Venezuela's democracy reaches a major crossroads Sunday when voters decide whether to eliminate term limits and allow Hugo Chávez to remain in the presidency potentially for life. Judging by his declining poll ratings, it would appear that Venezuelans are taking stock of Mr. Chávez's mercurial behavior and questioning whether his brand of international hostility is in their best interests.
This month alone, OPEC leaders bristled when he urged oil exporters to adopt anti-U.S. policies. He froze relations with Spain after King Juan Carlos told him to shut up. This week, the Venezuelan leader is immersed in a dangerous new spat with President Alvaro Uribe in neighboring Colombia.
Previous verbal exchanges with world leaders could easily be dismissed as the rants of another socialist autocrat. But when it involves conflict with Colombia, the stakes increase exponentially and put two top U.S. strategic priorities oil and the war on drugs into play.
The newest spat developed after Mr. Uribe invited Mr. Chávez to mediate with Colombia's biggest rebel group. Mr. Uribe canceled the mediation after he accused Mr. Chávez of violating diplomatic protocol, bypassing the presidency in Bogotá and engaging in unauthorized talks with Colombia's military chief.
Mr. Chávez called the decision a "spit in the face." He cautioned Mr. Uribe against "warmongering" and declared reconciliation at this point "impossible."
This is the first such international confrontation in which Mr. Chávez and his adversary can do more than merely engage in trash talk. They can punish each other militarily across a long and porous border. The danger quotient is high, and no one can afford for it to escalate.
Americans have a big stake in the outcome. We rely heavily on Venezuelan oil exports. We've invested nearly $5 billion since 1999 to beef up Colombia's military, attack cocaine production and beat back the guerrillas who protect the drug trade. Mr. Chávez openly sympathizes with the rebels and, if pushed, could easily boost their prospects of military success.
Venezuela's leader badly needs a lesson in diplomacy and self-restraint. Hopefully, a sound defeat in Sunday's referendum will bring him to his senses.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/28/2007 10:19 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
A Dec. 2 referendum in Venezuela that would grant extreme powers to Hugo Chávez isn't going as the budding dictator planned. Youth are protesting and the poor have doubts. Just who is the "left" in Venezuela is now up for grabs.
By hook or crook, President Chávez may yet win this referendum, which proposes 69 amendments to the Constitution. The most worrisome one would remove limits on his reelection for life. Others would allow him to take private property in an "emergency" and give him direct power over the nation's foreign currency reserves. Media and human rights groups could also be restrained. All this is part of Chávez's "revolution" for "21st-century socialism," only the revolution is faltering as the poor face increasing food shortages in an oil-rich country.
To win votes for his draconian steps, Chávez has included amendments that would, among other things, reduce the workday from eight to six hours and expand social benefits. These, of course, have immediate appeal to the majority of Venezuela's population who are poor. But guess who sees through this latest populist power play: Left-leaning students on university campuses.
Only the American and western academic Left continue to think that Marxism will prevail.
They've been leading nonviolent marches by the tens of thousands since October, which may be one reason polls show the plebiscite vote could be close. Student leaders say this former military coup-plotter is merely using his current domination of Congress, the state oil company, media, courts, and election authority as a way to gain even more power. They fail to see the egalitarian nature of the revolution, especially when government price controls have reduced the supply of such staples as milk.
Student protests in Latin America are often a precursor to a leader's downfall. In the current protests for a "no" vote on the Venezuela referendum, students have found support from the Catholic Church, many political allies of Chávez, and his former mentor in the military, former Defense Minister Raúl Isaías Baduel. Their voices keep alive the hope that the poor will see their future in democracy and not the paternalistic visions of a man who brooks little opposition.
Other leaders in Latin America are challenging Chávez, who tries to use oil wealth to win over leftists in other nations, including the US. "You cannot mistreat the continent, set it on fire as you do, speaking about imperialism when you, on the basis of your budget, want to set up an empire," said Colombia's president, Alvaro Uribe, this month. And Chávez's antics in public forums, too, have hurt his cause.
