• kruuyai said on Nov 30, 2007....

  Sorry about the double video.  I hit the button twice, but my experience with trying to edit videos out after posting is miserable, so just watch one of them... they're identical.  If, like me, you have trouble watching youtube videos from the soulcast site, you can go directly to youtube and watch the video here.  

• kruuyai said on Nov 30, 2007....

  There's even more information and updates in Naomi Wolf's blog here.  

• kruuyai said on Nov 30, 2007....

  By the way, it's not all doom and gloom.  Naomi Wolf speaks about her hope for America, and what steps we Americans need to take if we want to preserve democracy and our way of life.

• kruuyai said on Nov 30, 2007....

  Please comment only if you've watched the whole video or if you want to mark this post to come back later.  I want to have a meaningful discussion about this, and not turn it into a gut-reaction squabble based only on the title or what little I've said in the post.  The video speaks for itself.  I hope you'll listen.

• cotteralladams3 said on Nov 30, 2007....

  I liked Bill Clinton.  His issue was denial.  Oral sex isn't sex.  He didn't sleep with that woman.  He can smoke pot and never smoke pot by not inhaling.  If he writes off a deal with a business associate, it's okay.  It's not conflict of interest.  Of course not, it's his friend.  His wife, while not a medical expert, can head a committee on health care but it is not because she's his wife but his wife is the best choice because she's his wife.  Look at Hillary going for the third term now.  Oh and eating in McDonald's never happens (pre-triple bypass denial).  No, he never eats at McDonald's.  It doesn't count because he gets takeout and eats it at home or the Oval Office.  Okay...

• kruuyai said on Nov 30, 2007....

  cotterall: So, what does this have to do with the subject of the video?  People, please do not post unrelated comments.

• lfbno7 said on Nov 30, 2007....

  The video is 45 minutes so I don't know how many people are going to invest the time in it. I don't think that America becomes as bad as the fascist states were. America has a different way of sucking. We give all power to the rich, and we brainwash our citizens into believing that America is hot shit. The ruling elite of America isn't after a fascist dictatorship. The ruling elite of America is all about economics, not about power over the people. America is a greedy country, not a bully country to its citizens. The ruling elite just want to rob us blind, they don't want to make us feel bullied by them. They want us to keep cheering our freedoms while they impoverish us and make themselves ever more wealthy. They want us to be poor, stupid, happy, and politically free. They have their wish. Hitler doesn't get to first base in American politics. And that's coming from a Jew, or in other words, a person who is more likely than normal to be paranoid about Hitler and fearing a new one at every turn. America kicks Hitler's ass. America kicks Stalin's ass. America kicks Lenin's ass. We don't go for that shit.

• lfbno7 said on Nov 30, 2007....

  The little things, like destroying Dixie Chicks records, actually point in the opposite direction from where the speaker wants to take us. Yes, Americans are asshole enough to destroy Dixie Chicks records, but look how it ended up, look how it twisted in America, as it is likely to continue to do, because there's your precedent, there's America's M.O. The Dixie Chicks return with a bang, sell out concerts, and release another record saying they are still pissed off and in no mood to forgive. That's America. We're dumb as shit and some of us turn against the Dixie Chicks for a while but then comes the backlash and the country cheers them and calls Bush an asshole. The loony neo-cons don't run America as much as they would like to, and never will. We got so many loony libs here that will check them. It's part of the culture. The loony libs won't even allow us to talk about intelligent design in the schools cause they are so paranoid about religious influence. We love our Dixie Chicks, lesbian as they have the nerve to be, don't matter, anti-Bush as they like, they represent freedom and we like that. Germany never brainwashed its citizens by calling Germany the land of the free. Nor did Russia. It's a different game here. They pour that silly shit into us from birth. Freedom freedom freedom.

• kruuyai said on Nov 30, 2007....

  7:  " The video is 45 minutes so I don't know how many people are going to invest the time in it."  Unfortunately, you're probably right, and I think that's a pretty sad statement in itself. 
  
  "They want us to be poor, stupid, happy, and politically free."  If it's true that they want us to be politically free, then please explain to me why we have been stripped of so many of our civil liberties in the last few years?  And how do you explain the fact that they're building enough prisons to be able to detain up to 12% of the American population?
  
  I don't think she's saying that they're going to exactly mimic Hitler, Stalin, et al.  She's saying that the process of de-democratization is the same.  Germany, Italy and Chile were democracies before Hitler, Mussolini and Pinochet came along.  She points out the steps that these dictators took to eradicate democracy from their countries.  Then, she draws the parallels to what is happening here.  I think it's important to pay attention to that.
  
  "We don't go for that shit."  In fact, we are going for that shit.  Bending over and taking it... handing our rights over on a silver platter.  How much more compliant could we be.  We express our rebelliousness in small ways like continuing to buy Dixie Chicks records, but if it stops there, how far will we go?  Take away my civil liberties, but leave me with my Dixie Chicks CD so I'll at least know what I lost?
  
  But, it is that small spark of rebellion that gives me a bit of hope.  That maybe a significant portion of Americans will really stand up and not allow it to happen. 
  
  
  

• silverwhisper said on Nov 30, 2007....

  i don't have the time to watch a 45 min video though, kruu, and i honestly wonder how many respondents do.
  
  having said that: wolf doesn't think 1, 2, 4, 5 and 9 are all already taking place? um...WTF?!
  
  btw, nice to see you blogging again, kruu. :>
  
  ed

• beyondtheveil said on Nov 30, 2007....

  kruu- I watched the entire video. I have been watching Naomi Wolf for years. She is a very intelligent woman and a patriot. I noticed there were almost 200,000 views of this and I hope it goes to two million, then twenty million.
  
  I'm not an alarmist and neither is she. But its easy to look around and see that things aren't ok in America. Before the bush administration I believed about 10% of what the govt. said to a point, now I believe absolutely nothing the govt. or any politician says because you simply can't.
  
  Other than what she said, there is so much other evidence apparent that the govt. does not have our best interest in mind. Its a slow erosion of America on every front.
  

• buckrogers said on Nov 30, 2007....

  This is a very important post, Kruuyai, and I hope all of soulcast watches it. Eisenhower was worried about what he called "the industrial military complex," and, of course, we've been in wars initiated by us, since WWII. They coaxed me and others into combat by telling us we were going to war (Korean), so our children wouldn't have to. My kids barely missed going into to the Vietnam fiasco and were too old for the Gulf War.
  War is a cash-cow for companies that make the necessary weapons and supplies. They are on a "cost-plus" markup, which means the "plus" is often double to ten times the market value. There is a saying among the politicians and lobbists: "Market Value plus everything you can steal."
  After the repulican cartel stole the election in 2000, how can anybody say we live in a democracy?

• kruuyai said on Nov 30, 2007....

  ed:  Wow.... that was one hell of a typo!  Where I wrote "according to Wolf, none of the ten steps are already underway in the US," that should have read, "nine of the ten steps are already underway in the US!"  Thanks for catching that. 
  
  " i don't have the time to watch a 45 min video though, kruu, and i honestly wonder how many respondents do."  I'm not at all surprised by this statement, ed, but I think that's exactly why the country is in the shape it's in.  If people are not even willing to spend 45 minutes to educate themselves about how their own lives are being destroyed, who can they honestly blame when all of their civil liberties are taken away and they find themselves living in a police state?  What could be more important?  

