Comments on: Sheehan & Chavez http://www.thetalentshow.org/2007/05/29/sheehan-chavez/ Just another WordPress weblog Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:16:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: me http://www.thetalentshow.org/2007/05/29/sheehan-chavez/#comment-12922 me Thu, 31 May 2007 13:03:43 +0000 http://www.thetalentshow.org/2007/05/29/sheehan-chavez/#comment-12922 Doobie, you're right. In terms of media management it was a mistake. But where do you stand morally? Or do you condemn her just for making the mistake? If so, don't you think that's fickle and judgemental? Doobie, you’re right. In terms of media management it was a mistake. But where do you stand morally? Or do you condemn her just for making the mistake? If so, don’t you think that’s fickle and judgemental?

]]> By: Doobie http://www.thetalentshow.org/2007/05/29/sheehan-chavez/#comment-12917 Doobie Thu, 31 May 2007 05:05:20 +0000 http://www.thetalentshow.org/2007/05/29/sheehan-chavez/#comment-12917 Sheehan made a huge blunder by meeting and schmoozing with Chavez. To your average American who knows about her--but not about all of these finer points--she's the modern-day equivalent of Hanoi Jane. She lost her focus. People started to wonder what the hell she stood for. It was almost as though her son--a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq--had become an afterthought. Sheehan made a huge blunder by meeting and schmoozing with Chavez. To your average American who knows about her–but not about all of these finer points–she’s the modern-day equivalent of Hanoi Jane.

She lost her focus. People started to wonder what the hell she stood for. It was almost as though her son–a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq–had become an afterthought.

]]> By: Bob http://www.thetalentshow.org/2007/05/29/sheehan-chavez/#comment-12910 Bob Wed, 30 May 2007 17:50:43 +0000 http://www.thetalentshow.org/2007/05/29/sheehan-chavez/#comment-12910 Sheehan's point was valid then and it's only increased in validity since. She wasn't saying Chavez is anybody's sweetheart and no leftist should be naive enough to expect him to be. She was, however, pointing out the ugly truth that there is no negative activity in which Hugo Chavez has engaged as a "repressive dictator" that George W. Bush hasn't also indulged himself in *his* role of "Leader of the Free World" and that it was the differences that shamed a great nation. Rule by decree? Mr. Bush has had a de facto rule by decree since he was first "elected". This regime has done just what it pleased in the face of huge public disapproval time and again. If they couldn't get their way through fear-mongering, lies and intimidation, they simply went ahead and did it anyway. Americans "sent a message" in the last election -- Mr. Bush vetoed it and got his approprations bill. Stacking the courts? Can any American really want to start throwing stones at *that* glass house? Same goes for posting Human Rights Watch statements. The USA has a link all it's own on the site's sidebar. Sadly, my nation does not because we are not important enough, but our record of shame can be found with a search http://search.hrw.org/search?btnG=Google%2BSearch&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date_3AD_3AL_3Ad1&client=hrw_frontend&num=10&proxystylesheet=hrw_frontend&oe=UTF-8&site=default_collection&ie=UTF-8&q=Canada&GO.x=30&GO.y=11 Nationalized petroleum industry? Horror of horrors! Allowing the people who actually *live* in a country to benefit from that country's resource base? Madness. Every good economist knows that petro-dollars flow one way -- AWAY from the people into the pockets of the deserving few. Take the banks out of the World Bank and the I.M.F.? Again, madness! The benefits of these agencies to third world prosperity is clear from the record. If this idea catches on, before we know it there might not *be* a Third World anymore and then where will we be? The T.V. station was not "shut down". It was refused renewal of a license 5 years after the coup. Any real "oppressive dictator" would have marched those troops in the next morning after regaining control; first thing, 7 a.m. Now check the FCC record on granting and renewing broadcasting licenses; specifically to leftist media. Better still, ask the boys at Al Jazeera. The Bagdhad office. Now I'm going to be tiresome and raise a spectre. Imagine what would happen in the good ol' U.S. of A. if armed insurrectionists had taken control of the White House for any period of time with the collusion of any media network. Look at how many rights, liberties and freedoms your government has taken away in the last few years just from two planes hitting two buildings. Bill Maher was taken off the air for saying that that took a certain amount of resolve. Given all these similarities between the Chavez and Bush administrations, providing free medical care, and fighting poverty in real, tangible ways should give food for thought to everybody; particularly those of us who *call* ourselves leftist. Instead, we take these things and set them aside as a given and allow the debate to focus on the negative. When this first happened I bashed your TMW bashing of Sheenan (http://thismodernworld.com/2666#comment-1165) I see no reason to change my opinion today. The "leftists" who seek to distance themselves from Ms. Sheenan for her "bad judgement" are actually more worried about defending themselves from Republican/rightwing attack dogs. Figures like Chavez and Castro are tough to defend because they test our beliefs. It's much easier and safer to push the whole thing aside, particularly with elections in the wind. The question is, do you believe in the things you post or not? Poverty, peace, universal medical, etc. Are these things worth working for? Or is it just talk designed to get Democrats elected? Is it worth seeing within context strongarm tactics which are analogous or identical to crimes committed by your own government, to say nothing about ignored atrocities committed by other "friendly" regimes? Isn't accepting the inevitable barbs from Michelle Malkin part of the deal? Speaking of Michelle, something I would expect her to say would be "If Sheehan tried to set up a “Camp Casey” in Caracas, she’d be thrown in jail", not you. That's almost a direct quote of what they yelled at us from the sidelines at the anti-war demos. If we did this under Saddam he'd round us up for the rape rooms. Try and imagine how it sounded coming from you. Sheehan’s point was valid then and it’s only increased in validity since. She wasn’t saying Chavez is anybody’s sweetheart and no leftist should be naive enough to expect him to be. She was, however, pointing out the ugly truth that there is no negative activity in which Hugo Chavez has engaged as a “repressive dictator” that George W. Bush hasn’t also indulged himself in *his* role of “Leader of the Free World” and that it was the differences that shamed a great nation.