Like many other impatient revolutionaries such as Pol Pot in Cambodia, Chávez wants results in a hurry. He has given a new slogan to the military: "Fatherland, Socialism or Death." It is that reliance on the military and organized thugs to get his way that so upsets leftist students.
Other leftist leaders in the region, such as Brazil's president, Luiz Inácio 'Lula' da Silva, work within an open and fair democracy to uplift the poor. Such democracies may be slow in yielding benefits, but the alternatives, such as Chávez's rush to absolute rule, have been proven to be worse.
Like the fairy-tale child who saw the emperor has no clothes, the youth of Venezuela are seeing the Chávez reign for what it is.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
" government price controls have reduced the supply of such staples as milk."
Econ 101. Constrain price and supply will contract, no matter what the demand is.
Looks liek Chavez really beleives that crap about command economies, and knows nothign of supply side economics. Stuck in the 60's and 70's like all his socialist/collectivists supporters here in the US.
The US ended having hideous double digit inflation & unemployment under Carter's mishandling of the economy after Nixon and Ford screwed around with wage and price controls. Took a lot of pain and a brave President to unwind that (Reagan).
Shame they have neither - and that it looks like Chavez will have the the central bank in his hands, which is only thing restraining him from completely trashing the economy and looting the nation.
So long venezuela, hope you liek starving as you nation collapses. Look at Zimbabwe. Chavez is going ot take the oil money and give it to his cronies and patrons in the thugocracies (Iran, Cuba) after he siphons a lot of it off for his own wealth.
They need to pick up guns and start killing Chavez people if they steal this vote. The Soap Box, Jury Box are gone. If the Ballot Box fails, its time for the Ammo box.
Sardinia, Italy -- A girl verbally insulted and then killed by a Slavic-speaking person who used the tip of an umbrella as a murder weapon . Dozens of villas assaulted by a mix of Morroccans, Romanians and Albanians in northern Italy. Shop owners murdered at random. This is but a part of the very long list of criminal events Italians learn about on an almost daily basis when they turn over the pages of newspapers or watch the morning and evening news. The common thread linking these crimes is the fact that all of the perpetrators were in Italy illegally.
Stanley Kurtz on why the State Department's agitation for Musharraf's removal is likely to lead to negative outcomes for American interests:
Ive commented on Daniel Markeys piece in the FP debate over Americas stance toward Musharraf. Now a word on Husain Haqqanis brief for abandoning Musharraf. Haqqani is a former Pakistani ambassador, who has worked under both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. At the moment, Haqqani seems to be a partisan of Benazir Bhutto. As with most arguments for abandoning Musharraf, Haqqani has little to say about the alternatives.
Benazir Bhutto talks a good anti-Islamist game, but she would have almost no ability to push the army in that direction. Bhutto had no power over the army when she was in power before, and would have even less now, given her certain efforts to replace retired officers with her own supporters at the head of Pakistans economic institutions. Despite really because of Bhuttos being a Western educated woman, she never took on the countrys Islamists. Bhutto was under suspicion from the start, and had to prove that a female secularist would not freeze out the countrys traditionalists. Musharraf was actually far better placed to pare back Islamist power, and made efforts in that direction even before 9/11. And as I note in my post on Daniel Markey's piece, abandoning Musharraf is even more likely to hand power to Islamist-leaning Nawaz Sharif than to Bhutto.
The biggest problem with Haqqanis piece is what he bills as his main point. According to Haqqani, the U.S. is the key to the vicious circle that prevents Pakistan from becoming a "normal" democratic country. Its true, Haqqani concedes, that the military is the most important institution in the countrythe only institution that really works. Thats why America supports and works through Pakistans army. But Haqqani claims that the army only remains the paramount institution in Pakistan because of American backing. If only wed abandon our support for it, Pakistan would have a chance to become a true democracy.
This is nonsense. America has been more than happy to support democratic governments throughout the world. The pre-eminence of the army in Pakistan is an indigenous Pakistani phenomenon, going back to the earliest years of the state. When Islamist rioted in favor of tough blasphemy laws in 1953, civilian leaders were paralyzed. The army not only put down the violence, it stepped in to govern successfully in a number of areas where civilians had been unable to act.