• kruuyai said on Nov 30, 2007....

  beyond:  We need more people like her, but more importantly, more of us need to become like her.  One of the most important points that she makes is that our founding fathers didn't intend for us to rely on professional pundits and analysts to protect the constitution.  We are intended to take matters into our own hands and protect our own rights, and we have the tools to do that.... so far.  We'd better take action before those tools are all taken away from us.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 30, 2007....

  kruu, surely it isn't necessary to watch the full 45 mins to catch the gist of ms. wolf's contention?
  
  ed

• kruuyai said on Nov 30, 2007....

  buckrogers:  The "industrial military complex" is an important part of what's happening in America... perhaps the most important part.  As Wolf points out, one third of the economy is based on defense.  After the end of the Cold War, those companies that supplied the machinations of defense were faced with an economic crisis, as was the country.  When one third of your economy depends on defense, and your enemy goes away, you have to come up with a new enemy... even if that enemy ends up being your own citizens.  Many of the companies that formerly supplied defense weapons now specialize in surveillance and security.  Coincidence?  You decide. 
  
  " After the repulican cartel stole the election in 2000, how can anybody say we live in a democracy?"   Even before that happened, we only lived in a representative democracy, which IMO is no democracy at all.  We elect these jokers to represent our interests, but once they're in office, they can do anything they want, and usually do... even to the point of switching political parties (e.g. Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, DEM>REP, Colorado). 
  
  " This is a very important post, Kruuyai, and I hope all of soulcast watches it."  I hope so too, but I seriously doubt that more than a handful will, and that is the problem.   Like Wolf says, it starts with the targeted people being those who live in the margins of society... people that the mainstream doesn't identify.  It starts out that way, but it's insidious, and little by little, it begins to target ordinary citizens.  People like Wolf, respected journalists, are already on the no-fly list.  Others have lost their jobs.  It's already heading in that direction.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• kruuyai said on Nov 30, 2007....

  Steps one through nine are already in place in the US today.  How far behind is step number 10?  How long will it be before martial law is declared in the United States of America?

• silverwhisper said on Nov 30, 2007....

  part of me wants to reply:
  
  it will take until december 2008, at which point bush will then assert that due to continuing terrorist threats he will remain in office beyond his constitutionally-mandated term until the current threat is over. and given his knack for underestimating such things, he'll become president-for-life.
  
  ed

• kruuyai said on Nov 30, 2007....

  ed:  It's not necessary to watch the full 45 minutes to get the gist, but I don't know that getting the gist is enough.  She makes some very important points throughout her talk... points that Americans need to ponder, and she supplies information that we need to arm ourselves with when we are talking about this to our fellow Americans.  And, in her conclusion, she talks about what we need to do (not only impeach Bush, but put him behind bars for his crimes against America).
  
  " it will take until december 2008, at which point bush will then assert that due to continuing terrorist threats he will remain in office beyond his constitutionally-mandated term until the current threat is over. and given his knack for underestimating such things, he'll become president-for-life."  That is exactly what I've been predicting.  I hope we're wrong.

• silverwhisper said on Nov 30, 2007....

  as do i, kruu. as do i.
  
  ed

• sheltercrow said on Nov 30, 2007....

  I quote...

  Most of us have only a faint understanding of how societies open up or close down, become supportive of freedom or ruled by fear, because this is not the kind of history that we feel, or that our educational system believes, is important for us to know. Another reason for our vagueness about how liberty lives or dies is that we have tended lately to subcontract out the tasks of the patriot: to let the professionals— lawyers, scholars, activists, politicians—worry about understanding the Constitution and protecting our rights. We think that “they” should manage our rights, the way we hire a professional to do our taxes; “they” should run the government, create policy, worry about whether democracy is up and running. We’re busy.

  But the Founders did not mean for powerful men and women far away from the citizens—for people with their own agendas, or for a class of professionals—to perform the patriots’ tasks, or to protect freedom. They meant for us to do it: you, me, the American who delivers your mail, the one who teaches your kids.

• sheltercrow said on Nov 30, 2007....

  
  

  I read the introduction and she has her facts quite right. The sad truth is she is so right.

• curmudgeon said on Nov 30, 2007....

  "They meant for us to do it: you, me, the American who delivers your mail, the one who teaches your kids."

  A cute but completely inaccurate sentiment. The Founding Fathers would not have been able to craft the Consitution and Bill of Rights if they had to farm their own land.

  They had slaves for that sort of thing.

  By the way - they also contracted out the procurement of arms for the Revolutionary War to the French, and outsourced some of the fighting to the French and the Mexicans.

  I, for one, do not see this nation becoming a "fascist" or any other kind of dictatorship. I happen to like Bush, but he will be out of office in just over a year. Then someone else, possibly one of his rivals on the opposite side of the political specturm takes over. Good luck and best wishes to her/him.

  If you want a real dictatorship, look to Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe and North Korea where leftist cults of personality currently dominate. In fact, these indicators  Naomi Wolf outlines don't even come nearly as close to defining a fascist dictatorship than these:

  • Cult of Personality (Il, Chavez, Castro)
  • Leaders for Life (see above)
  • Government holding complete control of all industries and national assets
  • Government becoming the sole distributor of goods and services
  • Equality being achieved: Everyone is equally poor, except for party officials and loyalists
  • Brutal enforcement of their stated "egalitarianism" (see Mugabe, Stalin, Mao, Shining Path, the NPA in the Philippines)
  • Lastly, and most importantly Fascists are LEFTISTS!

• kumarilata said on Nov 30, 2007....

  i know of naomi wolf many years now, and many people listen to her, but it is like we sit here drinking in information, and do nothing but talk about it.  I wasn't worried til george bush got into office.  then it was like all the signs were there.

• kruuyai said on Dec 01, 2007....

  sheltercrow:  Thank you for providing that quote.  I wish I could have typed the whole script in here.  Anyone who is interested in reading more, but doesn't want to see the video, can read the first chapter of Wolf's book in its entirety for no charge at the link I provided for Amazon.com in the post above.  Just click on "Search Inside this Book" and then on "Excerpt."  And I agree.. she is so right.
  
  curmudgeon:  I imagine that you would be one of the first to argue that what makes our country great is the fact that our people enjoy self determination.  I imagine you would say that we are a "free" people.  How "free" can a people be when they turn their "freedom" over to the hands of a few wealthy and powerful rulers influenced only by businesspeople or powerful lobbyists who have their own interests in mind?  Where in the constitution does it say that we should elect legislative representatives and then hire professional lobbyists to keep an eye on them and make sure that they are carrying out our wishes?  Is there a fourth branch of government that I'm not aware of?  If we were not meant to take the fate of our country into our own hands, why were we given the vote?... why do we have the power to directly influence the decisions of our legislators?... why do we have referenda?  ... why do the politicians even bother trying to bullshit us?  Because we have the power to take their power away from them... at least at the time of this writing.  In the history of our country, whenever any important changes have been made to obtain, protect and ensure the rights of the citizens, it has been the direct result of action on the part of the people... not on the part of lobbyists (normally hired by special interest groups), but on the part of ordinary citizens taking to the streets in numbers and demonstrating their will.... the Civil Rights Movement, Women's Sufferage, the Anti-Vietnam War Protest, Labor Rights during the Industrial Revolution, to name a few.  Where would we be today without those movements?  Political analysts and pundits have their role, to be sure.  They draw our attention to trends that might go unnoticed (although how any intelligent American can be ignorant of current trends in America today is beyond my comprehension), and they fill us in with historical data and facilitate our self-education, but it's always our duty to check their facts and take action based on our own conclusions.  The pundits can't do it on their own, nor should we expect or want them to.  We have to examine their motives as well. In the end, we can only trust ourselves, and to hand our decision making power over to a group of professionals while remaining ignorant ourselves is like trying to run a business and entrusting everything to an accountant without having an understanding of how the numbers are supposed to work.  What will happen?  They will steal us blind.  And that is what is happening, politically, in America today.
  
