" protests by well-dressed, affluent elements that were used to give an impression of popular upheaval against Allende in Chile, in 1973.
Back then it was Phelps-Dodge, Anaconda, and ITT orchestrating things for their selfish imperialist gain, unleashing Pinochet's murderous fascism on the Chilean people with unprecedented brutality.
Now its Big Oil, in cahoots with Caracas compradors, sabatoging an entire society and economy to generate "unrest" which their control of the media allows them to blame on Chavez.
But Chavez has the impassioned backing of Venezuela's majority poor.
He gave them the means to create their "Bolivaran Circles", which are arguably the most thoroughly and comprehensively democratic means of popular empowerment on the planet.
It was those Circles that thwarted the attempted coup in April, in which Washington was caught red-handed.
Because Bush needs Venezuelan oil for his Iraq-and-assorted wars -- and because he wants to depose Chavez before "Lula" is inaugurated in Brazil (which would consolidate leftist electoral victories in Brazil, Venezuela and Equador into a regional progressivism intolerable to multinational-corporate interests) -- look for an all-out effort to seize power before mid January.
Don't trust anything in our establishment media, however. Back in April, the only info that proved to be correct came from Indy Media sources in Latin America, and from Cuba's Granma. Everyone else was simply reporting the plotters' official line.
To forestall the possibility of a repeat of Santiago, 9/11/73, Chavez ought to open up the nation's armories to workers and peasants.
Let the poor themselves directly defend what they've gained!
Yea Dennis looks like people are thrilled under their system. Civil riots and unrest are the sure sign of a happy populace,,ahhh the wonderful smell of socialism, the people can't get enough, that's why they are on the verge of civil war. You should hop on the phone and give em' a ringy and let em know just how good of a guy Chavez and socialism is.
That's right it's all Bush's fault. Thanks for the update.
From now on just please post problems in the world and add it's Bush's and America's fault to your tag line, it will save everyone including your time o.k That way you won't have to try so hard to link everything to oil, Bush or the right, or even the U.S in general we'll just assume you mean that since it always is the same punch line. Thanks.
Besides being politically reactionary, most gun-advocacy "nuts" are quite affluent, having money enough to buy not just several firearms but a whole host of material possessions.
The world's growing number of poor, however, are destitute. They can't buy squat.
That's because First World-benefitting colonialism robbed their nations of development prospects, a plunder that continues under monopoly capitalist "globalization".
I abhor violence.
I have an unblemished record of being known as "that peacenik" that extends back to the '60s.
But reality forces me to face facts.
Sooner or later, as multitudes needlessly starve across the planet, there will be a concerted, violent uprising against the predacious First World, monopoly capitalism, and all things associated with them, including Christianity, which has largely abandoned Jesus's justice advocacy and has simply become a holy pillar for globalization's piratical practices.
At some point, it'll become necessary to take sides.
Gun availability will then become a clearly class-based question.
Should just the rich, whose wealth has been essentially derived by impoverishing the planet's masses, be the only ones to have guns -- the better to quash rebellions by the victims of their selfishness and greed?
Or should the ones who ought to really have guns be the wretched of the earth, including race-and-class victimized, impoverished Americans, so that they can fight for the economic justice that's always been denied them?
"Frankie say, 'Arm the unemployed!'" -- Seen on a t-shirt
Shouldn't devotion to the Second Amendment include exactly (and especially) that, even if it means that armed mobs may one day show up at your pricey home, to swim in your pool, before turning your property into the setting for a people's clinic?
Allowing you to take up residence in the guest house.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Build your prosperity on the relentless exploitation and oppression of others (either through direct business conduct, stock ownership, or policy support)...and you can expect to have your whole, illegitimate world ultimately torn down.
To avoid that otherwise certain revolution, I say we should get down to some serious reform and making amends for our wrongs, now, while we still can.
Or do you actually think you can "outgun" enraged, retribution-seeking humanity?!
Besides being politically reactionary, most gun-advocacy "nuts" are quite affluent, having money enough to buy not just several firearms but a whole host of material possessions.
The world's growing number of poor, however, are destitute. They can't buy squat.
Good God man you've gone over the edge completely. Yes Dennis only the rich have guns. BTW you can buy a handgun down in Mexico for about $20.00 Hey what do you know I have $20.00 in my wallet, I'm rich,,wahooooo!
Sooner or later, as multitudes needlessly starve across the planet, there will be a concerted, violent uprising against the predacious First World, monopoly capitalism, and all things associated with them, including Christianity, which has largely abandoned Jesus's justice advocacy and has simply become a holy pillar for globalization's piratical practices.
So now you're attacking Christianity. Hmmm, great, imagine if someone had posted that same sentence and inserted Islam, you'd go ballistic. I guess we can now include biggot to your list of qualities along with being a super size hypocrite. You know zip about Christianity and in one sentence offended millions of people. I think you ought to resign that oh so prestigious post from liberalslant.com. Of course that would cut the number of hits to their website to 4 unless you count the real journalists who check the site in doing resaerch on wacky fringe groups.
Socialism sucks and it's failed and failing because of people exactly like you. Aside from all the trouble in Venezuala there was a story the other day of a man who escaped from Cuba by hanging on to the landing gear and making the trip to Canada in the wheel compartment. He was an airport worker and knew of the risks and took it anyway to get the hell out of their. He almost froze to death and he risked his life knowingly to leave socialism like so many do, well that is the ones who aren't imprisioned for speaking ill of Fidel and the ones who aren't well,... dead.
Someone should have told him that there's a guy in Superior WI who lives on the most prosperous nation on earth who has immense freedoms who thinks socialism's just nifty. I'm sure he would have seen the light then. If only someone would have told him about the kickass healthcare and education he wouldn't have almost died like thosands to leave that great socialist society, if he'd only read yellow times.
It's obvious you'd love a nice little revolution to start your oppression but first you need to get more than 200 people and some good ideas, then, just maybe you'd be able to defeat Barney Fife to take controll of a small town somewhere. You're dangerous Dennis in a disturbing way.
Over one million people marching in the streets against Chavez the other day.
Man whooda thunk their was 1 million affluent people in Venezuala ?
That and of course if they were affluent they'd probably be a bit more happy and not marching anyway. But man 1,000,000 people in the steet and Dennis is able to determine they are all affluent folks marcing in the streets, must be a sight to see. Bush made em do it ;)
The thing to rememeber JT is that when affluent kids trash Seattle as they did, it's the beginning of a movement. When 1,000,000 people take to the street there's nothing to see.
BTW
I got a big ol' refund from the travel agency today, the Wife and I were going to take a cruise to all the socialist utopia's in the world. They only had 2 scheduled stops. One in Cuba but it cancelled due to the ship not being able to travel through Cuban waters. They were worried about running people over due to the high number of people trying to swim to get the hell out of there. The next stop on the itinerary was supposed to be Venezuala, it was cancelled as well due to the distinct possiblity of getting shot. It's all Bush and the media's fault.....Those bastards! We would of had fun too!
Post of the day: The thing to rememeber JT is that when affluent kids trash Seattle as they did, it's the beginning of a movement. When 1,000,000 people take to the street there's nothing to see.
For folks who've consistently disparaged street protesters as being the ridiculous and riff-raff, or worse, it's nice to see you now championing those rallying in Caracas.
Of course, it's understandable.
They're your "ilk".
Not Jesse Jackson's (Rob, you racist boob!), but your's.
Yep, they're socially irresponsible members of the upper classes, who're in a tizzy that Venezuelan society now expects some economic justice to be implemented...after they've built oligarchic privilege for themselves on the backs of the campesinos for generations.
It's okay for little kids to have to pick garbage dumps for food, I guess, but not right for those in the flush to give a little payback to help alleviate poverty and suffering.
And don't blame Chavez or his followers (millions, who remain staunchly loyal) for Venezuela's problems. The same staggering inequities exist elsewhere in Latin America, Argentina for example, as a result of IMF-World Bank strictures and general capitalist decay.
In Venezuela, in addition, there's been a concerted effort to openly sabotage the economy by Chavez opponents -- to try to precipitate his ouster.
Venezuela's true sentiment isn't to be measured by those who arrive at staged rallies, in designer clothes, in cars and buses from affluent suburbs.
It's to be found in the poor, workingclass barrios, the massive housing projects, and in the surrounding countryside.
There Chavez is regarded as God.
Christianity?
In the Third World especially, Christian missionaries are overwhelmingly tied to a fundamentalist/rightwing interpretation of the Bible, openly associated with political conservatism. Except for primarily Catholic progressives -- such as those who were raped and murdered by the Contras in El Salvador and Nicaragua -- there aren't a whole lot of rebel Christians who are siding with popular struggles for empowerment. Therein lies a big reason for militant Islam's growing appeal.