Rule by decree? Mr. Bush has had a de facto rule by decree since he was first “elected”. This regime has done just what it pleased in the face of huge public disapproval time and again. If they couldn’t get their way through fear-mongering, lies and intimidation, they simply went ahead and did it anyway. Americans “sent a message” in the last election — Mr. Bush vetoed it and got his approprations bill.

Stacking the courts? Can any American really want to start throwing stones at *that* glass house? Same goes for posting Human Rights Watch statements. The USA has a link all it’s own on the site’s sidebar. Sadly, my nation does not because we are not important enough, but our record of shame can be found with a search

http://search.hrw.org/search?btnG=Google%2BSearch&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date_3AD_3AL_3Ad1&client=hrw_frontend&num=10&proxystylesheet=hrw_frontend&oe=UTF-8&site=default_collection&ie=UTF-8&q=Canada&GO.x=30&GO.y=11

Nationalized petroleum industry? Horror of horrors! Allowing the people who actually *live* in a country to benefit from that country’s resource base? Madness. Every good economist knows that petro-dollars flow one way — AWAY from the people into the pockets of the deserving few.

Take the banks out of the World Bank and the I.M.F.? Again, madness! The benefits of these agencies to third world prosperity is clear from the record. If this idea catches on, before we know it there might not *be* a Third World anymore and then where will we be?

The T.V. station was not “shut down”. It was refused renewal of a license 5 years after the coup. Any real “oppressive dictator” would have marched those troops in the next morning after regaining control; first thing, 7 a.m. Now check the FCC record on granting and renewing broadcasting licenses; specifically to leftist media. Better still, ask the boys at Al Jazeera. The Bagdhad office.

Now I’m going to be tiresome and raise a spectre. Imagine what would happen in the good ol’ U.S. of A. if armed insurrectionists had taken control of the White House for any period of time with the collusion of any media network. Look at how many rights, liberties and freedoms your government has taken away in the last few years just from two planes hitting two buildings. Bill Maher was taken off the air for saying that that took a certain amount of resolve.

Given all these similarities between the Chavez and Bush administrations, providing free medical care, and fighting poverty in real, tangible ways should give food for thought to everybody; particularly those of us who *call* ourselves leftist. Instead, we take these things and set them aside as a given and allow the debate to focus on the negative.

When this first happened I bashed your TMW bashing of Sheenan (http://thismodernworld.com/2666#comment-1165) I see no reason to change my opinion today. The “leftists” who seek to distance themselves from Ms. Sheenan for her “bad judgement” are actually more worried about defending themselves from Republican/rightwing attack dogs. Figures like Chavez and Castro are tough to defend because they test our beliefs. It’s much easier and safer to push the whole thing aside, particularly with elections in the wind.

The question is, do you believe in the things you post or not? Poverty, peace, universal medical, etc. Are these things worth working for? Or is it just talk designed to get Democrats elected? Is it worth seeing within context strongarm tactics which are analogous or identical to crimes committed by your own government, to say nothing about ignored atrocities committed by other “friendly” regimes? Isn’t accepting the inevitable barbs from Michelle Malkin part of the deal?

Speaking of Michelle, something I would expect her to say would be “If Sheehan tried to set up a “Camp Casey” in Caracas, she’d be thrown in jail”, not you. That’s almost a direct quote of what they yelled at us from the sidelines at the anti-war demos. If we did this under Saddam he’d round us up for the rape rooms. Try and imagine how it sounded coming from you.

]]> By: darrelplant http://www.thetalentshow.org/2007/05/29/sheehan-chavez/#comment-12894 darrelplant Tue, 29 May 2007 21:59:39 +0000 http://www.thetalentshow.org/2007/05/29/sheehan-chavez/#comment-12894 Greg, did you notice that the headline on the energy story you linked to says: "Amicable takeover of Venezuela's top electric company buoys markets"? And that sccording to the same story the telecom had been trying to sell its shares, as well? Or that the oil companies Chavez "nationalized" were paid market rate for their shares and they'd been geting away with running portions of their operations outside of the state oil system because the oil had been classified as "coal" (http://www.borev.net/2007/02/it_doesnt_take_a_chemist_to_fi.html)? If you can (firewall) read Victor Navasky's account of a CPJ fact-finding trip to investigate the impending shut-down of RCTV. http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20070226&s=navasky Greg, did you notice that the headline on the energy story you linked to says: “Amicable takeover of Venezuela’s top electric company buoys markets”? And that sccording to the same story the telecom had been trying to sell its shares, as well? Or that the oil companies Chavez “nationalized” were paid market rate for their shares and they’d been geting away with running portions of their operations outside of the state oil system because the oil had been classified as “coal” (http://www.borev.net/2007/02/it_doesnt_take_a_chemist_to_fi.html)?

If you can (firewall) read Victor Navasky’s account of a CPJ fact-finding trip to investigate the impending shut-down of RCTV. http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20070226&s=navasky

]]>