Thus began a long-term evolution toward military rule in Pakistan. Meanwhile, in post-partition India, which had been joined with what later become Pakistan under British rule, political evolution went in a very different direction. British-inflected democracy took root in India, but not in Pakistan. Internal social and cultural differences have vastly more to do with this divergence than American military aid. Haqqani is playing on American ignorance about Pakistans past, and our tendency to blame ourselves for all facets of political development in foreign countries, to undercut his political rivals at home.
Foreign Policy magazine posts dueling op-eds on the question, "Should the U.S. Abandon Pervez Musharraf?" Im firmly with Daniel Markey on the "No" side. Yesterday, I argued that the return of Nawaz Sharif spells serious trouble for the United States. Sharif has a history of cooperation with Islamist parties, and even came close to making Sharia the law of the land just before Musharraf ousted him in a coup. According to Markey, if Musharraf goes, and an a-political general takes over, Musharrafs political party (really a wing of Sharifs old party) will collapse and move back to Sharif. Having combined his current supporters with Musharrafs voters, Sharif would leave Benazir Bhutto in the dust. And according to Markey:
Having opposed Musharraf from his exile in Saudi Arabia and Britain, Sharif has felt little love from Washington since 9/11. In his desperation to return to power, he has courted the entire spectrum of Pakistans political leaders, including the Islamists. His center-right base of support now has a stronger anti-American, anti-Western streak than in the past. Sharifs constituents have little interest in implementing policies designed to tackle the deeper roots of extremism and militancy in Pakistani society or in building sustainable democratic institutions.
In other words, as I argued yesterday, despite his current rhetoric, designed to manipulate the West, neither Sharif nor his supporters believe in liberal democracy. If you think its tough to get Musharrafs army to fight Islamists in Pakistans northwest, wait till Nawaz Sharif takes power. Although Sharif would have only limited ability to command the army, he could potentially link up with Islamist sympathizers in the military to expand his control. Who knows, Sharif might even try to expand his popular base by openly distancing himself from the army's U.S. backed efforts against the Islamists.
Sharifs return is an example of how a strategy based on elections, in the absence of a genuinely liberal democratic political culture, can backfire. The West is focused on Pakistans protesting lawyers, its English language media, and an at least semi-plausible (but in fact overly optimistic) image of Benazir Bhutto. On the other hand, the Saudis understand the traditionalist and/or Islamist leanings of the vast majority of the Pakistani people. Once the West forced Musharraf to bring back Benazir Bhutto (in a plausible effort to bolster the legitimacy of military rule), the Saudis made a point of releasing Sharif. Unfortunately, in a fundamentally illiberal political culture, "democracy" (I use quotes because genuine liberal democracy requires so much more than mere elections) can easily be turned against us.
Markey is right. If we abandon Musharraf, there is a serious risk that Sharif could be the beneficiary, resulting in a much less pro-Western and a much more Islamist-friendly Pakistan. A direct takeover of Pakistan by the Taliban may be unlikely, but control of the country by an increasingly Islamist-leaning mainstream politician like Sharif is all too possible. For now, Musharraf is our best bulwark against that scenario.
#2
Sharifs return is an example of how a strategy based on elections, in the absence of a genuinely liberal democratic political culture, can backfire ... Unfortunately, in a fundamentally illiberal political culture, "democracy" (I use quotes because genuine liberal democracy requires so much more than mere elections) can easily be turned against us.
As McZoid so succinctly put it in Monday's thread about Rowan Williams:
I don't want jihadis to vote; I want them to die.
Running around playing pin the tail democracy on the Islamists ain't gonna do jack shit until the Islamists are all dead. Until then, military control is a far better mechanism to have in place than some weird pseudo-Western Kabuki act. Much like Iran, Pakistan needs to be crippled so that their terrorism export industry is indefinitely suspended.
In late 2007, Britain vacated to an airport outside the city and handed over control in Basra to the Iraqis. Applying the exact opposite approach as the United States - leaning back rather than forward - British command is now in the process of claiming similar advances in the security situation. In what must be seen as a simply stunning quote, British Major General Graham Binns said that since the UK disengaged in Basra, attacks on UK forces are down 90%.