Socialism a failure? If that's so, how come the most advanced countries on earth, with the highest standards of living, are those with the most socialized aspects to their make-up? Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc.
And why does Cuba, battered by a killing embargo, do so much better by its people -- especially in the key areas of health and education -- than all those "free" and "successful" hellholes of the underdeveloped world where capitalism reigns supreme? Haiti, for one.
Now, to get back to my point about guns:
Whether we're talking about the NRA's position on personal firearms or Bush's military designs on the entire world, a common aspect comes clearly into view.
Conservatives, either as individuals or as the American nation, intend to keep guns and military dominance for THEMSELVES.
The right to bear arms, as a people's defense against repression, or as a foreign country's efforts to acquire weapons to protect itself from outside aggression...are simply being OBVIATED by the Right.
It defines as either "criminals", "terrorists" or "rogues" those who pick up the gun, as the Black Panthers once did, or as foreign freedom fighters and nations asserting independence from Yankee dictate are currently doing.
Bush has very plainly stated, in his arrogant declaration of American military purpose, that we'll pre-emptively attack anyone who tries to arm, in conjunction with an assertive anti-American politics or maverick economic intentions.
In other words: "Obey. Or die."
Tell me that's what Jefferson and Paine were about!
This country, under decisive reactionary sway, is headed for the scrapheap of history.
You can't fuck over the whole world and not expect to share ancient Rome's ultimate fate.
You shouldn't be attacking me, and others pointing out the obvious.
You ought to be pressing for fundamental reforms now, to preclude otherwise inevitable, revolutionary developments later.
For folks who've consistently disparaged street protesters as being the ridiculous and riff-raff, or worse, it's nice to see you now championing those rallying in Caracas. Â Â
No we're not nessicarily championing them, it's just alot of fun to watch you step and fetchand contradict yourself at every trun.
Of course, it's understandable.
They're your "ilk".
Wow 1,000,000 people are our ilk. Cool man.
It's still funny how the mostly affluent kids rioting in Seattle were part of a growing movement and now 1,000,000 people in Caracas are "socially irresponsible" LOL Yea, sure Dennis use them as the cause djour dictates. Typical.
Not Jesse Jackson's (Rob, you racist boob!), but your's.
That means so much coming from you, a man who just painted an entire faith and millions of people with one huge biggoted brush. Ouch, mosquitoes in January. Say hi to Trent Lott and Bob Byrd for me, biggot.
Venezuela's true sentiment isn't to be measured by those who arrive at staged rallies  Â
You would know all about useless "staged" rallies. Funny how they are now staged and you point to the supposed millions of Chavez supporters. Try to remember that where you live.
In Venezuela, in addition, there's been a concerted effort to openly sabotage the economy by Chavez opponents -- to try to precipitate his ouster.
Reminds me of someone else I know.
Christianity?
In the Third World especially, Christian missionaries are overwhelmingly tied to a fundamentalist/rightwing interpretation of the Bible, openly associated with political conservatism. Except for primarily Catholic progressives -- such as those who were raped and murdered by the Contras in El Salvador and Nicaragua -- there aren't a whole lot of rebel Christians who are siding with popular struggles for empowerment. Therein lies a big reason for militant Islam's growing appeal. Â Â
Man you must be desparate resorting to downright lies. Yea those bastard Christian missionaries trying to help people survive who live in horrid condidtions and take vows of poverty and try to feed and clothe the poor, those you claim to support and then piss all over those who actually do something instead of writing crap pieces for whacko websites. Oh one of the people out of the missionaries you just slandered was recently killed in the Philipines by exremists (notice extremits and not a whole faith like you just did) for their trouble. You must have forgotten them. They do very good works, they are peaceful and you just slandered them, and the rest of Christians. Keep diggin your hole biggot.
And why does Cuba, battered by a killing embargo, do so much better by its people -- especially in the key areas of health and education.
Because they have less and less people every year since people are willing to die to get out, you don't get it do you ? Oh yea, it's our fault I forgot.
Conservatives, either as individuals or as the American nation, intend to keep guns and military dominance for THEMSELVES.
Wow, I didn't know that, how cool, I didn't know they passed a law barring Democrats from getting guns.
Now, to get back to my point about guns:
There was one ? When have you ever let a thread topic get in the way of going on a rip ?
Caligula, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim il Sung, Chavez
Dennis, you were the one who raised the concept of "bad street protesters" subverting the Peoples Will, contrasted to "good street protesters" just doing what comes naturally.
Whatsoever, for any cause,     Seeketh to take or give, Power above or beyond the Laws,     Suffer it not to live! Holy State or Holy King—     Or Holy People’s Will— Have no truck with the senseless thing.     Order the guns and kill! Macdonough’s Song
It's to be found in the poor, workingclass barrios, the massive housing projects, and in the surrounding countryside.
There Chavez is regarded as God.
"The overall sentiment among workers is: Strike until he leaves," said Gonzalo Feijoo, a planning adviser for Venezuela's state-owned oil monopoly, Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., where top management is in open rebellion.
Thousands of protesters seeking Chavez's ouster or early elections marched along Caracas' Cota Mil highway toward the tomb of national hero Simon Bolivar. The site is near the presidential palace, where bloody protests eight months ago led to Chavez's brief ouster.
Striking workers, yea, their all affluent and he's a god. Okey dokey then. Nice to know you don't support striking workers.
Venezuela's 13-tanker shipping fleet lies at anchor, its striking crews refusing to deliver their cargos. Foreign shippers refuse to operate in Venezuela, citing unsafe conditions. Insurers refuse to cover transport to and from Venezuela, the No. 4 oil exporter to the United States.
Man I didn't know ships crews were so.........affluent.
Signs of desperation appeared. Officials have tried to install unqualified and long-retired sea captains to move the Pilin Leon, a tanker carrying 280,000 barrels of gasoline that has been anchored in protest in Lake Maracaibo, said Fernando Reyes, a spokesman for the striking merchant mariners union.
Hmm more affluent staged protest agianst the God Chavez.
The United States expressed strong support Tuesday for an Organization of American States resolution that rejects any attempt at subverting the democratic process in Venezuela.
When Jesus and the early Christian commun(al)ists preached compassion toward the poor, they didn't do so expecting that those wretched souls should first convert before being shown merciful aid.
Both spiritual and material.
No conditions were imposed on the uplifting help given.
Nor was there any harsh blamemongering, such as conservatives of today wield at the impoverished, for it was understood that "principalities and powers" conducting injustice were the sources of the meek's miseries.
And that the poor truly were helpless victims of the political and economic inequities by which the rich perpetually kept them in thrall.
Well, nothing has really changed.
If anything, monopoly capitalism generates even sharper, clearer distinctions between exploiting haves and oppressed have-nots, with the latter being driven further from realistic possibilities of either personal or even collective salvation as increasing control over all aspects of their lives becomes more stringent.
That's why Jimmy, the Indian on the reservation, can't logically be expected to put down his bottle, so long as his environment remains one of a defacto colonialism in which a people stripped of their own land (dignity and opportunity, as well) continue to face a squalid existence where jobs and hope are pipedreams.
Yes, there are individual exceptions, but the mass truth endures. The constantly, systemically abused won't behave "properly" so long as improper power relationships leave them comprehensively disadvantaged.
Same goes for inner city ghetto populations of color. And white "bad kids" from the "wrong side of the tracks" enmeshed in unhealthy lifestyles.
You don't blame those who are chronically beset by class and racial discrimination, especially when you're of the class and race doing the discriminating.
AIDS?
Why is it that conservatives blame the victims? Do we blame victims of heart attack or cancer, even though those two diseases are often caused by unwise or "irresponsible" choices in our personal lives?
Somebody gets sick from smoking or no exercise, where is the rightwing castigation? Absent. But when people get sick from the universal human activity of making love? "You reap what you sow. It's not my responsibility to help you out (meaning spending a bit personally for a mass cure)."
That's decidedly an un-Christian outlook clung to with false piety by insufferably sanctimonious "believers" who wouldn't know Christ if he appeared before them as a down-an-out panhandler. "Get a job, freak!"
Even as job availability is determined by the capitalist "requirements" of a supposedly Christian nation mired in worsening, all-corrupting, Big Business selfishness and greed.
Finally, pity the poor girl who finds herself pregnant, then seeks an abortion.
Well, actually there is nopity shown her, just blame, as the fetus is elevated to "innocence" in direct proportion to her imagined, finger-pointedly condemned "sin".
Hypocrisy walks the land, like a shrouded, hulking ogre.
But nobody sees, except a sternly disapproving God, who'll have the last say.
Clashes between supporters, critics rage in Caracas
By Mike Ceaser, Globe Correspondent, 12/17/2002
CARACAS - The neighborhood called January 23d has massive apartment blocks with faded, flaking paint, high unemployment, poverty, and violence - and tremendous support for President Hugo Chavez, on whose watch the lives of many residents have become more difficult.