  "
  
  • Lastly, and most importantly Fascists are LEFTISTS!"  This is simply not true, my friend.  The communists and socialists are leftists.  Hitler, who was the supreme fascist of all time, was fighting against the communists in Russia, and members of the communist party in Germany were among those placed in concentration camps (reference). 
    
  • 
    
  kumarilata:  Talking is the first step, but it can't end there.  We must contact our legislators (now easier than at any time before in the history of the country) and demand impeachment and imprisonment for Bush.  Letters are a second step..  Then, we must take to the streets.
  

• kumarilata said on Dec 01, 2007....

  oh, i have done that many times.  I want Cheney indicted too for the Valerie Plame crime.

• kruuyai said on Dec 01, 2007....

  kumarilata:  Good for you!  (for exercising your rights as a citizen).  Now, it may be time to start a letter-writing campaign among your friends and other people in your network.  Cast that web far and wide.

• kumarilata said on Dec 01, 2007....

  where?

• kruuyai said on Dec 01, 2007....

  This web site tells you who your US Senator is and how to contact him or her.

• kruuyai said on Dec 01, 2007....

  Here's a web site that helps you find out who your congress representative is and how to contact him or her.

• kruuyai said on Dec 01, 2007....

  kumarilata:  where what?

• kumarilata said on Dec 01, 2007....

  thank you, kruuyai.  i will use it to look up information.

• kumarilata said on Dec 01, 2007....

  thank you, kruuyai.  i will use it to look up information.

• kruuyai said on Dec 01, 2007....

  Ah, okay, you were asking about my mistake where I forgot to make the link.  Fixed it.  I hope everyone who reads this will use it to find their representatives and contact them.

• kelly said on Dec 01, 2007....

  I'm glad you posted this.  Yes, it's long.  No, I haven't watched it yet, but I am going to.  In fact, I already had it bookmarked from a previous source.  I'm willing to forego two games of Desktop Tower Defense in order to view it.  :-)

• kruuyai said on Dec 01, 2007....

  kelly:  I applaud your sacrifice!  You're setting a fine example.  I hope others will follow it.  :)   And on a more serious note, your last sentence is more poignant than it seems at first.  When you put it into perspective like that... playing a game (insert: watch TV, go shopping, talk on the phone, etc.), versus saving democracy in America, the choice should be obvious for most people.  Thanks.

• kruuyai said on Dec 01, 2007....

  I've been thinking about who, along the political spectrum, is likely to be open to hearing the facts and implications that Wolf presents in this video, and who is likely to be closed to it... and everything just seems backwards to me.  It seems pretty apparent that those who label themselves "liberal" (many who vote for the democrats) are more likely to hear this message than those who label themselves "conservative" (many who vote for the republicans).  But if you think of the meaning of the words, and the philosophy that each side supposedly endorses.. liberal meaning open to new ideas and change, and conservative meaning wanting to preserve the status quo... this doesn't really make sense, does it?  Conservatives/Republicans talk a lot about wanting less government interference in our private lives (and I agree with them on that count).  But are the Bush administration's policies creating more or less interference in our private lives?  When we are stripped of our civil liberties, deprived of due process, subject to surveillance in the privacy of our own homes without probable cause... that seems to me to be "more" government... not "less."  Or have I misunderstood the Republicans and the conservatives?  Is their concern about government interference only with regard to the financial realm?  What, exactly, is it that they want to conserve?  Certainly not the US Constitution.  Perhaps they just want to conserve the "idea" that we are a free country and that we live in a democracy, and the only way they can hold onto that idea in these times is to put their heads in the sand and pretend that this great change has not, is not and will not take place in our country.  I almost wish I could share their naivete, but I can't.  For me, actions speak louder than words, and no amount of jargon can cover up the fact that democracy is an endangered species in America.

• sheltercrow said on Dec 01, 2007....

  Geon:

  
  

  Where is it you get all these exotic interpretations you come up with?

  
  

  In your comment you lambast political systems for a supposed “cult of personality” while you yourself exhibit the same behavior as a cult follower concerning bush and the republicans.

  
  

  When a country tries to throw of the yoke of being a client state to Yankee interests it is vilified by the corporate press. That press is corporate and as such concerns itself with corporate issues not citizen issues. It uses whatever technique works to sway the reader no matter what the truth may be if indeed there is any truth to be discussed at all. You fall into the group I would describe as “lazy pseudo-intellectuals” wanting to appear in the know without doing the research to be knowledgeable about anything, instead relying on others to dole out the facts.

  
  

  The Founding Fathers would not have been able to craft the Consitution and Bill of Rights if they had to farm their own land.

  
  

  They had slaves for that sort of thing.

  
  

  This is pure drivel.

  
  

  By the way - they also contracted out the procurement of arms for the Revolutionary War to the French, and outsourced some of the fighting to the French and the Mexicans.

  
  

  This is drivel.

  
  

  Ben Franklin was one of the contractors and it was a loan from the French. The French were an interested party being at war with the British at the time.

  
  

  The statement about the Mexicans is pure racism since Mexico didn’t exist at the time of the revolution.

  
  

  I, for one, do not see this nation becoming a "fascist" or any other kind of dictatorship. I happen to like Bush, but he will be out of office in just over a year. Then someone else, possibly one of his rivals on the opposite side of the political [spectrum] takes over. Good luck and best wishes to her/him.

  
  

  Your cult of personality pretensions shows itself here with this drivel.

  
  

  If you want a real dictatorship, look to Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe and North Korea where leftist cults of personality currently dominate. In fact, these indicators  Naomi Wolf outlines don't even come nearly as close to defining a fascist dictatorship than these:

  
  

  This and the list you placed are pure drivel as the actual facts would lead an intelligent person to different conclusions.

  
  

  If you dispute what I have written please expostulate with fact and not fiction. It is so tedious to respond to reams of drivel like the above sunday morning pundit driven arm chair cold warrior manifesto garbage you pass off as knowledge.

  
  
  
  

  I take it you are an older gentlemen; not much older than I so I can say this without being disrespectful; stop being an idiot and get real. Do your own thinking and stop relying on tainted sources so much.

• sheltercrow said on Dec 01, 2007....

