web posted March 28, 2005
Re: Mexico's Fox is not going to force-feed us his workers by Carol Devine-Molin (March 21, 2005)
Having read, Mexico's Fox is not going to force-feed us his workers by Carol Devine-Molin one has to wonder what's going on?
In my opinion, the handwriting is on the wall. Now Fox wants to open his oil to private investment, i.e, Bush! Now I bet Bush will use this carrot to bolster his guest worker program and our government leaders will buy into the scam blaming our need for cheaper oil. Rove, Bush and Fox must have been working overtime to come up with this jewel, yet another deceptive plan to trade millions of illegal immigrants for oil and allow the invasion of America to continue.
Once again, Americans won't really own anything in Mexico just like the land leases but Mexico will welcome the investment dollars coming in. And no doubt Mexico will reserve the right to pull the plug any time they choose.
After all, Mexico is a proud, free and sovereign nation, right?
Re: The case against Chavez by Ryan Thompson (March 21, 2005)
Regarding that piece of hate written by Mr. Thomas, I must ask for the right to reply and deny some of the affirmations that appeared in your publication.
The first lie is the affirmation that Chavez is undermining democratic process in Venezuela, Mr. Thompson prefers to refers to eight democratic processes won by Chavez over the last years as fake elections. You say in your manifesto:
"We believe in real freedom. The freedom to be let alone by those who feel it is their right to impose their will on you. Who are they?....."
Well, I have news for you guys, that's exactly what Chavez wants so we are not that different. We want to decide by ourselves, we do not want USA (America is a continent not a country) or more specifically the current administration of USA deciding for us, and now it seems that Mr. Thompson feels that he has the right to tell Venezuelans what is good or not for them to do forgetting about another beautiful piece of your manifesto:
"We cannot proclaim ourselves champions of individuals liberties and then oppose certain liberties that we do not like. Give people back their right to succeed...and fail."
If we fail, at least we tried something different because following instructions from others did not pay any benefits to Venezuela and, it is our right to do so, isn't it?
About the oil supply to USA, Venezuela has the right to sell its products at the market price (I imagine you are aware of the supply and demand law which is basic in managerial economy) and, of course, to whom Venezuela decide. The "bluffing" that Mr. Thompson mention is not so, if USA insist on interfering with internal affairs in Venezuela (including invasion or assassination of the president) the oil will go somewhere else. Is simple, USA government does not want anything going to Cuba because they do not like Cuba's behaviour so, it is the same from Venezuelan president, the difference? Oil is a property of the State in Venezuela while entrepreneurs in USA cannot do business with Cuba because of interference from their government, isn't that against your manifesto?:
"The government must get out of the business of subsidies, regulation and interference... it is morally wrong for a government to use that monopoly of force to take production from individuals."
Mr. Thompson is obviously ignoring the fact that Venezuelan government is looking forward to increase oil production in order to satisfy not only USA needs but that of France, China and India which are Venezuela's clients also. If there is no increasing in oil production right now is because there is no reason for that. The price we all are paying is mostly due to speculation in New York, have you heard about shortage of oil somewhere in the planet? so, I suggest to look elsewhere to find the responsible for oil prices.
On the rearmament program that Mr. Thompson mention, let me clarify that it was USA who caused instability in the region. Colombia has been receiving about two billion dollars a year for a while and around 80% of that money goes to armament without any result up to now, that story about the FARC on the run is not more than that, a story like that of Iraqis resistance running also. Even considering that as a fact, every single country near Colombia has the right to protect its citizens from any external aggression as you very well explained in your manifesto. Where do you think the FARC members are going to flee? Venezuela, Brazil, Equator, Panama and Peru. Brazil government already ordered to fire on any airplane that does not identify, Venezuela's government has seized more drugs during a year than the previous governments together and Mr. Thompson's accusation about Chavez aiding insurgent groups in Colombia has to be proved, otherwise, it is just a comment from somebody that is not happy with Chavez and as many others use the defamation as propaganda. The main problem here is that Chavez is not blindly following what Washington says and, we go back to the first paragraph, why should Chavez do what USA's government wants?