''We are going to defend the constitution to the death,'' one speaker said during a press conference in the neighborhood last week by Chavez supporters who wore red berets and vowed to defend their leader's ''Bolivarian Revolution.''
Chavez's enduring popularity in spite of a plummeting economy, social strife, and spiraling inflation is one of the paradoxes of the phenomenon called ''Chavismo.''
It was Chavismo that fueled the eruption of public fury that swept the charismatic and confrontational president back into power after a group of military officers deposed him for two days in April in favor of a businessman-president.
Chavismo has also covered the capital's walls with pro- Chavez slogans and made videos and compact discs praising Chavez's bestsellers on the capital's sidewalks.
But Chavismo has also led to an equally passionate opposition, which has shut down the nation's vital petroleum industry for two weeks and plunged the nation into political and economic crisis in a bid to force Chavez to resign or call early elections.
Clashes between Chavez supporters and critics continued yesterday, as police fired rubber bullets and tear gas into buildings and streets of this capital city of about 6 million people. Chavez loyalists continued their attempts to break an opposition-led strike that has crippled the country.
For Chavez's predominantly poor supporters, their president's appeal stems from a feeling of involvement and a hope that this oil-rich nation's impoverished majority will finally receive a fair share of the country's wealth.
Susana Rodriguez, a community activist in the January 23d neighborhood, acknowledged that joblessness has increased under Chavez and now affects a third of the community's 60,000 residents. But she insists that living conditions have improved in less tangible ways: hospitals are better equipped and the police treat residents with more respect, Rodriguez said. She said that children learn ''better values'' in school and more of them can study because of Chavez's ban on school fees.
Rodriguez said residents have organized to manage their own neighborhood - all thanks to Chavismo. The neighborhood's political slant is indicated by its name, which commemorates the day in 1958 on which a military dictator, Marcos Perez Jimenez, was overthrown.
Another part of Chavez's appeal is cosmetic: the son of small-town schoolteachers, he looks and speaks like the great majority of Venezuelans, who are mestizos of mixed African, European, and indigenous descent.
Many attribute the country's ills to the president's enemies, in particular businessmen, whom they accuse of hoarding much of Venezuela's wealth. Underdevelopment, Chavez supporters argue, preceded the president and cannot be resolved overnight.
The Chavismo phenomenon has almost religious qualities. The president's most devoted followers plaster walls with Chavez's image and never leave home without a tiny blue copy of Venezuela's ''Bolivarian Constitution,'' which was amended in 2000 with Chavez-inspired proposals.
''We'll have to wait many years in order to reach that maximum of happiness,'' says Rodriguez. ''There are many obstacles to be overcome. We're working little by little.''
Venezuela has a duly elected president, who won by a landslide.
The United States has a "resident" who lost the popular vote and "won" through manipulation of like-minded reactionary cronies in Florida officialdom and on the Supreme Court
Venezuela has a constitution widely regrded as superior -- granting greater liberties and social guarantees -- than our own.
And Venezuela's poorest people are effectively organized into popular councils (the Bolivarian Circles) that give them decisive control over key, everyday aspects of their existence.
In the United States, meanwhile, the poor have their hands nowhere near the levers of power.
And Bush has the audacity to dictate terms to Chavez and the Venezuelans!
If anything, THEY should be demanding early elections HERE.
(But, of course, only the Ugly American engages in such blatant interference in other countries' sovereign affairs.)
One last thing before I go. Your biggoted denigration of Christians and their missionaires is telling. You painted with such a pathetic brush that your statements are crudely offensive to millions of people. First of all yes their are fundamentalists who have the my way or the highway theory, they are in the minority. You correctly and quickly pointed out especially after 9-11 that Islam is a religion of peace and that not all Muslims are terrorists and theat their religion was being highjacked. I agreed with you then and now. So it's funny how you have no problem now doinbg the same you correctly dennounced others for because you see Christianity as somehow belonging to the right and feel free to make hateful statements. There are many sects of Christianity there are Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Medthodists, Evangelical, Non denominational or community etc etc. There are plenty of people within those sects that are a-political, left etc. All the mission work I've ever seen has never put a prerequisite on "converting" before they get help. It's a myth perpatrated by the ignorant. Christians and missionaries more specifically have and do wonderful things for people. The list of Christian charities that do these great things are endless and done for no other reason to be truly comitted to helping their fellow man. And you denigrated them all with your biggoted statements.
It's rare I share personal stories on here but I will in this case to show you how wrong you are. I don't talk about my beliefs much on here, they are a private matter I believe same with charity, it's something that should be left private. But I will tell you this, The works done by Christians throughout the world are awe inspiring and rewarding. You're wrong and your words are not only biggoted they are insulting, the same thing you decried Trent Lott for and rightly so are actions you yourself just committed, someone with honor would perhaps go back and read that and see it and apologize. I won't hold my breath.
For what it's worth, I sponsored two impoverished Third World kids through the Christian Children's Fund.
Back when I was still a teenager myself, working my first real job.
But, as I came to understand inequitable power realtionships in the developing countries, I also came to appreciate that such charity was akin to "treating" cancer with a band-aid.
It's actually a cruel delusion, and a perpetuation of pervasive misery, to buy a few cups of rice for a handful of kids when systematic exploitation by the capitalist First World (plus indigenous oligrachs such as those pushing the "strike" in Venezuela) generates mass poverty on a sustained basis that could NEVER be offset by charity.
Empowerment of the destitute multitudes, on their terms, in accordance with their needs, is the ONLY solution.
That's something conservativism can never support, because the bulk of profits that conservatives enjoy as businessmen and bankers, or stock holders, come precisely from the exploitative circumstances that leave millions underpayed, or unpayed.
For what it's worth, I sponsored two impoverished Third World kids through the Christian Children's Fund.
Back when I was still a teenager myself, working my first real job.
But, as I came to understand inequitable power realtionships in the developing countries, I also came to appreciate that such charity was akin to "treating" cancer with a band-aid. Â Â
Yea so why bother eh Dennis.
Nevermind Dennis, your biggotry and ignorance of what really goes on are appearant. You show zero remorse from denegrating people who devote their life to helping others and making biggoted statements about a great religion that encompasses millions. Porobably never heard of Mother Theresa or Mary Jo Copeland either. Get out from behind your computer and actually do something instaed of siting on your perch. Go down to Playa Del Carmen and spend a week in the sun helping to build housing. Or a week down in the Dominican Repbulic helping families harvest crops, dig wells and building a school. Those people need help today, they can't wait for your socialistic pipe dreams to come true. In fact they need help the most in some of the socialist nations.
I'm done talking with you about it, forget it. You've exposed yourself and although your hypocrisy has always been apparent your bias and biggotry are now crystaline. What a fraud.
When I was talking about "conversion", Rob, I actually meant this:
Political leaders from the Right, who profess to be Christian, almost invariably see the poor in some prejudicial form or another.
They're either lazy.
Or irresponsible.
Or criminal.
Or welfare cheats.
Etc., etc., etc.
And, rather than give aid as it's objectively needed, often in moments of real, acute emergency, such conservatives insist that the would-be recipients stop being all those awful things they're imagined to stereotypically, uniformly be.
Thus sparing the expenditure.
Which, all too often, is then used to fund rampant militarism or corporate giveaways.
Neither of which, you're ever going to convince me, Jesus would favor.
As much as I disagree with Rick and Bill Fold on their politics, I know I could sit down with them and reasonably find a compromise to just about any problem.
I can't see that happening with Dennis. In my mind he's as far left as the KKK is right.
a religion professed is not necessarily a religion followed. Islam may be as peaceful as it wishes but individual Muslims may not be all that peaceful themselves regardless of what they say their reasons were. Likewise, they may have elected Chavez but that doesn't mean they like him. Look at those he was running against. It may have been a case of the lesser of two, or more, evils. Also they may like him but feel that his policies need 'adjustment'.
The problem I see is that you all take things at face value and do not allow any leeway for mixed motives, hidden agendas, confusion, fraud, or the simple fact that all people are part bad, part good, and mostly middling.
We all have our problems. Problems never go away, they just change in kind. Needing money for the kids' college funds during your working life, will become needing money for your medical bills in retirement -but it all just boils down to needing money. Third World person needing money for food is just the same as a First World person needing money for food. The stage may be different but the play is the same.
Globalization is what has happened, like it or not - it is the reality. You can opt out but just remember that you cannot win unless you are in the game. Given the state of the Third World today and knowing their history, they must also share in any blame. Dennis's error is a kind of inverse hubris - we are to be blamed for all. Wrong. The US neither invented slavery nor were we ever really a big player in the game. Nationalizing industries built and funded by others does not make you too many friends. Hanging onto power by brutality and terrorism does not make for a profitable, prosperous, and viable society. Civil wars over really very little for 10, 15, 25, 50 years doesn't do anyone any good either. Leaders simply taking and not giving back to their countries leads only to corruption.