  Kruuyai

  
  

  I've been thinking about [whom], along the political spectrum, is likely to be open to hearing the facts and implications that Wolf presents in this video, and who is likely to be closed to it... and everything just seems backwards to me. 

  
  

  Don’t concern yourself just keep to your guns. I myself will not be bullied by these people.

  
  

  It seems pretty apparent that those who label themselves "liberal" (many who vote for the democrats) are more likely to hear this message than those who label themselves "conservative" (many who vote for the republicans).  But if you think of the meaning of the words, and the philosophy that each side supposedly endorses... liberal meaning open to new ideas and change, and conservative meaning wanting to preserve the status quo... this doesn't really make sense, does it?

  
  

  I don’t think you make any headway here. You come to a conclusion and reject it.

  
  

  Conservatives/Republicans talk a lot about wanting less government interference in our private lives (and I agree with them on that count).  But are the Bush administration's policies creating more or less interference in our private lives?  When we are stripped of our civil liberties, deprived of due process, subject to surveillance in the privacy of our own homes without probable cause... that seems to me to be "more" government... not "less." 

  
  

  The main problem with this administration is that they have squandered the wealth of the middle classes with no discernable return. It will burden every tax payer now and far into the future with the debt costs incurred for the actions of this miserable lot of self absorbed ego maniacs. Every text book family in this country has already shelled out over 20,000 dollars to this madness. That is not an exaggeration.

  
  

  Or have I misunderstood the Republicans and the conservatives?  Is their concern about government interference only with regard to the financial realm?  What, exactly, is it that they want to conserve?  Certainly not the US Constitution.  Perhaps they just want to conserve the "idea" that we are a free country and that we live in a democracy, and the only way they can hold onto that idea in these times is to put their heads in the sand and pretend that this great change has not, is not and will not take place in our country.  I almost wish I could share their naiveté, but I can't.  For me, actions speak louder than words, and no amount of jargon can cover up the fact that democracy is an endangered species in America.

  
  

  Don’t haggle in the pseudo politics of these idiots and stick to your true concerns.

  
  

• kruuyai said on Dec 01, 2007....

  sheltercrow:  This is a good start to a rebuttal of curmudgeon's comment, but I'd like to see you replace "this is drivel" with an expanded argument supported by facts.  It would really help move the discussion forward.  Thanks.  And by the way, it's not possible to sway someone toward your/my/our point of view when we attack them personally.  I understand that it's easy to be frustrated when presented with arguments that haven't been well researched, but let's keep our ultimate goal in mind.  We won't win support by creating enemies with the very people that we should be trying to band together with.
  

• kruuyai said on Dec 01, 2007....

  sheltercrow:  It's not a matter of being bullied or not.  I was trying to point out the hypocrisy in the thinking of Bush's supporters (mainly conservatives).  They claim that they want less government, but they support an administration that gives them more government.  Too much government is exactly the issue that this post tackles.  When we finally have a totalitarian regime, that'll be 100% government... with the aim of economic domination which is the real aim of this government.  Is that enough government for the conservatives who are always crying out for "less government?"

• sheltercrow said on Dec 01, 2007....

  WiKi-note: Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the interests of the state. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism.

  
  

  … supporters have included representatives of big business, farmers, landowners, …small business owners, nationalists, reactionaries and extreme conservatives…

  
  

  I can see the writing on the screen can you?

  
  

  From a Gentile to a Jew. What happens after they burn the books? Or records in this case?

  
  

  The neocons agenda is something you should look into my friend. It is not as simple as you make it out.

  
  

• kruuyai said on Dec 01, 2007....

  sheltercrow:  This is what I've been saying.
  
  "From a Gentile to a Jew. What happens after they burn the books? Or records in this case?"  Who are you talking to?
  
  "The neocons agenda is something you should look into my friend. It is not as simple as you make it out."  What, exactly are you trying to say here?  It's a lot more helpful to everyone who reads this if you come out and say what you mean rather than making obscure inferences.

• sheltercrow said on Dec 01, 2007....

  Kruuyai:

  My original comment was concerned with just researched items but as it got so large I had to abandon the project. The American Enterprise Institute has been at the forefront if this effort to place ideology above common sense. Their experts are quite good at boiler plate corporate propaganda and can, with a concerted effort, be refuted. If we take the time will you allow us the space?

• kruuyai said on Dec 01, 2007....

  sheltercrow:  Take as much space as you need.  That's what we're here for.

• sheltercrow said on Dec 01, 2007....

  I do not consider these people as enemies they consider me as their enemy.

• sheltercrow said on Dec 01, 2007....

  From the AEI

  Betraying Democracy in Venezuela

  In a recent summit of leaders from Latin America, Spain, and Portugal, King Juan Carlos of Spain told Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez to "shut up." The unusually blunt words came after Chavez repeatedly called former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar a "fascist."  Last year, the Venezuelan president referred to President Bush as a "devil" at the United Nations. Unfortunately, Chavez's rhetorical excess is matched by his revolutionary zeal. As AEI's Roger F. Noriega reminds us, Chavez seems determined to wield absolute power, consolidating dictatorial control over "the legislature, the courts, the electoral apparatus," and independent media. The latest evidence is a referendum scheduled for December 2 designed to approve constitutional changes by Chavez's handpicked legislature. The changes would abolish presidential term limits, give the president control over the Central Bank, and provide sweeping emergency powers, eliminating what vestiges of democracy remain in Venezuela. Noriega has urged the United States and the Organization of American States to do more to promote inter-American solidarity, but he has also urged Latin American governments to stand up and stand together to defend their principles and oppose Chavez's demagoguery.

  Last December, Noriega, Representative Connie Mack, and others spoke about the prospects for the increasingly undemocratic Venezuela. Noriega contributed a Latin American Outlook on how Chavez has led his country down the path to dictatorship.

  Noriega has written other Latin American Outlooks about the need for "democratic solidarity" in the Americas and how democracy is the cure for Chavez-style populism. The most recent issue addresses, among other things, the prospects for Chavez's petrodollar diplomacy in the context of U.S.-Latin American relations.

  King Juan Carlos, Maria Aznar and Roger F. Noriega are used here to make a dubious argument. On closer inspection these gentlemen lose their credibility as being independent sources from what they are being used to prove.

  The first item is to show they are not disinterested patriots.

• sheltercrow said on Dec 01, 2007....

  Juan Carlos I of Spain

  WiKi-speak:

  The heir to the throne of Spain was Juan de Borbón (Count of Barcelona), the son of the late Alfonso XIII. However, Franco viewed the heir with extreme suspicion, believing him to be a liberal who was opposed to his regime. Franco then considered giving the throne to Juan Carlos's cousin (and proven Francoist) Alfonso, Duke of Anjou and Cádiz, who had married Franco's granddaughter in 1972. In response, Juan Carlos started to use his second name Carlos to assert his claim to the heritage of the Carlist branch of his family.

  WiKi-note: Carlism is a traditionalist and legitimist political movement in Spain seeking the establishment of a separate line of the Bourbon family on the Spanish throne.

  An exceptionally long-lived movement, it was a significant player in Spanish politics from 1833 until the demise of the Franco regime in 1975 as a social and political force, one of the main actors in the Spanish Kulturkampf or cultural war of Catholicism and monarchism against liberalism and modernism.