We thought, If 90% of the violence is directed at us, what would happen if we stepped back?, Gen Binns said.
About 500 British troops moved out of one of Saddam Husseins palaces in the heart of Basra in early September, joining some 4,500 at a garrison at an airport on the citys edge.
Since then there has been a remarkable and dramatic drop in attacks, Gen Binns said in an interview in Baghdad on Thursday.
Applying this logic, attacks on British forces would be down an amazing 100% if they withdrew from Iraq entirely. Achieving a zero-attack level on forces is not the mission - in Basra or elsewhere. Binns continued
The motivation for attacking us was gone, because were no longer patrolling the streets, he said.
This is a disturbing matrix for calculating success.
Short of intolerable carnage, there's no durable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. None. The best all parties can hope for is an occasional time-out.
A respite between rounds isn't worthless, of course - lives are saved, Israel's economy improves and the Arabs get one more chance to get their act together. But we're forever disappointed because we're convinced there's a good, permanent solution, if only we can figure it out.
That's the American way: a can-do spirit, the conviction that no problem's too tough for us. But, in the real world (and in the bizarre fantasyland of Arab culture), some foreign problems can't be resolved equitably. They can only smolder on, occasionally erupting in flames.
In the Middle East, you can't buy peace. You can only buy time. If we want to help at all, the fundamental requirement is to have realistic expectations.
At present, the situation is aggravated by the Bush administration's desperate quest for a headline-worthy foreign-policy success - mirroring the Clinton administration in its closing years. But desperation's a poor basis for dealing with a geopolitical problem of near-infinite complexity, with ill will on every side except our own.
What happens in the course of Middle East "peace" talks under such circumstances? Whether the American administration is Republican or Democrat, it pressures Israel for concessions - since the Arabs won't make any. Prisoner releases precede each summit; territorial handovers come under discussion.
For their parts, Arab leaders and their representatives assume we're sufficiently honored if they just show up. We hear no end of nonsense about the great political risks they're taking, etc. We're suckers for any fat guy in a white robe with an oil can.
Today's session [Nov. 27] in Annapolis may or may not result in a we-the-undersigned statement or a few unenforceable commitments. And yes, there's merit just in bringing folks together and keeping them talking. But the baseline difficulty is that we want to solve problems for people who don't really want those problems solved.
By electing ourselves as the Middle East's indispensable problem-solvers, we've just put ourselves on the blame line for other people's problems. Without solving any of them.
Santa won't show up at Annapolis. If he did, the best gift he could bring the Bush administration and its Democratic rivals would be a sense of reality: It's a lot easier to believe in Santa than in Arabs accepting a just peace with Israel.
Posted by: ed ||
11/28/2007 07:51 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But, in the real world (and in the bizarre fantasyland of Arab culture), some foreign problems can't be resolved equitably.
Then the only alternative is to solve the problem inequitably. All Arab parties involved have acted in such profoundly bad faith that it's time to show them what sort of price tag accompanies their perfidy. Push Gaza out into the Sinai and the West Bank into Syria or Jordan. Seal the borders with minefields if needed and shoot any intruders on sight. End this perverted genocidal farce for once and all time.
#2
See RUSH's true story of THANKSGIVING , i.e. how idealist well-meaning [Totalitarian?]EQUALITY = EQUALITARIANISM NEARLY WIPED OUT/KILLED OFF THE PILGRIMS = BRIT-EURO PRESENCE IN NORTH AMERICA.
#2
Bernie, did you forget to paste the source URL at the bottom before you hit Submit? It's a common first-time mistake (I should know!). Just give us the link in a comment -- the moderators can fix it (I've entirely too much experience with that, too). It looks like an interesting piece you found for us -- thanks!
#5
I remember thinking, when the Iron Curtain fell, "I never in a million years thought I'd live to see this." Likewise, I never have believed I'd live to see a nuclear war, but this article makes me reconsider that...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
11/28/2007 12:31 Comments ||
Top||
Herewith some thoughts about tomorrow's Annapolis peace conference, and the larger problem of how to approach the Israel-Palestine conflict. The first question (one might think it is obvious but apparently not) is, "What is the conflict about?" There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about its existence.
