So, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez came to the UN last week and did some speechifying. And it seems every single American, of every political stripe, is attacking him for what he said. Fine. He’s paranoid, self-important, hypocritical and over the top. He thinks he’s Fidel Jr. But does that mean we can’t say that we agree with a lot of what he says? Do we have to say that when you come to America you have to respect America, and respecting America requires respecting America’s leaders? Feh.
Here’s some of his speech. If you want, you can read the whole thing at Common Dreams.
The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads.
I don’t have to be crazy to agree with that, do I? The point can be taken from the perspective of economics, ecology, or war, and it’s perfectly valid.
Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.
I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday’s statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.
How can we not view Bush’s policy as imperialistic? He genuinely believes that, through the use of sheer military force, the United States can reshape the world. If this policy were permitted to continue (assuming it was possible) it wouldn’t surprise me if, in some cases, this turned out ok in some ways for the people whose nations got “fixed”. Remember the scene from Life of Brian?
REG:
They’ve bled us white, the bastards. They’ve taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers’ fathers.
LORETTA:
And from our fathers’ fathers’ fathers.
REG:
Yeah.
LORETTA:
And from our fathers’ fathers’ fathers’ fathers.
REG:
Yeah. All right, Stan. Don’t labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!
XERXES:
The aqueduct?
REG:
What?
XERXES:
The aqueduct.
REG:
Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that’s true. Yeah.
COMMANDO #3:
And the sanitation.
LORETTA:
Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?
REG:
Yeah. All right. I’ll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.
MATTHIAS:
And the roads.
REG:
Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don’t they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads–
COMMANDO:
Irrigation.
XERXES:
Medicine.
COMMANDOS:
Huh? Heh? Huh…
COMMANDO #2:
Education.
COMMANDOS:
Ohh…
REG:
Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
COMMANDO #1:
And the wine.
COMMANDOS:
Oh, yes. Yeah…
FRANCIS:
Yeah. Yeah, that’s something we’d really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.
COMMANDO:
Public baths.
LORETTA:
And it’s safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
FRANCIS:
Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let’s face it. They’re the only ones who could in a place like this.
COMMANDOS:
Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.
REG:
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
XERXES:
Brought peace.
REG:
Oh. Peace? Shut up!
Whether the lives of the people are improved (no matter who decides that) is not the question. The fact that more people are dying and being tortured in Iraq now than before they were “freed” isn’t really the point. Even if Bush’s policies were successful, they’d still be imperialist.
As Chomsky says here, clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.
The world parent’s statement — cynical, hypocritical, full of this imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything.
They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that’s their democratic model. It’s the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that’s imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons.
What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.
What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?
The answer is the kind of democracy espoused by the signers of the Project for the New American Century:
- Elliott Abrams
- Gary Bauer
- William J. Bennett
- Jeb Bush
- Dick Cheney
- Eliot A. Cohen
- Midge Decter
- Paula Dobriansky
- Steve Forbes
- Aaron Friedberg
- Francis Fukuyama
- Frank Gaffney
- Fred C. Ikle
- Donald Kagan
- Zalmay Khalilzad
- I. Lewis Libby
- Norman Podhoretz
- Dan Quayle
- Peter W. Rodman
- Stephen P. Rosen
- Henry S. Rowen
- Donald Rumsfeld
- Vin Weber
- George Weigel
- Paul Wolfowitz
In their Statement of Principles, they wrote
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
…
The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
- we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
- we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
- we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
- we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Back to Chavez…
The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I’m quoting, “Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom.”
Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother — he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there’s an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.
The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It’s not that we are extremists. It’s that the world is waking up. It’s waking up all over. And people are standing up.
I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.
Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the empire, against the model of domination.
The president then — and this he said himself, he said: “I have come to speak directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that my country wants peace.”
That’s true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They’ll say yes.
But the government doesn’t want peace. The government of the United States doesn’t want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.
It wants peace. But what’s happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon? In Palestine? What’s happening? What’s happened over the last 100 years in Latin America and in the world? And now threatening Venezuela — new threats against Venezuela, against Iran?
He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly. The bombs in Beirut with millimetric precision?
This is crossfire? He’s thinking of a western, when people would shoot from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.
This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened. And now we hear, “We’re suffering because we see homes destroyed.’
The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples — to the peoples of the world. He came to say — I brought some documents with me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly.
And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?
And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, “Yankee imperialist, go home.” I think that is what those people would say if they were given the microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American imperialists.
Bush sees everything in black and white, and he’s forcing the rest of the world, most of whom understand that the world is a bit more complex than that, to deal with his world view. I saw Reza Aslan on the eye of hell a few days ago saying that when Bush says “You’re either with us or against us — with me or with the terrorists,” moderate muslims think, “Well, I’m sure not with you.”
Over and above all of this, Madam President, I think there are reasons to be optimistic. A poet would have said “helplessly optimistic,” because over and above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the preventive war and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a new era is dawning.
As Silvio Rodriguez says, the era is giving birth to a heart. There are alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think differently. And this has already been seen within the space of a mere decade. It was shown that the end of history was a totally false assumption, and the same was shown about Pax Americana and the establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has been shown, this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?
What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is breaking out all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin America and Oceanea. I want to emphasize that optimistic vision.
Sorry. This isn’t crazy talk. Bush is alienating everyone: our long-term allies, our allies of convenience, our traditional enemies, and our enemies of convenience. The whole world is not just losing faith in America; they’re losing patience.
No tags for this post.
How does “all new” differ from simply “new”? On the eye of hell, there’s the occasional clip episode, in which the characters, stuck together in one place for one reason or another (snowed in, car broke down, nuclear holocaust) reminisce about all the fun ‘n’ special times they’ve had together. So they shoot a couple of scenes which serve to introduce clips from previous episodes. I suppose you could say that’s new, but not all new.
So… he’s Larry the Cable Guy — Health Inspector. He has two jobs, right? The film is about America’s struggling working class, trying to make ends meet. No?
Established in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, religious liberty — the right of individuals to worship or not — was and is a defining American value. Often referred to as the “first freedom,” this constitutionally guaranteed right is the foundation for the separation of church and state. This separation protects us from undue religious influence in government and undue government intervention in religion and private decision-making. We recognize that the wall separating government and religion is being eroded, and so is our right to make personal decisions.
Apparently, the reverse is possible, though. The 
Sometimes the connection between the image and that which it represents is pretty direct. The logo that represents la Vache qui Rit, for example, is… la vache qui rit. She’s a cow. She’s laughing. I understand it’s not zoologically accurate (in addition to the fact that I don’t think cows come in red, I remember reading somewhere, long ago, that only humans and chimpanzees laugh), but if you understand the words you can see them in the image.
and we think “NBC” or “the NBC peacock.”
The question is, while the logo represents the company, and the letters represent the name of the company, does the logo… can the logo represent the letters that represent the name of the company? In other words (so to speak), does 
mean “NBC.com”? Does it mean “the website of NBC”? Can the National Broadcasting Company ditch the initials of its name and just use that picture? And for those that remember, would that stupid ugly gigantic N they used briefly during the 70s with a “.com” next to it also mean “NBC.com”? Would it mean “N.com,” or maybe “stupiduglygiganticn.com”?
…and I like to think that I am. Today I had to venture outside of my precious hovel to go to an appointment, and I observed some very interesting things. No, I did not see the cat detector van from the 
I’ve mentioned 
On this 