In many cases, these countries were doomed from the start since thye had no national identity but were still in tribal loyalty mode or steeped in a kind of feudalism. They may be stuck in history 'your gandfather killed mine so now I'll kill you' - that kind of Balkan thing. There comes a time when you just have to let it go.
So this gunowning liberal says take another look, guys. It may not be all that it seems.
Christian fundamentalism, tied to politically retrograde outlooks and a concerted, decidedly reactionary thwarting of "liberalism", is now dominant in the Third World.
Plus it's growing.
I see this as a potentially more destructive phenomenon than the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, which (obviously) has been given greater media attention.
The deep, worsening problems of majority humanity require heavy doses of progressive "medicine" -- science and enlightenment, especially including their political component -- not a backward mysticism.
With mullahs and ministers in the underdevloped world both competing to see who can be most outlandishly archaic, people needing the brave solutions of the future for things like basic survival...are going to hugely suffer.
. Third World person needing money for food is just the same as a First World person needing money for food.
rationalization brought on by guilt??
In the 3rd world there are very few support systems and the ability of the well fed to share is not only limited but also inadequate to go around to all the needy. In the Ist world if the well fed limit conspicuous consumption, there need not be anyone hungry. Hey - selling the 3rd hunting rifle in the rosewood gun cabinet may provide the Ist world hungry person with his meal.
Given the state of the Third World today and knowing their history, they must also share in any blame
will concede this only partially - remember often the history includes centuries of stifling of the thought process by rapacious Colonizers.
Hey - if the 3rd world lifts itself out of the cesspool it is sinking in and coups and tribal conflicts get settled, who will the arms merchants of the US sell their diabolical weapons to?? I do not want these arms ending up in my city streets with the street gangs - which it will since the NRA fiends postulate that a hand held bazooka is necessary for the well regulated Militia to protect the security of the free State!!
Christian fundamentalism, tied to politically retrograde outlooks and a concerted, decidedly reactionary thwarting of "liberalism", is now dominant
I see this as a potentially more destructive phenomenon than the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, which (obviously) has been given greater media attention.
You would see it that way. Remind me, when was the last time a Christian fundementalist flew a plane into a building ? They may be wacky but they aren't murdering people. But of course you see it as more of a threat, after your harsh and biggoted words that would offend millions of people. The difference between you and Lott ? Lott at least apologized.
Now, I readily admit I'm so full of caca that someone ought to call Stan the Septic Tank Man to Roto-Root my tooter.
But Rob, that self-styled paragon of "principle", goes too far in routinely trying to portray me as a communist, anti-Christian, baby-killing friend of Milosevic, Hussein and the Palestinian suicide bombers.
C'mon, dude.
There's only been a handful of folks THAT bad in all of human history.
Hitler.
Attila.
Hank Williams, Jr.
I'm a good and decent person.
All I want is justice, peace, and environmental protection.
Plus some way to pay medical bills now that my insurance company, CONSECO, went bankrupt.
As I reflect during this time of Advent, I wonder why the United States considers itself Christian.
The Bush administration continues to remind us that we are a Christian country, but it seems to me we are more like the great Roman Empire, headed down the same path of destruction from the inside rather than the outside. I ask myself the old question, "What would Jesus do?"
Would he give the Israeli government $14 billion each year to starve and isolate Palestinians? Would he support the military government of Colombia, which tortures and kills its own people? Would he bomb Afghanistan and leave the people without medical care and food to work things out for themselves? Would he pre-emptively strike Iraq, where it is estimated 50,000 civilians will die, not to say anything about military deaths? Would he call civilian deaths or injuries "collateral damage"? Would he spend the resources he had on violence rather than on feeding people, health care, education and meaningful work for the people he lived with?
I wonder where all the Christians went. Why isn't every Christian church and every Christian asking for new ways to deal with conflicts rather than retaliation and violence?
My challenge is to the Christians: on Christmas Day, ask the question, "Did Jesus really exist and did he show us a radically different way of living nonviolently?" If the answer is "yes," as Christians, our responsibility and obligation is to engage in only nonviolent acts.
you have missed the point "needing money for food" is the problem and that problem is the same regardless of the persons involved. Support systems didn't enter into the post at all. They are another kettle of fish entirely.
Quit blaming colonialism, which has been over and done with for 40 some odd years now, for all of the ills suffered by the 3rd or 4th World. It is an easy out very similar to 'she wore a short skirt'.This is not to say the the 1st World has done all that it could to help - it hasn't. But in many cases - which you must also acknowledge- the 1st World is damned if they and damned if they don't. All of which makes the 1st World very, very tired and disinclined to help at all any more.
Sorry Luv2Fly, but they, Christian fundamentalists, do kill people only not as often and not as many. Plus you have to remember its history as well.
As to who we will sell our weapons too, we have the neatest 'toys' and the industry advances constantly, much like computers, so you have to keep upgrading to stay in the game even if you never use the things.
Fundamentalism of ANY kind is wrong, wrong, wrong. Respect of the individual over society is what is needed.
Colonialism (and subsequent imperialism) may not be to blame for "all" of the Third World's ills, but the small percentage of blame that directly can't thusly be attributed...CAN be blamed on exactly the same selfishness, corruption, and general bad values that typify colonialism/imperialism.
But, in this case, practiced by native strongmen, oligarchs, out-and-out thieves, etc., who learned their disloyalty to their own people from the First World's rape of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Sorry Luv2Fly, but they, Christian fundamentalists, do kill people only not as often and not as many. Plus you have to remember its history as well.
You mean abortion clinc bombers. O.K I'd agree and they are wrong. Who else do they kill and can you point to examples of Christians who've killed in the name of their religion. Yea I know all about the crusades it was 500 years ago, I think we're past that. I'm sure there's a few cases perhaps but not on the scale we are seeing otherwise. What I'm tired of though is a demonization of it. We are so careful in this nation to say, hey' it's extremist Muslim's not mainstream. I agree with that and it should be pointed out. But apparently there's a double standard and people are free to talk baselessly make biggoted blanket statements about ones personal and private beliefs. Are their times or examples of people doing stupid things in the name of Christianity ? You bet. Morons like falwell don't speak for everyuone so adress them as they come up. But statements like Dennis has made would be and should be lambasted if any other religion or group's name been inserted instead of Christians. I'm tired frankly of the double standard.
England and Wales have the highest crime rate among the world's leading economies, according to a new report by the United Nations.
The survey . . . shows that people are more likely to be mugged, burgled, robbed or assaulted here than in America, Germany, Russia, South Africa or any other of the world's 20 largest nations. Only the Dominican Republic, New Zealand and Finland have higher crime rates than England and Wales.
According to the comparison of international crime statistics produced by the U.N.'s Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, England and Wales had 9,766 crimes for every 100,000 people in the year 2000. America had 8,517, South Africa 7,997, Germany 7,621 and Russia 2,022.
The U.N. report also shows that England and Wales are the second-worst places in the world for assaults, with 851 people assaulted per 100,000, and seventh for burglaries and car theft, with 1,579 burglaries per 100,000 population.
"New Zealand and Finland have higher crime rates than England and Wales." Hmmm Finland, a socialist utpoia,,,,,for criminals I guess.
Notice most of these nations have very strict gun control laws. Must be working well for them.
I wonder how much Finland's problems have to do with sharing a border with Russia, which cast of the "yoke of socialism" and opened the door to the capitalism whose main pracitioner is the mafia?
The study was done by the U.N. Of the other nations listed as well most have strict gun control. No matter what or whose numbers you look at, stricter gun laws have not been the pannacea in reducing crime rates.
Still, a lot of people get shot in this country, Murder rates are lower in other countries. In the industrialized world,there are safer places than the United States.
Is there is a direct attribution to crime rate and gun control? Or is this just an assumption you decided to make?
Well gee Rick, we keep hearing how we need tighter gun control laws. After every crime spree or horrid incident it's the first thing people call for. Look at hte nations that have flat out banned guns. Their crime rate has only increased since then so no Rick, it's not an assumption. Or maybe you hadn't heard that many people wish to get rid of guns.
Still, a lot of people get shot in this country, Murder rates are lower in other countries.
Yes they do and no I wouldn't deny it. What I'm saying is that tighter laws or banning them all together would most likely from all other nations experience not reduce that. There are other factors such as crime, gang activity, etc. etc. Pretty much every country so far that's tried it has not seen positive results. Murder rates didn't decrease in most cases as well in those countries. So the ratio of murders per capita stayed realitivly the same or increased in cases where they simply banned guns.
dennis, what color is the sky in the world whence you come? they use guns. just because guns are banned, doesn't make them impossible to acquire. always remember, when society bans guns, then the only people who will have them are the criminals, who will get their hands on them legal or not. they are, after all, criminals.