  In this capacity, it was the cause of several major wars during the 19th century, and an important factor during the most recent Spanish Civil War.

  Even today, many Carlists remain politically active although Carlism is a movement of scarce political influence.

  Ultimately, Franco decided to skip a generation and name Prince Juan Carlos as his personal successor. Franco hoped the young Prince could be groomed to take over the nation while still maintaining the ultra-conservative nature of his regime. In 1969, Juan Carlos was officially designated heir and was given the new title of Prince of Spain (not the traditional Prince of Asturias).

  Juan Carlos met and consulted with Franco many times while heir apparent and often performed official and ceremonial state functions alongside the dictator, much to the anger of hard-line republicans and more moderate liberals, who had hoped that Franco's death would bring in an era of reform. During those years, Juan Carlos publicly supported Franco's regime. However, as the years progressed, Juan Carlos began meeting with political opposition leaders and exiles, who were fighting to bring liberal reform to the country. Franco, for his part, remained largely oblivious to the prince's actions and denied allegations that Juan Carlos was in any way disloyal to his vision of the regime.

  During periods of Franco's temporary incapacity in 1974 and 1975 Juan Carlos was acting head of state. Near death, on 30 October, 1975, Franco gave full control to Juan Carlos. On 22 November, following Franco's death, the Cortes Generales proclaimed Juan Carlos King of Spain and on November 27, Juan Carlos ascended the Spanish throne with an anointing ceremony called Holy Spirit Mass which was the equivalent to a coronation at the Jerónimos Church in Madrid.

  WiKi-speak:

  In November 2007 at the Ibero-American Summit in Santiago de Chile, during a heated exchange, Juan Carlos pointed his finger at Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and said "tú" (using the familiar form of "you"), then moments later asked him, "¿Por qué no te callas?" ("Why don't you shut up?"). Chávez had been interrupting the Spanish Prime Minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, while the latter was defending his predecessor and political opponent, José María Aznar, after Chávez had referred to Aznar as a fascist and "less human than snakes". The King shortly afterwards left the hall when President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua accused Spain of intervention in his country's elections and complained about some Spanish energy companies working in Nicaragua. This was an unprecedented diplomatic incident and a rare display of public anger by the King.

• sheltercrow said on Dec 01, 2007....

  José María Aznar

  José María Aznar López (born February 25, 1953) served as the President of the Government of Spain (Prime Minister) from 1996 to 2004.

  As a teenager, Aznar was a member of the Frente de Estudiantes Sindicalistas (FES), a student union which was a branch of the Falange Española Independiente (FEI), then a current [member] of the falangist official party. After the death of Francisco Franco and the restoration of democracy, Aznar joined the People's Alliance (AP) in January 1979, a few months after his wife. In March he became the Secretary General of the party in La Rioja, occupying the post until 1980. In February 1981 he joined the AP's National executive committee. He became Assistant Secretary General in February 1982. On October 26, 1982 he was elected to the Parliament, representing Ávila. On June 22, 1985 he was elected to the presidency of the AP in Castile and Leon.

  The Falange (or Phalange) is the name assigned to several political movements and parties dating from the 1930s, most particularly the original movement in Spain. The word Falange means phalanx formation in Spanish. This bellic symbol was chosen due to the militaristic nature of the party.

  Falange

  In Spain, the Falange was a political organization founded by José Antonio Primo de Rivera in 1933, during the Second Spanish Republic. Primo de Rivera was a Madrid lawyer, son of General Miguel Primo de Rivera, who governed Spain as a mild dictatorial Prime Minister, with the acquiescence of King Alfonso XIII, in the 1920s (from September 1923 to January 1930). General Primo de Rivera believed in state planning and government intervention in the economy. His son and the Phalangists he led expressed regret for the demise of the elder Primo de Rivera's regime, and proposed to revive his policies and strengthen the Spanish nation through a program of national-syndicalist social organization, who would include and provide equality to every social status, poor and rich.

  During the Spanish Civil War the doctrine of the Falange was used by General Franco, who virtually took possession of its ideology, while José Antonio Primo de Rivera was sentenced to death by the Spanish Republican Government. During the war, and after its founder's death, the Falange was combined by decree (Unification Decree) with the Carlist party, under the sole command of Generalísimo Franco, forming the core of the sole official political organization in Spain, the Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista, or "Spanish Traditionalist Phalanx of the Assemblies of National-Syndicalist Offensive" (FET y de las JONS). This organization, also known as the National Movement (Movimiento Nacional) after 1945, continued until Franco's death in 1975.

  Members of the party were called Falangists (Spanish: Falangistas).

  The Falange Española Tradicionalista de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista (FET y de las JONS, Spanish for "Spanish Falange of Traditionalists and of the Unions of the National-Syndicalist Offensive") was the official political party founded by Francisco Franco April 19, 1937, in the midst of the Spanish Civil War.

  Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista

  The party constituted a merger of the Carlist traditionalists and Franco's Falange Española de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista, which itself resulted from an earlier combination of the Falange ("Phalanx"; Spain's fascist party) and the JONS, the national syndicalist party. After Franco's military victory in 1939, the FET y de las JONS became the sole legal political party of Spain.

  In 1949, it was reorganized as the main component of the Movimiento Nacional ("National Movement"), which had for some time been its most-used unofficial name. After the end of Franco's rule, the movement disbanded; a number of small ultra-right groups in modern Spain still claim to be its successor

  The Movimiento Nacional (National Movement)

  The Movimiento Nacional (National Movement) was the name given to the fascist inspired mechanism during Francoist rule in Spain, which purported to be the only channel of participation to Spanish public life. It responded to a doctrine of corporatism in which only so-called "natural entities" could express themselves: families, municipalities and unions.

  Ideology

  People who strongly identified with the Movimiento Nacional were colloquially known as Falangistas or Azules (Blue), from the colour of the shirts worn by José Primo de Rivera's fascist organization created during the Second Republic. Camisas viejas (Old shirts) enjoyed the honour of being historical members of the Falange, compared to Camisas nuevas (New shirts), who could be accused of opportunism.

  The ideology of the Movimiento Nacional was resumed by the slogan ¡Una, Grande y Libre!, which stood for the indivisibility of the Spanish state and the refusal of any regionalism or decentralization, its imperial character, both past (the defunct Spanish Empire in the Americas, and foreseen in Africa), and its independence towards the purported "Judeo-masonic-Marxist international conspiracy" (a personal obsession of Franco), materialized by the Soviet Union, the European democracies, the United States (until the 1953 agreements) or the "exterior enemy" which could threatened the nation at any time, as well as towards the long list of "internal enemies" ("anti-Spanish", "reds", "separatist", "liberals", etc

  WiKi-note: "Francism"

  The Spanish Civil War officially ended on 1 April 1939, the day that Francisco Franco announced the end of hostilities. The Republican regime had been defeated and Franco became the undisputed leader and dictator of what came to be known as "Spanish State", a new moniker attempting to distinguish the new regime from both monarchy and republic. He ruled Spain until he died on November 20, 1975.