If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have a straightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to say, not easy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in the meantime.
If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist.
PLO and other Palestinian spokesmen have, from time to time, given formal indications of recognition of Israel in their diplomatic discourse in foreign languages. But that's not the message delivered at home in Arabic, in everything from primary school textbooks to political speeches and religious sermons. Here the terms used in Arabic denote, not the end of hostilities, but an armistice or truce, until such time that the war against Israel can be resumed with better prospects for success. Without genuine acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State, as the more than 20 members of the Arab League exist as Arab States, or the much larger number of members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference exist as Islamic states, peace cannot be negotiated.
A good example of how this problem affects negotiation is the much-discussed refugee question. During the fighting in 1947-1948, about three-fourths of a million Arabs fled or were driven (both are true in different places) from Israel and found refuge in the neighboring Arab countries. In the same period and after, a slightly greater number of Jews fled or were driven from Arab countries, first from the Arab-controlled part of mandatory Palestine (where not a single Jew was permitted to remain), then from the Arab countries where they and their ancestors had lived for centuries, or in some places for millennia. Most Jewish refugees found their way to Israel.
What happened was thus, in effect, an exchange of populations not unlike that which took place in the Indian subcontinent in the previous year, when British India was split into India and Pakistan. Millions of refugees fled or were driven both ways -- Hindus and others from Pakistan to India, Muslims from India to Pakistan. Another example was Eastern Europe at the end of World War II, when the Soviets annexed a large piece of eastern Poland and compensated the Poles with a slice of eastern Germany. This too led to a massive refugee movement -- Poles fled or were driven from the Soviet Union into Poland, Germans fled or were driven from Poland into Germany.
The Poles and the Germans, the Hindus and the Muslims, the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, all were resettled in their new homes and accorded the normal rights of citizenship. More remarkably, this was done without international aid. The one exception was the Palestinian Arabs in neighboring Arab countries.
The government of Jordan granted Palestinian Arabs a form of citizenship, but kept them in refugee camps. In the other Arab countries, they were and remained stateless aliens without rights or opportunities, maintained by U.N. funding. Paradoxically, if a Palestinian fled to Britain or America, he was eligible for naturalization after five years, and his locally-born children were citizens by birth. If he went to Syria, Lebanon or Iraq, he and his descendants remained stateless, now entering the fourth or fifth generation.
The reason for this has been stated by various Arab spokesmen. It is the need to preserve the Palestinians as a separate entity until the time when they will return and reclaim the whole of Palestine; that is to say, all of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israel. The demand for the "return" of the refugees, in other words, means the destruction of Israel. This is highly unlikely to be approved by any Israeli government.
There are signs of change in some Arab circles, of a willingness to accept Israel and even to see the possibility of a positive Israeli contribution to the public life of the region. But such opinions are only furtively expressed. Sometimes, those who dare to express them are jailed or worse. These opinions have as yet little or no impact on the leadership.
Which brings us back to the Annapolis summit. If the issue is not the size of Israel, but its existence, negotiations are foredoomed. And in light of the past record, it is clear that is and will remain the issue, until the Arab leadership either achieves or renounces its purpose -- to destroy Israel. Both seem equally unlikely for the time being.
Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).
#2
On one hand they talk first strike, then retaliation. Sounds like a group of Jr High School kids I saw in a parking lot the other day. I'm glad they still don't get it. After our first strike there will be no retaliation. Dumb little Assmanjohnnie.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
11/28/2007 14:11 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Seems there's been a spate of 'Iranian response' articles lately. With the exception of the reputed ballistic missiles, anyone who's followed Iran's internal and extra-national activities would by now have a fairly good idea of what they intend to do.
Most of the Iranian pronouncements are likely for internal consumption. When the Iranian population stops buying gold, then I'll worry.
Even better would be if their top brass really believed any of this unmitigated tripe. It's like they've got Bagdhad Bob's twin brother scripting this stuff.