As if murders are only committed by those who use guns.
Come now, you know better than that.
Luv2Fly, no there aren't many but to say there were none was a mistake. And I do not classify the Crusades according to the latest revisionist mode. The Islamics took Jerusalem - OUR holy city, not thiers - and we tried to take it back. That's all that was. At that time Islam was doing its own conquering for empire thing. Talk about being 'imperialistic'.
It is true that those countries who have banned guns outright have experienced INCREASING crime rates. Not only of murder but also of robbery since criminals need no longer fear homeowners since he (its usually a guy) knows those homeowners are unarmed.
Guns by themselves do absolutely nothing. You also need ammo and the WILL to use it. For what ends you use it remains your choice. Rather than working on the implement end perhaps we should be working on the human end?
Respect of the individual for society is not quite as important as society's respect for the individual - if one person goes bad, you have just one person going bad; but if you have an entire society going bad, then you have monumental problems and NO ONE is safe.
am not
just a nice little 12 gauge
Holy Crap CSC. I've had cars smaller than that projectile ! You could pull a muscle just loading it !
What's happening in Venezuela is a travesty.
The Bush administration and reactionaries within Venezuela's upper classes have pulled out all stops in a blatant effort to overthrow Hugo Chavez, duly elected in a landslide.
We're seeing exactly the same "pots and pans" protests by well-dressed, affluent elements that were used to give an impression of popular upheaval against Allende in Chile, in 1973.
Back then it was Phelps-Dodge, Anaconda, and ITT orchestrating things for their selfish imperialist gain, unleashing Pinochet's murderous fascism on the Chilean people with unprecedented brutality.
Now its Big Oil, in cahoots with Caracas compradors, sabatoging an entire society and economy to generate "unrest" which their control of the media allows them to blame on Chavez.
But Chavez has the impassioned backing of Venezuela's majority poor.
He gave them the means to create their "Bolivaran Circles", which are arguably the most thoroughly and comprehensively democratic means of popular empowerment on the planet.
It was those Circles that thwarted the attempted coup in April, in which Washington was caught red-handed.
Because Bush needs Venezuelan oil for his
Iraq-and-assorted wars -- and because he wants to depose Chavez before "Lula" is inaugurated in Brazil (which would consolidate leftist electoral victories in Brazil, Venezuela and Equador into a regional progressivism intolerable to multinational-corporate interests) -- look for an all-out effort to seize power before mid January.
Don't trust anything in our establishment media, however. Back in April, the only info that proved to be correct came from Indy Media sources in Latin America, and from Cuba's Granma. Everyone else was simply reporting the plotters' official line.
To forestall the possibility of a repeat of Santiago, 9/11/73, Chavez ought to open up the nation's armories to workers and peasants.
Let the poor themselves directly defend what they've gained!
Yea Dennis looks like people are thrilled under their system. Civil riots and unrest are the sure sign of a happy populace,,ahhh the wonderful smell of socialism, the people can't get enough, that's why they are on the verge of civil war. You should hop on the phone and give em' a ringy and let em know just how good of a guy Chavez and socialism is.
That's right it's all Bush's fault. Thanks for the update.
From now on just please post problems in the world and add it's Bush's and America's fault to your tag line, it will save everyone including your time o.k That way you won't have to try so hard to link everything to oil, Bush or the right, or even the U.S in general we'll just assume you mean that since it always is the same punch line. Thanks.
Besides being politically reactionary, most gun-advocacy "nuts" are quite affluent, having money enough to buy not just several firearms but a whole host of material possessions.
The world's growing number of poor, however, are destitute. They can't buy squat.
That's because First World-benefitting colonialism robbed their nations of development prospects, a plunder that continues under monopoly capitalist "globalization".
I abhor violence.
I have an unblemished record of being known as "that peacenik" that extends back to the '60s.
But reality forces me to face facts.
Sooner or later, as multitudes needlessly starve across the planet, there will be a concerted, violent uprising against the predacious First World, monopoly capitalism, and all things associated with them, including Christianity, which has largely abandoned Jesus's justice advocacy and has simply become a holy pillar for globalization's piratical practices.
At some point, it'll become necessary to take sides.
Gun availability will then become a clearly class-based question.
Should just the rich, whose wealth has been essentially derived by impoverishing the planet's masses, be the only ones to have guns -- the better to quash rebellions by the victims of their selfishness and greed?
Or should the ones who ought to really have guns be the wretched of the earth, including race-and-class victimized, impoverished Americans, so that they can fight for the economic justice that's always been denied them?
"Frankie say, 'Arm the unemployed!'" -- Seen on a t-shirt
Shouldn't devotion to the Second Amendment include exactly (and especially) that, even if it means that armed mobs may one day show up at your pricey home, to swim in your pool, before turning your property into the setting for a people's clinic?
Allowing you to take up residence in the guest house.
As ye sow so shall ye reap.
Build your prosperity on the relentless exploitation and oppression of others (either through direct business conduct, stock ownership, or policy support)...and you can expect to have your whole, illegitimate world ultimately torn down.
To avoid that otherwise certain revolution, I say we should get down to some serious reform and making amends for our wrongs, now, while we still can.
Or do you actually think you can "outgun" enraged, retribution-seeking humanity?!
Good God man you've gone over the edge completely. Yes Dennis only the rich have guns. BTW you can buy a handgun down in Mexico for about $20.00 Hey what do you know I have $20.00 in my wallet, I'm rich,,wahooooo!
So now you're attacking Christianity. Hmmm, great, imagine if someone had posted that same sentence and inserted Islam, you'd go ballistic.
I guess we can now include biggot to your list of qualities along with being a super size hypocrite. You know zip about Christianity and in one sentence offended millions of people. I think you ought to resign that oh so prestigious post from liberalslant.com. Of course that would cut the number of hits to their website to 4 unless you count the real journalists who check the site in doing resaerch on wacky fringe groups.
Socialism sucks and it's failed and failing because of people exactly like you. Aside from all the trouble in Venezuala there was a story the other day of a man who escaped from Cuba by hanging on to the landing gear and making the trip to Canada in the wheel compartment. He was an airport worker and knew of the risks and took it anyway to get the hell out of their. He almost froze to death and he risked his life knowingly to leave socialism like so many do, well that is the ones who aren't imprisioned for speaking ill of Fidel and the ones who aren't well,... dead.
Someone should have told him that there's a guy in Superior WI who lives on the most prosperous nation on earth who has immense freedoms who thinks socialism's just nifty. I'm sure he would have seen the light then. If only someone would have told him about the kickass healthcare and education he wouldn't have almost died like thosands to leave that great socialist society, if he'd only read yellow times.
It's obvious you'd love a nice little revolution to start your oppression but first you need to get more than 200 people and some good ideas, then, just maybe you'd be able to defeat Barney Fife to take controll of a small town somewhere. You're dangerous Dennis in a disturbing way.
Rahkonen, why haven't you moved to the worker's paradise of Cuba?
We're seeing exactly the same "pots and pans" protests by well-dressed, affluent elements....
Which Socialist newspaper is telling you this? Over one million people marching in the streets against Chavez the other day.
Man whooda thunk their was 1 million affluent people in Venezuala ?
That and of course if they were affluent they'd probably be a bit more happy and not marching anyway. But man 1,000,000 people in the steet and Dennis is able to determine they are all affluent folks marcing in the streets, must be a sight to see.
Bush made em do it ;)
The thing to rememeber JT is that when affluent kids trash Seattle as they did, it's the beginning of a movement. When 1,000,000 people take to the street there's nothing to see.
BTW
I got a big ol' refund from the travel agency today, the Wife and I were going to take a cruise to all the socialist utopia's in the world. They only had 2 scheduled stops. One in Cuba but it cancelled due to the ship not being able to travel through Cuban waters. They were worried about running people over due to the high number of people trying to swim to get the hell out of there. The next stop on the itinerary was supposed to be Venezuala, it was cancelled as well due to the distinct possiblity of getting shot. It's all Bush and the media's fault.....Those bastards! We would of had fun too!
Post of the day:
The thing to rememeber JT is that when affluent kids trash Seattle as they did, it's the beginning of a movement. When 1,000,000 people take to the street there's nothing to see.
For folks who've consistently disparaged street protesters as being
the ridiculous and riff-raff, or worse, it's nice to see you now championing those rallying in Caracas.
Of course, it's understandable.
They're your "ilk".
Not Jesse Jackson's (Rob, you racist boob!), but your's.
Yep, they're socially irresponsible members of the upper classes, who're in a tizzy that Venezuelan society now expects some economic justice to be implemented...after they've built oligarchic privilege for themselves on the backs of the campesinos for generations.
It's okay for little kids to have to pick garbage dumps for food, I guess, but not right for those in the flush to give a little payback
to help alleviate poverty and suffering.