  WiKi-note: Aznar's government posthumously granted a medal of Civil Merit to Melitón Manzanas, the head of the secret police in San Sebastian and the first high-profile member of the Francoist government killed by ETA in 1968. He was widely considered a torturer, and Amnesty International condemned the awarding.

  After the 2004 elections it was revealed that Aznar and his government secretly channeled public funds to a US legal firm to lobby for the bestowment of the Congressional Gold Medal on Aznar. The contract consisted in a first payment of $700000 USD for the first seven months, followed by $100000 monthly payments until it reached the sum of $2 million.

• sheltercrow said on Dec 01, 2007....

  Roger Francisco Noriega

  Roger Francisco Noriega (born 1959, Wichita, Kansas) is a United States career diplomat. As Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs under President George W. Bush, Ambassador Noriega was responsible for managing U.S. foreign policy and promoting U.S. interests in the region. He was replaced by Thomas A. Shannon, Jr., in October 2005. Originally from Wichita, Kansas, he attended Washburn University in Topeka where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1981. He is currently a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, focusing on Western Hemisphere issues.

  Prior to becoming Assistant Secretary, Noriega served as U.S. Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States (OAS) from 2001 to 2003. In April 2002, Noriega publicly clashed with Secretary of State Colin Powell when he applauded the short-lived coup d’état in Venezuela, forcing Powell to distance himself from Noriega’s comments after Hugo Chávez was returned to power.

  As Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere, Noriega was a major force behind the Bush Administration’s policy towards the government of Cuba.

  From 1994 to 1997, Noriega returned to Capitol Hill as a senior staff member New York Congressman Benjamin Gilman for the House Committee on International Relations. Subsequently, he became a senior staff member of Senator Jesse Helms for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. In 1996, Noriega helped draft the Helms-Burton law which tightened the 40-year-old embargo on Cuba. Noriega also served as the Senior Policy Advisor and Alternate U.S. Representative at the U.S. Mission to the OAS from 1990 through 1993, and as Senior Advisor for Public Information at the OAS from 1993 to 1994.

• sheltercrow said on Dec 01, 2007....

  The Venezuelan coup attempt

  The Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002 was a failed coup d'état on April 11, 2002. The coup plotters were successful for 47 hours in overthrowing the democratically-elected government of Venezuela, detaining the head of state President Hugo Chávez, dissolving the democratically-elected National Assembly, dissolving the Supreme Court, and repealing the country's constitution.

  Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce (Fedecámaras) president Pedro Carmona was installed as interim president. In Caracas, the coup led to a pro-Chávez uprising by Venezuelan citizens that the Metropolitan Police attempted to suppress. Key sectors of the military and parts of the anti-Chávez movement refused to back Carmona. The pro-Chávez Presidential Guard eventually retook the Miraflores presidential palace without firing a shot, leading to the collapse of the Carmona government and the re-installation of Chávez as president.

  The coup was publicly condemned by Latin American nations (the Rio Group presidents were gathered together in San José, Costa Rica, at the time, and were able to issue a joint communiqué) and international organizations. The United States and Chile quickly acknowledged the de facto pro-US Carmona government, but ended up condemning the coup after it had been defeated.

  The first hints of disturbance emerged when Venezuela Air Force Colonel Pedro Vicente Soto and National Reserve Captain Pedro Flores Rivero led a small rally protesting the Chávez government's allegedly undemocratic and authoritarian practices. They were sent home in uniform and placed under investigation by a joint civilian and military board.

  On April 9, 2002, the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV) — the country's largest trade-union federation, traditionally affiliated with the opposition Democratic Action (Acción Democrática) party, led by Carlos Ortega — called for a two-day strike. Fedecámaras joined the strike/lockout and called on all of its affiliated member businesses to shut down for 48 hours.

  Mass demonstration leading to the coup against Chavez

  A still from footage showing pro-Chávez shooters on Puente Llaguno. Both sides still contest at whom shots were fired. Two days later, amid rapidly escalating tensions, an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 people marched to the PDVSA headquarters in defense of its recently-dismissed management board. Unexpectedly, the organizers decided to re-route the march to Miraflores, the presidential palace, where a pro-Chávez demonstration was taking place. The march was re-routed without consultation with the Police, who legally had to approve the changed route, and in spite of protests from organizers from the pro-Chávez march who feared a confrontation. Twenty people were killed and more than 100 wounded, with victims on both sides.

  There is no consensus as to who was responsible for the deaths on April 11, 2002, and this remains one of the most controversial issues in Venezuelan politics today. Several private television channels in Venezuela showed footage of people shooting from the pro-Chávez counter-march being held on Puente Llaguno, an overpass that crosses one of central Caracas's busiest avenues. These shooters were four pro-Chávez political activists identified as Rafael Cabrices, Richard Peñalver, Henry Atencio, and Nicolás Rivera. They were captured by the police and jailed for one year as they awaited trial, but charges were dropped before the trial began. Rafael Cabrices subsequently died from a heart attack on August 30, 2005.

  The anti-Chávez commercial stations repeatedly showed only a small part of the scene (see still shot), of pro-Chávez supporters firing, claiming they were firing at unarmed demonstrators. This footage was also widely screened in the US to boost support for the Bush administration's backing of the coup. However, an amateur cameraman captured footage that revealed the gunmen were not firing at any demonstrators, since the street below was empty except for an armored police vehicle which had previously been firing at the bridge. This footage was included in the documentary The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. Cabrices, Peñalver, Atencio and Rivera argue that they were, in fact, returning fire at unknown snipers firing towards them. A very thorough reconstruction of the events is the basis for the film Llaguno Bridge: Keys to a Massacre which vindicates this version of events.

  Several times in the early afternoon, Chávez took to the airwaves in what is termed a cadena (from the Spanish verbal phrase, "estar en cadena"), or a commandeering of the collective public and private media airwaves to broadcast public announcements and addresses. Some of the broadcasts asked protesters to return to their homes, while others featured lengthy pre-recorded discourses led by the president. The last of these cadenas began just minutes after shots were fired at the crowds of protesters and continued throughout the massacre. The private television stations defied the cadena by splitting the screen between the president's address and scenes of bloodshed. Chávez then ordered private outlets to be taken off the air in a forced blackout. The measure managed to block coverage of the crisis in Caracas only, as the private television stations continued to broadcast in the rest of the country and via satellite.

  Chávez's alleged resignation

  "La cual aceptó" (which he accepted) were the words of General-in-Chief Lucas Rincón Romero when saying that president Hugo Chávez accepted the resignation. President Chávez and several ministers were in the presidential palace, which was surrounded by tanks. The evening of April 11, members of the military high command entered the palace, demanding Chávez' resignation. In the early hours of April 12, General-in-Chief Lucas Rincón Romero announced that Chávez had been asked for his resignation, and had accepted.

  General Manuel Rosendo, chief of the National Unified Army Command (CUFAN) at the time, reported that he and others chose to disobey the president when he ordered them to apply Plan Ávila, a contingency plan designed to deal with major disturbances.

  General Rosendo says he presented the newly-deposed Chávez two options: choose to remain in Venezuela on the condition that he stand trial for the April 11 killings, or be exiled. Chávez reportedly responded that he and his family wished to be exiled to Cuba, on the conditions that Rosendo personally guarantee the safety of Chávez's relatives and that Chávez would depart via Maiquetía's Simón Bolívar International Airport.