#5
"Increasingly offensive ... and deterrent"> now DEFENSIVE DETERRENT?
Consider PRAVDA > GORBACHEV - EUROPE NEEDS RUSSIA, i.e. EUROPE = EU will NEVER attain its desired level of global or international influence without Russia. DITTO IRAN + RUSSIA-CHINA = IRAN NEEDS SCO/EURASIA???
. . . "Kringle's List," starring George Clooney, Matt Damon, and Julia Roberts in a cautionary tale of rogue elf agents inside the North Pole's illegal Naughty and Nice wiretapping operation, led the pack of anti-Claus releases with weekend receipts of $68,500, for a $26 per-screen average. The film's take was only good for a #34 showing overall, just behind the limited arthouse re-release of the 1965 Don Knotts classic "The Incredible Mr. Limpet," but studio spokesman Rob Foulet said the film could eventually recoup its $180 million production budget through strong word-of-mouth and a new advertising campaign that downplays the film's elfin geopolitical psychodrama in favor of Miss Roberts' breasts.
"We're not saying she has a nude scene in the film, but we're not saying she doesn't," said Foulet. "That's up to the ticket buyers to find out." . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
11/28/2007 08:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The most controversial of the new releases, Brian De Palma's "Red on Green," also proved to be the weekend's biggest financial disappointment. The film's documentary-style depiction of brutal gang rapes, genital torture, and candy cane stabbings by North Pole workers earned critical raves and a Palm d'Or award for De Palma when it debuted at the Cannes Film Festival earlier in the year, but the positive advanced notices were not enough to fill theater seats. According to Nielsen/EDI the film generated only $18.00 in box office receipts -- apparently two tickets sold to DePalma and producer Mark Cuban -- and was later revised downward to $9.00 after Cuban asked for a refund.
#2
In some aspects, she is right. Oh I'll admit to still playing video games and D&D, but when there is a chore to do, or work to be done they are put aside and the responsible thing is done. That is the problem with most liberals. They only see the adult responsible things as things needing to be done to satisfy their eternal lust for child. Others, like me see them as a nice break from the adult world, but only that. A break. I enjoy being an adult and going to work everyday and feeling like I'm not only contributing things, but providing for my family. It has a nice sense of purpose.
She is right that it is very childish to say that no one is better than anyone else. We are one of the best countries in the world because we have drive, freedom and the ability to live our own lives at our own will. We are better than Russia, better than China, MUCH better than crackpot Iran. I am not ashamed of this. I am proud and am willing to work hard to keep it this way. The liberal won't. The liberal, guilty of their own success or hateful of others for their failure, will try to crush it and steal (see wealth redistribution) other's gains.
#3
But for liberals, there is a curious inversion. They believe actual children should be denied childhood. They believe it's OK for the tykes to be pressed into service as soldiers or sex workers in Africa, and let's not even get started on NAMBLA. Yes, endless childhood for adults and a hellish adulthood for children, that's the lib formula...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
11/28/2007 8:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I just had an image of Darth Vader (the character) sittig down at the kitchen table playing Dungeons and Dragons. Thanks Darth Vader (the commenter) :)
The liberals are ashamed of how America is much better then Russia, China, Iran, and (dare I say it) Europe. So they always have to pull America down to their level (see MSM, Hollywood, etc...).
That is why you see moonbats like Sheehan, Clooney, and the rest of the gang snuggle up to dictators and terrorists. But Shithan won't actualy move to Venezuela nor Clooney to the Muslim middle east.
#5
Now I'm seeing Darth Vader roll a die and casually wave his hand so that it lands on a higher number . . .
Posted by: The Doctor ||
11/28/2007 9:21 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Crazy Fool, I wonder how long the US will continue to be better than Europe if our electorate doesn't grow up and our culture isn't cleaned up and focused on serious issues.
The 60s brought external freedom from cultural restrictions. Which is not in and of itself bad -- but it places the responsibility for maturity and discipline firmly inside each of us, our families and our responses to the culture and to the society around us. For far too many Americans over the last 40 years, no such internal discipline was sought, valued or achieved.