And don't blame Chavez or his followers (millions, who remain staunchly loyal) for Venezuela's problems. The same staggering inequities exist elsewhere in Latin America, Argentina for example, as a result of IMF-World Bank strictures and general capitalist decay.
In Venezuela, in addition, there's been a concerted effort to openly sabotage the economy by Chavez opponents -- to try to precipitate his ouster.
Venezuela's true sentiment isn't to be measured by those who arrive
at staged rallies, in designer clothes, in cars and buses from affluent suburbs.
It's to be found in the poor, workingclass barrios, the massive housing projects, and in the surrounding countryside.
There Chavez is regarded as God.
Christianity?
In the Third World especially, Christian missionaries are overwhelmingly tied to a fundamentalist/rightwing interpretation of
the Bible, openly associated with political conservatism.
Except for primarily Catholic progressives -- such as those who were
raped and murdered by the Contras in El Salvador and Nicaragua --
there aren't a whole lot of rebel Christians who are siding with
popular struggles for empowerment. Therein lies a big reason for militant Islam's growing appeal.
Socialism a failure? If that's so, how come the most
advanced countries on earth, with the highest standards of living, are those with the most socialized aspects to their make-up? Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc.
And why does Cuba, battered by a killing embargo, do so much better by its people -- especially in the key areas of health and education -- than all those "free" and "successful" hellholes of the underdeveloped world where capitalism reigns supreme? Haiti, for one.
Now, to get back to my point about guns:
Whether we're talking about the NRA's position on personal firearms
or Bush's military designs on the entire world, a common aspect comes clearly into view.
Conservatives, either as individuals or as the American nation, intend to keep guns and military dominance for THEMSELVES.
The right to bear arms, as a people's defense against repression, or as a foreign country's efforts to acquire weapons to protect itself from outside aggression...are simply being OBVIATED by the Right.
It defines as either "criminals", "terrorists" or "rogues" those who
pick up the gun, as the Black Panthers once did, or as foreign freedom fighters and nations asserting independence from Yankee dictate are currently doing.
Bush has very plainly stated, in his arrogant declaration of American military purpose, that we'll pre-emptively attack anyone who tries to arm, in conjunction with an assertive anti-American politics or maverick economic intentions.
In other words: "Obey. Or die."
Tell me that's what Jefferson and Paine were about!
This country, under decisive reactionary sway, is headed for the scrapheap of history.
You can't fuck over the whole world and not expect to share ancient Rome's ultimate fate.
You shouldn't be attacking me, and others pointing out the obvious.
You ought to be pressing for fundamental reforms now, to preclude otherwise inevitable, revolutionary developments later.
No we're not nessicarily championing them, it's just alot of fun to watch you step and fetchand contradict yourself at every trun.
Wow 1,000,000 people are our ilk. Cool man.
It's still funny how the mostly affluent kids rioting in Seattle were part of a growing movement and now 1,000,000 people in Caracas are "socially irresponsible" LOL Yea, sure Dennis use them as the cause djour dictates. Typical.
That means so much coming from you, a man who just painted an entire faith and millions of people with one huge biggoted brush. Ouch, mosquitoes in January. Say hi to Trent Lott and Bob Byrd for me, biggot.
You would know all about useless "staged" rallies. Funny how they are now staged and you point to the supposed millions of Chavez supporters. Try to remember that where you live.
Reminds me of someone else I know.
Man you must be desparate resorting to downright lies. Yea those bastard Christian missionaries trying to help people survive who live in horrid condidtions and take vows of poverty and try to feed and clothe the poor, those you claim to support and then piss all over those who actually do something instead of writing crap pieces for whacko websites. Oh one of the people out of the missionaries you just slandered was recently killed in the Philipines by exremists (notice extremits and not a whole faith like you just did) for their trouble. You must have forgotten them. They do very good works, they are peaceful and you just slandered them, and the rest of Christians. Keep diggin your hole biggot.
Because they have less and less people every year since people are willing to die to get out, you don't get it do you ? Oh yea, it's our fault I forgot.
Wow, I didn't know that, how cool, I didn't know they passed a law barring Democrats from getting guns.
There was one ? When have you ever let a thread topic get in the way of going on a rip ?
Caligula, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim il Sung, Chavez
Dennis, you were the one who raised the concept of "bad street protesters" subverting the Peoples Will, contrasted to "good street protesters" just doing what comes naturally.
Whatsoever, for any cause,
    Seeketh to take or give,
Power above or beyond the Laws,
    Suffer it not to live!
Holy State or Holy King—
    Or Holy People’s Will—
Have no truck with the senseless thing.
    Order the guns and kill! Macdonough’s Song
Man I didn't know ships crews were so.........affluent.
Hmm more affluent staged protest agianst the God Chavez.
Uh huh. Bye Bye........Back to guns.
When Jesus and the early Christian commun(al)ists preached compassion toward the poor, they didn't do so expecting that those wretched souls should first convert before being shown merciful aid.
Both spiritual and material.
No conditions were imposed on the uplifting help given.
Nor was there any harsh blamemongering, such as conservatives of today wield at the impoverished, for it was understood that "principalities and powers" conducting injustice were the sources of the meek's miseries.
And that the poor truly were helpless victims of the political and economic inequities by which the rich perpetually kept them in thrall.
Well, nothing has really changed.
If anything, monopoly capitalism generates even sharper, clearer distinctions between exploiting haves and oppressed have-nots,
with the latter being driven further from realistic possibilities
of either personal or even collective salvation as increasing control
over all aspects of their lives becomes more stringent.
That's why Jimmy, the Indian on the reservation, can't logically be expected to put down his bottle, so long as his environment remains one of a defacto colonialism in which a people stripped of their own land (dignity and opportunity, as well) continue to face a squalid existence where jobs and hope are pipedreams.
Yes, there are individual exceptions, but the mass truth endures. The constantly, systemically abused won't behave "properly" so long as improper power relationships leave them comprehensively disadvantaged.
Same goes for inner city ghetto populations of color. And white "bad kids" from the "wrong side of the tracks" enmeshed in unhealthy lifestyles.
You don't blame those who are chronically beset by class and racial discrimination, especially when you're of the class and race doing the discriminating.
AIDS?
Why is it that conservatives blame the victims? Do we blame victims of heart attack or cancer, even though those two diseases are often caused by unwise or "irresponsible"
choices in our personal lives?
Somebody gets sick from smoking or no exercise, where is the rightwing castigation? Absent. But when people get sick from the universal human activity of making love? "You reap what you sow. It's not my responsibility to help you out (meaning spending
a bit personally for a mass cure)."
That's decidedly an un-Christian outlook clung to with false piety by insufferably sanctimonious "believers" who wouldn't know Christ if he appeared before them as a down-an-out panhandler. "Get a job, freak!"
Even as job availability is determined by the capitalist "requirements" of a supposedly Christian nation mired in worsening, all-corrupting, Big Business selfishness
and greed.
Finally, pity the poor girl who finds herself pregnant, then seeks an abortion.
Well, actually there is nopity shown her, just blame, as the fetus is elevated to
"innocence" in direct proportion to her imagined, finger-pointedly condemned "sin".
Hypocrisy walks the land, like a shrouded, hulking ogre.
But nobody sees, except a sternly disapproving God, who'll have the last say.
At the pearly entry gates of Heaven.
Well, here's a rarity:
An accurate portrayal of Venezuelan reality in the U.S. establishment press:
CHAVEZ FOLLOWERS STAY LOYAL DESPITE VENEZUELA CRISIS
Clashes between supporters, critics rage in Caracas
By Mike Ceaser, Globe Correspondent, 12/17/2002
CARACAS - The neighborhood called January 23d has massive apartment blocks with faded, flaking paint, high unemployment, poverty, and violence - and tremendous support for President Hugo Chavez, on whose watch the lives of many residents have become more difficult.
''We are going to defend the constitution to the death,'' one speaker said during a press conference in the neighborhood last week by Chavez supporters who wore red berets and vowed to defend their leader's ''Bolivarian Revolution.''
Chavez's enduring popularity in spite of a plummeting economy, social strife, and spiraling inflation is one of the paradoxes of the phenomenon called ''Chavismo.''
It was Chavismo that fueled the eruption of public fury that swept the charismatic and confrontational president back into power after a group of military officers deposed him for two days in April in favor of a businessman-president.
Chavismo has also covered the capital's walls with pro- Chavez slogans and made videos and compact discs praising Chavez's bestsellers on the capital's sidewalks.
But Chavismo has also led to an equally passionate opposition, which has shut down the nation's vital petroleum industry for two weeks and plunged the nation into political and economic crisis in a bid to force Chavez to resign or call early elections.
Clashes between Chavez supporters and critics continued yesterday, as police fired rubber bullets and tear gas into buildings and streets of this capital city of about 6 million people. Chavez loyalists continued their attempts to break an opposition-led strike that has crippled the country.