  On the other hand, Chávez himself has stated that he negotiated an agreement to resign only after he realized that many top military leaders opposed his policies. Chávez also agreed to resign only on the condition that his resignation would follow constitutional order: it needed to be tendered before the National Assembly, and Chávez's own vice-president would succeed him. Chávez stated that he was assured by the rebel generals that they would comply with these conditions. There is, however, no recorded or written proof of his actual resignation and many doubt that he ever did at all. He has also stated that shortly after Rincón's announcement, the assurances were abruptly rescinded and he was formally taken into custody.

  After his "resignation" had been announced, Chávez was escorted under military guard to Fort Tiuna, where he met with representatives of the Roman Catholic Church. Chávez was also met by army officers, who by then had determined that he was indeed not to be sent to Cuba. Instead, Chávez would be taken to La Orchila, a military base off the coast of Venezuela, until rebel leaders could decide Chávez's fate. On April 13, Chávez wrote a note from his captivity in Turiamo stating specifically that he had not resigned.

  Carmona's "interim presidency"

  Businessman Pedro Carmona, president of Fedecámaras, was installed as "interim President" after Chávez's alleged resignation. While briefly in power, Carmona announced a decree dissolving the National Assembly, the Supreme Court and other institutions. These measures cost Carmona much of his support within the military that had rebelled against Chávez.

  Carmona's installation as President generated a widespread uprising in support of Chávez that was suppressed by the Metropolitan Police. It also led to a demonstration outside the Presidential Palace by hundreds of thousands of people. The Presidential Guard, loyal to Chávez and cheered on by the demonstrators, retook the palace and the rebellion collapsed. Since Chávez was being held in a secret location, the presidency was assumed for several hours by Vice President Diosdado Cabello until Chávez was reinstated.

  However, it took some time to make this known. At the beginning of the coup, the dissident military had occupied Venezolana de Televisión, the state television channel, and the private media also refused to bring the news. Despite the fact that tens of thousands of people had taken to the streets around the palace, Carmona declared that there had been some disturbances, but things were now under control. Only by 8 o'clock that evening the reinstalled government managed to inform the people through the television channels. Because there were difficulties getting Chávez back, to restore order, two hours later the vice-president was sworn in as interim president on television. Chávez returned the next day.

  Aftermath

  Allegations of U.S. involvement

  An investigation conducted by the U.S. Inspector General, at the request of U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd, stated that "U.S. officials acted appropriately and did nothing to encourage an April coup against Venezuela's president". However, Chavez has asserted numerous times that U.S government officials knew about plans for a coup, approved of them and assumed they would be successful. Chávez also further alleged that "two military officers from the United States" were present in the headquarters of coup plotters.

  According to a report in The New York Times, US Assistant Secretary of State Otto Reich warned Congressional aides that there was more at stake in Venezuela than the success or failure of Chávez. He accused Chávez of meddling with the historically government-owned state oil company, providing a haven for Colombian guerrillas, and bailing out the Cuban dictatorship with preferential rates on oil. Reich, a Cuban American and anti-Fidel Castro activist with a background in covert political and propaganda operations against left-wing groups in Latin America, also announced that the administration had received reports that "foreign paramilitary forces", whom they claimed were Cuban, were involved in the bloody suppression of anti-Chávez demonstrators. No proof was offered. Eva Gollinger published an article and several official documents claiming that a number of US agencies, including the CIA, had previous knowledge of the coup. She maintains that the USAID was being used by the CIA in the coup.

  Upon news of Chávez's return, Condoleezza Rice, then National Security Advisor to U.S. President George W. Bush, said: "We do hope that Chávez recognizes that the whole world is watching and that he takes advantage of this opportunity to right his own ship, which has been moving, frankly, in the wrong direction for quite a long time." Rice gave no opinion on the plotters.

  Criminal penalties for coup participants

  Under the 1999 Constitution, military officers are entitled to a pre-trial hearing before the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice to rule on whether they should be charged with a crime. In such a hearing on August 14, 2002, the Tribunal ruled by an 11-9 margin (with two justices recused) that four high-ranking military officers charged with rebellion should not stand trial, arguing that what took place was not a "coup" but a "vacuum of power" that had been generated by the announcement of Chávez's resignation made by Gen. Lucas Rincón Romero. On March 12, 2004, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled that the recusals were unconstitutional, the hearing was invalid, and the military officers (by then retired) may stand trial.

  On November 18, 2004, leading state prosecutor Danilo Anderson was assassinated, shortly before he was scheduled to bring charges against 400 people who allegedly participated in the coup. Meanwhile Carmona and several other participants in the events of 11 April went into exile.

  Irish documentary

  Main article: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary)

  A television crew from Ireland, which happened to be recording a documentary about Chávez at the time, recorded some images of the coup events. The crew claimed their footage flatly contradicted explanations given by anti-Chávez plotters, the Venezuelan private media, the United States Department of State, and then White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. The documentary features footage shot after the short coup that was based largely in the presidential palace with members of both rival governments and their supporters.

  The film has won awards at many film festival screenings where it was shown. It has been widely debated among both supporters and critics of the Venezuelan government. The film creators state that there had been threats to the Amnesty International Film Festival if they showed the documentary. Director Wolfgang Schalk had attempted to stop screenings of the film. Several organizations argue the events are correctly portrayed in the documentary. Others consider that the film omits and misrepresents important events. Members of the Venezuelan opposition claim that it has been widely used by the Venezuelan government for propaganda purposes and have created documentaries of their own as a response.

• sheltercrow said on Dec 01, 2007....

   

  US official pressed on Aristide departure.By Farah Stockman, Boston Globe Staff | March 4, 2004

  WASHINGTON -- Democratic congressmen raised more questions yesterday about the manner in which former Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide left office, grilling a senior State Department official at an emotional hearing about the crisis in the Caribbean country.

  Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, who has spoken by telephone to Aristide in exile, repeatedly asked Roger F. Noriega, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, if the US government told Aristide he had to resign as a condition for providing him safe passage from the country.

  Noriega did not answer yes or no, but said: "We wanted to have a sustainable political solution."

  But when asked whether the US government would have helped Aristide and his wife escape Haiti if he opted not to resign, Noriega said, "probably, yes."

  Since Aristide, Haiti's democratically elected president, resigned and flew into exile on Sunday, he has claimed that US officials forced him out in what amounts to a coup. US officials have called the charge "baseless" and "absurd," but the controversy threatens to cause problems for the Bush administration's efforts in Haiti. Yesterday, US officials warned that the rumors could provoke a backlash against Americans in Haiti and that some threats had already been issued.

  The debate over Haiti has become a bitterly partisan fight in Congress. Yesterday's hearing before the Western Hemisphere subcommittee of the House Committee on International Relations was no exception. Democrats, some of whom fought for the US intervention that restored Aristide to power in 1994 after a military coup, angrily questioned Noriega about why the US government did not offer Aristide's government support against the rebel forces sweeping the country.

  They argued that -- whatever mistakes Aristide has made -- the US government should not have stood by while an insurgency of known criminals forced him out. They also reiterated Aristide's claims, made by telephone to two members of the Congressional Black Caucus, that the United States forced him to step down.