Another distortion is that of Chavez being USA's enemy. It seems so hard to understand that all what we want is respect for our owns decisions. It was not Chavez who was after Bush for problems, the relations with Clinton's administration were very normal and based on mutual respect between two nations that have been friends for long, long time.
Who Chavez is friend with is his right to decide also and, here there are some clarifications to do.
1- Chavez is not the first Venezuelan president that have kept a friendly relationship with Fidel Castro. Look back at 1989 when CAP was taking power in Venezuela and check who was the honour guest, none other than Fidel Castro himself. I do not think you are going to say that CAP is communist or USA's enemy, are you?
2- The claim that USA's government has something to do with the overthrow of Chavez government is more that proved, does Mr. Thompson have proof of Venezuelan Government encouraging the drug traffic toward USA or is just another delirious affirmation?.
3- The antagonism from Chavez is not toward USA as a whole, is just toward its administration for the reasons mentioned above.
4- As my contribution to dissipate Mr. Thompson ignorance on this matter, let me clarify that the 2000 visit that Chavez paid to Saddam Hussein was within the frame of the OPEC. Venezuela, Iraq and Iran have been associated for so long as OPEC members that it sound ridiculous to call this a terrorist association against freedom. About the terrorist enemies of USA, it seems Mr. Thompson is not aware that his government lied about the mass destruction arms in Iraq and will very well do so about Iran or any other country with petroleum, Venezuela perhaps? If these countries are terrorist why not Saudi Arabia which not only is OPEC member but Arab and Muslim and USA's seems to understand that fact as synonymous of terrorist.
Mr. Thompson even ask for a military intervention of USA in Venezuela to get rid of a president elected and confirmed by Venezuela's people. How do we call this? Do what I say not what I do? We are talking about freedom and this gentleman decided that Chavez is not good so USA has to get rid of him? Who is Mr. Thompson to decide for Venezuela's people?
web posted March 14, 2005
Re: Sweeping aside the heteronormative -- and marriage? by W. James Antle III (March 7, 2005)
I enjoyed Mr. Antle's article about the horrifying lapse of decorum recently exhibited by notoriously heterosexual actress Jada Pinkett-Smith on Haavaad Yaad. The utterly outrageous notion that a career-woman, after shamelessly marrying a person of the opposite sex, and bearing children would display a predilection to viewing herself, her life and her success from her own perspective is so insensitive to the sensibilities of the devionormative community as to preclude any future consideration as a speaker at any S&M, necrophilia or albino-trapeze-porno convocations.
Okay honestly I'm so heteronormative I don't know when to throw out underwear without prompting, but this scenario is so preposterous I can barely stretch my cynicism around it. It raises a few questions of course...
1) If you have to make up a new form of moral outrage, can you really be that offended ? hetero-whassit ?
2) Do all transgender candidates go through all the psychological vetting, month after month of pre-operative hormone therapy, and the most invasive surgery I've ever had the discomfort to contemplate, just to become gay??? Do none of them want, (once they become the woman or man they believe themselves to be inside), to become or be married to, a successful wife, mother, career-woman? Or has the G.L.BS. & TGA actually made some sort of exclusionary violation to their own membership themselves?
3) Does bandying about psychodrivel ever get anyone anything beyond the perpetuation of victimhood ? If it's so essential that the world embrace every quirk, kink and aberrant practice that can be introduced, why not work within the system? I'll bet not one of the members of the minority dissent here undertook to get on the booking committee to get a proper circus-freak-of-choice and direct the manner in which their student activity fees were spent (of course I could be wrong here.It's fairly likely that when that was being discussed a pretty girl may've wondered by, distracting me).
Thanks for your ongoing effort to evaluate these issues (of the various weights and value they represent).
web posted March 7, 2005
Re: Of acres and bears by Alan Caruba (February 28, 2005)
Just want to say "Good job". Loved the article. I am also a NJ resident.