Grownups take responsibility for their lives and for the outcome of their choices. Our culture encourages people to feel like victims -- and to believe that *feelings* are what counts most.
Grownups realize that the world is a complicated place. They reject simplistic explanations of difficult issues - especially the simplistic explanations that lay responsibility for difficulties on some other "Them". They do what needs doing. They are proactive. They roll with the punches. When they hit a setback, they pick themselves up, shake themselves off and find a different way to move forward.
They are prudent. They work. They save. They live a little under their means when they can, knowing that good times are often interrupted by harder times. They try, where possible, to make families and marriages work. They sacrifice for their kids. They *have* kids. They give to those around them who have less. They contribute to their neighborhoods, congregations, schools or community.
We've been 'eating the seed corn' of an earlier culture for several decades now and the bin is getting pretty empty. It's more than time that we all take responsibility for filling it up again IMO.
#7
I belive that at this point american goverment is no better then any European ones, they have democracy at least or (dare i say it) more then America
#8
Of course you do, evan dear. Which shows your ignorance, a repairable fault. No doubt you believe what you read in the newspapers. What do your mother's cousins say, the ones who moved to the States some years ago?
#11
Pappy, you'll notice that evan (who in his humility now eschews a capital E) only compares America to the European countries vis a vis democracy, not China or Iran. This shows a nice discrimination on his part. On the other hand, if he's posting from New Jersey, perhaps he ought to be conceded the point for his own part of the world -- doesn't New Jersey pretty much belong to the Mafia and their wholly owned politicians? ;-)
#12
I belive that at this point american goverment is no better then any European ones, they have democracy at least or (dare i say it) more then America
Prove it. In doing so, do the following:
State your standards by which you judge the amount of democracy as "more" or "less".
State facts. Your opinion is not a fact: YOU ARE NOT GOD, AND YOU ARE NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE.
Apply the standards Equally and consistently: a bad thing in America should also be bad in Europe, Africa, Asia, South America. In fact, the whole world over. None of this "one rule for thee and another for another": Just because your hypocrisy is on behalf of another, not yourself, doesn't make you less of a hypocrite, nor any less wrong. Again, YOU ARE NOT GOD, AND YOU ARE NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE.
Ignoring a counterargument or a fact is not a refutation. YOU ARE NOT GOD, AND YOU ARE NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE.
#15
I had thought that people really don't start to mature till around 40. Your kids and job and bills are important, but the culture around you means nothing. But as you realize that the old rely upon the young to help, protect and defend them. That's when you start to wonder what the moral values of the youngster on the street is based upon. When you mention the Civil War, and your kids tell you that everybody was a member of the underground railroad, you say what ? You dig deeper, and you find that they know nothing about the massive sacrifices or life and limb. They are taught only the PC bullshit so they can be molded into girlymen ready to apologise for the deeds of long dead Southern Gentlemen. And this without a word for the rows of dead yanks and rebs fallen all over Virginia, Tennessee, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. They equally have no clue about Pelelu and Iwo Jima. What holds them together ? Those in Iraq, yes, but what keeps the other American youth American, and not prime future jihadis ready to please Allan ?
Our culture is hurting...hurting. We miss the simple humanness of helping our neighbor. Depending on each other, being together, sharing.
#1
Serious filmmakers â or filmmakers who think they are serious â are often looking around for their âOscar pictureâ at that juncture.
That's the problem. It's the market stupid. It's a business. It's not about one self. If they were dealing with their own money or the money of a patron, then go an enjoy yourself. If you're using other people's money in a commercial enterprise, you owe them a return. Further, you don't get to use other people's money in the form of tax write offs or state government loans. May you all sink into the abyss of Motown who ignored the consumer as paramount.
It wouldn't take a Hollyweird hack to rewrite and update Rio Grande or the Charge of the Light Brigade into contemporary settings. If executed as well as Blackhawk Down, you'd have yourselves money makers.
Hollyweird is a population of petulant trophy wifes, who've sold their souls for wealth and notoriety. They love the attention and glamour, but resent the big daddy [the paying public] that makes it all so possible. So, they engage in spite and self destructive behaviors to demonstrate that they are their own person.