For Chavez's predominantly poor supporters, their president's appeal stems from a feeling of involvement and a hope that this oil-rich nation's impoverished majority will finally receive a fair share of the country's wealth.
Susana Rodriguez, a community activist in the January 23d neighborhood, acknowledged that joblessness has increased under Chavez and now affects a third of the community's 60,000 residents. But she insists that living conditions have improved in less tangible ways: hospitals are better equipped and the police treat residents with more respect, Rodriguez said. She said that children learn ''better values'' in school and more of them can study because of Chavez's ban on school fees.
Rodriguez said residents have organized to manage their own neighborhood - all thanks to Chavismo. The neighborhood's political slant is indicated by its name, which commemorates the day in 1958 on which a military dictator, Marcos Perez Jimenez, was overthrown.
Another part of Chavez's appeal is cosmetic: the son of small-town schoolteachers, he looks and speaks like the great majority of Venezuelans, who are mestizos of mixed African, European, and indigenous descent.
Many attribute the country's ills to the president's enemies, in particular businessmen, whom they accuse of hoarding much of Venezuela's wealth. Underdevelopment, Chavez supporters argue, preceded the president and cannot be resolved overnight.
The Chavismo phenomenon has almost religious qualities. The president's most devoted followers plaster walls with Chavez's image and never leave home without a tiny blue copy of Venezuela's ''Bolivarian Constitution,'' which was amended in 2000 with Chavez-inspired proposals.
''We'll have to wait many years in order to reach that maximum of happiness,'' says Rodriguez. ''There are many obstacles to be overcome. We're working little by little.''
--Boston Globe
Let's see, now.
Venezuela has a duly elected president, who won by a landslide.
The United States has a "resident" who lost the popular vote and "won" through manipulation of like-minded reactionary cronies in Florida officialdom and on the Supreme Court
Venezuela has a constitution widely regrded as superior -- granting greater liberties and social guarantees -- than our own.
And Venezuela's poorest people are effectively organized into popular
councils (the Bolivarian Circles) that give them decisive control over key, everyday aspects of their existence.
In the United States, meanwhile, the poor have their hands nowhere near the levers of power.
And Bush has the audacity to dictate terms to Chavez and the Venezuelans!
If anything, THEY should be demanding early elections HERE.
(But, of course, only the Ugly American engages in such blatant interference in other countries' sovereign affairs.)
Yes the striking marine union workers who are suddenly affluent according to Dennis and love Hugo. Sure.
Dennis,
One last thing before I go. Your biggoted denigration of Christians and their missionaires is telling. You painted with such a pathetic brush that your statements are crudely offensive to millions of people. First of all yes their are fundamentalists who have the my way or the highway theory, they are in the minority. You correctly and quickly pointed out especially after 9-11 that Islam is a religion of peace and that not all Muslims are terrorists and theat their religion was being highjacked. I agreed with you then and now. So it's funny how you have no problem now doinbg the same you correctly dennounced others for because you see Christianity as somehow belonging to the right and feel free to make hateful statements. There are many sects of Christianity there are Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Medthodists, Evangelical, Non denominational or community etc etc. There are plenty of people within those sects that are a-political, left etc. All the mission work I've ever seen has never put a prerequisite on "converting" before they get help. It's a myth perpatrated by the ignorant. Christians and missionaries more specifically have and do wonderful things for people. The list of Christian charities that do these great things are endless and done for no other reason to be truly comitted to helping their fellow man. And you denigrated them all with your biggoted statements.
It's rare I share personal stories on here but I will in this case to show you how wrong you are. I don't talk about my beliefs much on here, they are a private matter I believe same with charity, it's something that should be left private. But I will tell you this, The works done by Christians throughout the world are awe inspiring and rewarding. You're wrong and your words are not only biggoted they are insulting, the same thing you decried Trent Lott for and rightly so are actions you yourself just committed, someone with honor would perhaps go back and read that and see it and apologize. I won't hold my breath.
For what it's worth, I sponsored two impoverished Third World kids through the Christian Children's Fund.
Back when I was still a teenager myself, working my first real job.
But, as I came to understand inequitable power realtionships in the developing countries, I also came to appreciate that such charity
was akin to "treating" cancer with a band-aid.
It's actually a cruel delusion, and a perpetuation of pervasive misery, to buy a few cups of rice for a handful of kids when systematic exploitation by the capitalist First World (plus indigenous oligrachs such as those pushing the "strike" in Venezuela) generates mass poverty on a sustained basis that could NEVER be offset by charity.
Empowerment of the destitute multitudes, on their terms, in accordance with their needs, is the ONLY solution.
That's something conservativism can never support, because
the bulk of profits that conservatives enjoy as businessmen and bankers, or stock holders, come precisely from the exploitative circumstances that leave millions underpayed, or unpayed.
And consequently desperately poor.
Yea so why bother eh Dennis.
Nevermind Dennis, your biggotry and ignorance of what really goes on are appearant. You show zero remorse from denegrating people who devote their life to helping others and making biggoted statements about a great religion that encompasses millions. Porobably never heard of Mother Theresa or Mary Jo Copeland either. Get out from behind your computer and actually do something instaed of siting on your perch. Go down to Playa Del Carmen and spend a week in the sun helping to build housing. Or a week down in the Dominican Repbulic helping families harvest crops, dig wells and building a school. Those people need help today, they can't wait for your socialistic pipe dreams to come true. In fact they need help the most in some of the socialist nations.
I'm done talking with you about it, forget it. You've exposed yourself and although your hypocrisy has always been apparent your bias and biggotry are now crystaline. What a fraud.
When I was talking about "conversion", Rob, I actually meant this:
Political leaders from the Right, who profess to be Christian, almost invariably see the poor in some prejudicial form or another.
They're either lazy.
Or irresponsible.
Or criminal.
Or welfare cheats.
Etc., etc., etc.
And, rather than give aid as it's objectively needed, often
in moments of real, acute emergency, such conservatives insist
that the would-be recipients stop being all those awful things they're imagined to stereotypically, uniformly be.
Thus sparing the expenditure.
Which, all too often, is then used to fund rampant militarism or
corporate giveaways.
Neither of which, you're ever going to convince me, Jesus would favor.
As much as I disagree with Rick and Bill Fold on their politics, I know I could sit down with them and reasonably find a compromise to just about any problem.
I can't see that happening with Dennis. In my mind he's as far left as the KKK is right.
Dennis is just confused
a religion professed is not necessarily a religion followed. Islam may be as peaceful as it wishes but individual Muslims may not be all that peaceful themselves regardless of what they say their reasons were. Likewise, they may have elected Chavez but that doesn't mean they like him. Look at those he was running against. It may have been a case of the lesser of two, or more, evils. Also they may like him but feel that his policies need 'adjustment'.
The problem I see is that you all take things at face value and do not allow any leeway for mixed motives, hidden agendas, confusion, fraud, or the simple fact that all people are part bad, part good, and mostly middling.
We all have our problems. Problems never go away, they just change in kind. Needing money for the kids' college funds during your working life, will become needing money for your medical bills in retirement -but it all just boils down to needing money. Third World person needing money for food is just the same as a First World person needing money for food. The stage may be different but the play is the same.
Globalization is what has happened, like it or not - it is the reality. You can opt out but just remember that you cannot win unless you are in the game. Given the state of the Third World today and knowing their history, they must also share in any blame. Dennis's error is a kind of inverse hubris - we are to be blamed for all. Wrong. The US neither invented slavery nor were we ever really a big player in the game. Nationalizing industries built and funded by others does not make you too many friends. Hanging onto power by brutality and terrorism does not make for a profitable, prosperous, and viable society. Civil wars over really very little for 10, 15, 25, 50 years doesn't do anyone any good either. Leaders simply taking and not giving back to their countries leads only to corruption.
In many cases, these countries were doomed from the start since thye had no national identity but were still in tribal loyalty mode or steeped in a kind of feudalism. They may be stuck in history 'your gandfather killed mine so now I'll kill you' - that kind of Balkan thing. There comes a time when you just have to let it go.
So this gunowning liberal says take another look, guys. It may not be all that it seems.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/10/jenkins.htm
Christian fundamentalism, tied to politically retrograde outlooks and a concerted, decidedly reactionary thwarting of "liberalism", is now dominant in the Third World.
Plus it's growing.
I see this as a potentially more destructive phenomenon than the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, which (obviously) has been given greater media attention.
The deep, worsening problems of majority humanity require heavy doses
of progressive "medicine" -- science and enlightenment, especially including their political component -- not a backward mysticism.
With mullahs and ministers in the underdevloped world both competing
to see who can be most outlandishly archaic, people needing the brave solutions of the future for things like basic survival...are going to
hugely suffer.