#2
Art without genuine conviction is boring and worthless. What else does the artist (filmmaker) have to give to the audience but his or her passion? Its no surprise the audience is disinterested without it.
Off topic but the word is uninterested. Roger Simon is a professional writer and should know better.
#3
Oh, hell, you want a grand, ripsnorting special-effects action movie that'll score big at the box office? History's better than anything you can make up on your own. Here's your script. Or try this. Or this. Or even this.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/28/2007 9:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I was thinking the other day about Hollywood blockbusters. They say that Star Wars and Indiana Jones changed things. They were episodic (patterend after the serial films of an earlier age) and full of action and made a fortune. Following their example the character movie of the 70s was replaced with dumb action movies.
Now I wonder if it was really Star Wars and Indiana that did the damage. Around the same time we had cable television and VHS show up big time. We had the ability of a viewer to pause, or catch a flick later. Content had to grab people faster than ever before or they'd flip to another channel or fast forward through the duller parts.
Yeah there is still room for the occasional Elizabeth but I think you get my point here.
#5
I was thinking the other day about Hollywood blockbusters. They say that Star Wars and Indiana Jones changed things.
Yeah, they made money. Where you around back then? Movies were dying then too basically for similar reasons today, all dark, foreboding aghast filled with anti-heroes. If people wanted that, they'd stay at work with the boss. Why pay someone else for that 'entertainment'. So people flocked to Star Wars and Indiana Jones to see something other than the dark side of the force.
If you want to send a message, use a documentary. Of course, such documentary has to meet the PC of the industry as Indoctrination U didn't.
#6
Star Wars and Indiana Jones were also good stories (that is, interesting and entertaining) supported by good storytelling (competent script, acting, SFX). Good stories well told will always win out, no matter the medium.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/28/2007 11:00 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I would have to say that the perception of war is critical to waging war.
Mike, Have to agree 'Last Stand of the Tin Can Soldiers' is a great book and would be a great addition to 'The Great Raid'/'Ghost Soldiers'.
Would also like to add, with the precedence of '300' and 'Lord of the Rings', opening scene to 'Gladiator': Herold Lamb's 'Hannibal' and Caesar's 'The Gallic Campaign'; each a 3 part film.
Film a la Elizibeth - Charlemagne.
How about 'To the Last Man', 'Gone for Soldiers', or 'The Last Full Measure'.
It seems to this youngn' that the longer someone is in the hollywood machine the more likely they are to change from pro-war to con. Gene Hackman and Robert Redford from 'Bridge too Far' to today. Remember when clowny was 'The Peacemaker' and fought vampires in a mexican strip club? and so forth. As this continues video games will become more and more interactive movies and hollywood will make more movies for out of USA markets IMHO.
#8
I'm reading "House to House" by SSG David Bellavia re: Fallujah. If they wanted a script Americans would go see, here it is! Btw - ordered it via Fred's Amazon link - he gets to wet his beak as well. Win-Win-Win!
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/28/2007 18:35 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I think people should be very careful in relating an actor to the movies view of things. Gene Hackman may have been very anti-war but loved the character, needed the paycheck, wanted to work with the director or felt that a trip to Europe would be nice or in fact since the movie was actually a defeat (especially for the Poles) that the movie was anti-war.
I don't know anything about Gene's politics in particular, I'm just saying. If a guy plays Jesus that doesn't mean he's Jewish or even a good person or even understand the director's vision.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Venezuela's democracy reaches a major crossroads Sunday when voters decide whether to eliminate term limits and allow Hugo Chávez to remain in the presidency potentially for life. Judging by his declining poll ratings, it would appear that Venezuelans are taking stock of Mr. Chávez's mercurial behavior and questioning whether his brand of international hostility is in their best interests. 
In late 2007, Britain vacated to an airport outside the city and handed over control in Basra to the Iraqis. Applying the exact opposite approach as the United States - leaning back rather than forward - British command is now in the process of claiming similar advances in the security situation. In what must be seen as a simply stunning quote, British Major General Graham Binns said that since the UK disengaged in Basra, attacks on UK forces are down 90%.