. Third World person needing money for food is just the same as a First World person needing money for food.
rationalization brought on by guilt??
In the 3rd world there are very few support systems and the ability of the well fed to share is not only limited but also inadequate to go around to all the needy. In the Ist world if the well fed limit conspicuous consumption, there need not be anyone hungry. Hey - selling the 3rd hunting rifle in the rosewood gun cabinet may provide the Ist world hungry person with his meal.
Given the state of the Third World today and knowing their history, they must also share in any blame
will concede this only partially - remember often the history includes centuries of stifling of the thought process by rapacious Colonizers.
Hey - if the 3rd world lifts itself out of the cesspool it is sinking in and coups and tribal conflicts get settled, who will the arms merchants of the US sell their diabolical weapons to?? I do not want these arms ending up in my city streets with the street gangs - which it will since the NRA fiends postulate that a hand held bazooka is necessary for the well regulated Militia to protect the security of the free State!!
You would see it that way. Remind me, when was the last time a Christian fundementalist flew a plane into a building ? They may be wacky but they aren't murdering people. But of course you see it as more of a threat, after your harsh and biggoted words that would offend millions of people. The difference between you and Lott ? Lott at least apologized.
Kit,
Good post by the way, good stuff, even if you're a liberal ;) Well said.
Now, I readily admit I'm so full of caca that someone ought to call Stan the Septic Tank Man to Roto-Root my tooter.
But Rob, that self-styled paragon of "principle", goes too far in routinely trying to portray me as a communist, anti-Christian, baby-killing friend of Milosevic, Hussein and the Palestinian suicide bombers.
C'mon, dude.
There's only been a handful of folks THAT bad in all of human history.
Hitler.
Attila.
Hank Williams, Jr.
I'm a good and decent person.
All I want is justice, peace, and environmental protection.
Plus some way to pay medical bills now that my insurance company, CONSECO, went bankrupt.
I guess you'll equate the author of the following
letter with Trent Lott, too...
CHRISTIANS HAVE JOB TO OPPOSE WAR
As I reflect during this time of Advent, I wonder why the United States considers itself Christian.
The Bush administration continues to remind us that we are a Christian country, but it seems to me we are more like the great Roman Empire, headed down the same path of destruction from the inside rather than the outside. I ask myself the old question, "What would Jesus do?"
Would he give the Israeli government $14 billion each year to starve and isolate Palestinians? Would he support the military government of Colombia, which tortures and kills its own people? Would he bomb Afghanistan and leave the people without medical care and food to work things out for themselves? Would he pre-emptively strike Iraq, where it is estimated 50,000 civilians will die, not to say anything about military deaths? Would he call civilian deaths or injuries "collateral damage"? Would he spend the resources he had on violence rather than on feeding people, health care, education and meaningful work for the people he lived with?
I wonder where all the Christians went. Why isn't every Christian church and every Christian asking for new ways to deal with conflicts rather than retaliation and violence?
My challenge is to the Christians: on Christmas Day, ask the question, "Did Jesus really exist and did he show us a radically different way of living nonviolently?" If the answer is "yes," as Christians, our responsibility and obligation is to engage in only nonviolent acts.
--GAY TRACHSEL, DULUTH (News Tribune letter)
Naradar
you have missed the point "needing money for food" is the problem and that problem is the same regardless of the persons involved. Support systems didn't enter into the post at all. They are another kettle of fish entirely.
Quit blaming colonialism, which has been over and done with for 40 some odd years now, for all of the ills suffered by the 3rd or 4th World. It is an easy out very similar to 'she wore a short skirt'.This is not to say the the 1st World has done all that it could to help - it hasn't. But in many cases - which you must also acknowledge- the 1st World is damned if they and damned if they don't. All of which makes the 1st World very, very tired and disinclined to help at all any more.
Sorry Luv2Fly, but they, Christian fundamentalists, do kill people only not as often and not as many. Plus you have to remember its history as well.
As to who we will sell our weapons too, we have the neatest 'toys' and the industry advances constantly, much like computers, so you have to keep upgrading to stay in the game even if you never use the things.
Fundamentalism of ANY kind is wrong, wrong, wrong. Respect of the individual over society is what is needed.
Respect of the individual for the society is what is needed.
Colonialism (and subsequent imperialism) may not be to blame for "all" of the Third World's ills, but the small percentage of blame that directly can't thusly be attributed...CAN be blamed on exactly the same selfishness, corruption, and general bad values that typify
colonialism/imperialism.
But, in this case, practiced by native strongmen, oligarchs, out-and-out thieves, etc., who learned their disloyalty to their own people
from the First World's rape of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Kit,
You mean abortion clinc bombers. O.K I'd agree and they are wrong. Who else do they kill and can you point to examples of Christians who've killed in the name of their religion. Yea I know all about the crusades it was 500 years ago, I think we're past that. I'm sure there's a few cases perhaps but not on the scale we are seeing otherwise. What I'm tired of though is a demonization of it. We are so careful in this nation to say, hey' it's extremist Muslim's not mainstream. I agree with that and it should be pointed out. But apparently there's a double standard and people are free to talk baselessly make biggoted blanket statements about ones personal and private beliefs. Are their times or examples of people doing stupid things in the name of Christianity ? You bet. Morons like falwell don't speak for everyuone so adress them as they come up. But statements like Dennis has made would be and should be lambasted if any other religion or group's name been inserted instead of Christians. I'm tired frankly of the double standard.
Gun contol is working......For the criminals.
"New Zealand and Finland have higher crime rates than England and Wales." Hmmm Finland, a socialist utpoia,,,,,for criminals I guess.
Notice most of these nations have very strict gun control laws. Must be working well for them.
I wonder how much Finland's problems have to do with sharing a border with Russia, which cast of the "yoke of socialism" and opened the door to the capitalism whose main pracitioner is the mafia?
Here's the State Department's take.An opinion I generally trust. They say it's not as bad as the United States.
"Notice most of these nations have very strict gun control laws. Must be working well for them. "
Is there is a direct attribution to crime rate and gun control? Or is this just an assumption you decided to make?
I don't know Rick,
The study was done by the U.N. Of the other nations listed as well most have strict gun control. No matter what or whose numbers you look at, stricter gun laws have not been the pannacea in reducing crime rates.
Of course it's not a panacea.
Still, a lot of people get shot in this country, Murder rates are lower in other countries. In the industrialized world,there are safer places than the United States.
Deny it if you want. But that's the way it is.
Well gee Rick, we keep hearing how we need tighter gun control laws. After every crime spree or horrid incident it's the first thing people call for. Look at hte nations that have flat out banned guns. Their crime rate has only increased since then so no Rick, it's not an assumption. Or maybe you hadn't heard that many people wish to get rid of guns.
"Or maybe you hadn't heard that many people wish to get rid of guns. "
Who would that be?
Rick,
Yes they do and no I wouldn't deny it. What I'm saying is that tighter laws or banning them all together would most likely from all other nations experience not reduce that. There are other factors such as crime, gang activity, etc. etc. Pretty much every country so far that's tried it has not seen positive results. Murder rates didn't decrease in most cases as well in those countries. So the ratio of murders per capita stayed realitivly the same or increased in cases where they simply banned guns.
Or maybe you hadn't heard that many people wish to get rid of guns. "
I'm only hoping you're kidding.
Indulge me.
Does any nation have a higher murder rate, by gun, than the U.S.?
If not, then wouldn't it follow that guns ALLOW for that murder rate?
I mean, what do people off each other with in gun-banned countries?
(I'm envisioning a frantic death duel between two crazed guys brandishing broken wine bottles with jagged edges.)
dennis, what color is the sky in the world whence you come? they use guns. just because guns are banned, doesn't make them impossible to acquire. always remember, when society bans guns, then the only people who will have them are the criminals, who will get their hands on them legal or not. they are, after all, criminals.
Any good machinist can make a gun.
Who would that be?
Liberal extremists.
As if murders are only committed by those who use guns.
Come now, you know better than that.
Luv2Fly, no there aren't many but to say there were none was a mistake. And I do not classify the Crusades according to the latest revisionist mode. The Islamics took Jerusalem - OUR holy city, not thiers - and we tried to take it back. That's all that was. At that time Islam was doing its own conquering for empire thing. Talk about being 'imperialistic'.
It is true that those countries who have banned guns outright have experienced INCREASING crime rates. Not only of murder but also of robbery since criminals need no longer fear homeowners since he (its usually a guy) knows those homeowners are unarmed.
Guns by themselves do absolutely nothing. You also need ammo and the WILL to use it. For what ends you use it remains your choice. Rather than working on the implement end perhaps we should be working on the human end?
Almost forgot
Respect of the individual for society is not quite as important as society's respect for the individual - if one person goes bad, you have just one person going bad; but if you have an entire society going bad, then you have monumental problems and NO ONE is safe.