  […]

  Noriega, a onetime aide to Republican Senator Jesse Helms, one of the most outspoken opponents of restoring Aristide to power in 1994, was asked if he had a history of animosity toward Aristide. He was also asked whether the CIA supported FRAPH, the anti-Aristide paramilitary group that murdered thousands, as press reports in the early 1990s indicated. Some leaders of the rebel forces are former leaders of FRAPH.

  Noriega, remaining composed throughout the hearing, said he had no knowledge of US assistance to FRAPH and that the United States had no contact with the rebels now, except yesterday's meeting to ask them to disarm.

• sheltercrow said on Dec 01, 2007....

   

  Cuba critic Noriega resigns July 30, 2005 Union-Tribune Publishing Co

  WASHINGTON – Roger F. Noriega, an outspoken critic of Cuba and Venezuela who has been assistant secretary of state for Latin American affairs for two years, announced his resignation yesterday, saying he had served in government long enough.

  "I've been in government for over 20 years, and this seemed like a good time to make a change," he said.

  He resigned a day after the administration named Caleb McCarry, a Republican congressional staff member, to a new position: "transition coordinator" for Cuba, with the mission of hastening a transition to democracy there.

  That took primary responsibility for Cuba, one of Noriega's favored issues, away from him.

  Noriega has been publicly critical of President Hugo Chávez's stewardship of Venezuela, particularly since Chávez began forming a close relationship with Fidel Castro, Cuba's president.

  Senior State Department officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, have said that they were upset by Noriega's outspoken attacks on Chávez even while others in the department have been trying to reduce tensions between the United States and Venezuela.

  New York Times News Service

• kruuyai said on Dec 01, 2007....

  sheltercrow:  Hold on!  This is all very interesting, but I don't see it as relating directly to the subject  of this post.  If you want to point out that the US has supported military coups that replace democracies with military dictatorships and try to make it look as though a military dictatorship has been replaced by a democracy, why not just say so and be done with it?  This lengthy history lesson doesn't add anything to the discussion and would be better featured on a post of your own as a separate topic.  Let's get back to talking about the threat to democracy inside America.

• sheltercrow said on Dec 01, 2007....

   

  A translation key for Roger Noriega by toni solo July 05, 2004

  Few people get to read US imperial declarations in the original. Access to official imperial texts is mostly via the interpretations and translations offered in newspapers, magazines and radio or TV. These translations tend to be unreliable because corporate media reporter-clerks themselves tend to be treacherous, lazy, biased and smug. It may be that the safest translation rule is to read any imperial text as meaning the opposite of what it seems to say.

  While that rule is pretty accurate in most cases, those who need more precise translation may find this elementary primer a useful practical tool. For reasons of simplicity the examples are all taken from US Senate testimony by Roger Noriega.1 A handy glossary of terms can be found among the clandestine cemeteries, remains of massacred villages and the bodies of hundreds of thousands of victims of torture throughout the length and breadth of Latin America. Check the tens of millions of people living on less than US$2 a day for the index.

  Exercise One – plutocrat panhandling as high morality

  Empire speak

  “Our own destiny is uniquely bound to that of our neighbors to the north and south...........Our open societies, however, are vulnerable to both internal and external threats - crime of all kinds and dimensions, internal conflict and, as September 11th made clear, dangerous new forms of terrorism.

  Translation

  We cannot be expected to eradicate the narcotics and arms trades since they are an essential and significant part of our financial and economic system. They help keep me, you Senators, and the US government administration rich and powerful. We need significantly more tax-payers' money so we can continue to fail to address these issues we have to fake concern about with a show of concerted, but mostly irrelevant, activity. Why?.... Oh, so as to make the corrupt plutocracy you Senators and myself represent even more rich and powerful than we are already.

  Empire-speak

  “The most encouraging development in the hemisphere over the last two decades has been the decisive shift to democratic governance. In 1980, fewer than half the countries in the hemisphere had freely elected leaders. ......... (now) Only one - Cuba - does not. Beginning at the 1994 Summit of the Americas, thirty-four Heads of State and Government have repeatedly endorsed democracy and free trade as guiding principles.“

  Translation

  Despite the regrettable fact that our preferred, murderous, kleptocrat dictatorships are no longer sustainable or, strictly speaking, necessary, we continue to project our power through corrupt local oligarchies and decisive electoral interventions as for example in Nicaragua and El Salvador and currently in the Bolivian and Venezuelan referendums. We need substantial funding in order to subvert free and fair electoral process throughout the Americas so as to keep the poor majority from developing any alternative to what we want. Furthermore, my colleague US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick can't make the Americas safe for corporate multinational business if his “comply or else” trade deals are subject to due democratic scrutiny. So pay up.

  Empire-speak

  “Democratic, prosperous nations make the best neighbors. They are likely to work with us to combat trans-national threats and to advance views similar to our own in multilateral fora such as the UN, the OAS, and the international financial institutions.”

  Translation

  We need more money to continue buying friends and bullying opponents so as to get what we want in the United Nations and the Organization of American States just like we did on Iraq. Did I say Iraq? I meant Haiti. Likewise we need to make sure we retain decisive influence in the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. So give us the money, OK?

  Exercise 2 – tyranny as democracy

  Empire-speak

  “We aim to encourage continued progress throughout the hemisphere toward effective democracy with broad-based economic growth, human development and both personal and national security.”

  Translation

  We are determined to continue imposing corporate welfare via the self-same neo-liberal economic policies that have failed categorically, remarkably and demonstrably to alleviate poverty in Latin America over the last twenty years. The continent suffers more poverty now than it did in 1990 when we really got down to forcing through privatization and cutbacks in public services. This is exactly as it should be because it makes it easier for us to get what we want. That's worth money....

  Empire-speak

  “While the manifestations of Haiti's ills are poverty and misery, the root causes are political. President Aristide's government failed its people in every way. Now we can make a new beginning in helping Haiti to build a democracy that respects the rule of law and protects the human rights of its citizens.”

  Translation

  We successfully supported murderous tyrannies in Haiti from 1916 until 1990 thus ensuring that the people of Haiti never got any misguided ideas about taking decisions for themselves. This guy Aristide was a problem for a while but we successfully undermined him and coerced him out of power. Now we need a bunch of money to clean up some of the mess we made so as to offer a local alternative to China for US sweat-shop apparel multinationals and give ourselves a secure base for our developing intervention in Cuba.

  Exercise 3 – democracy as practical joke

  Empire-speak

  “Just a few months ago, Bolivia was in the headlines. When Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada was elected president of Bolivia in August 2002, we looked forward to working with him to implement, among other things, market-oriented economic reforms he had previously developed. However, he was forced to resign this past December by popular demonstrations against some of those very policies........A principal objective of our democracy program in Bolivia is to draw the long-marginalized indigenous population into political life.....We believe that a stable democracy is a necessary condition for success in the fight against illegal drugs.”

  Translation

  We screwed up some in Bolivia but expect to keep the place in line mainly by purchasing local politicians and the military as we have always done and co-opting popular political organizations. At the same time as we're subverting democracy there, we can slip in a strong military presence with our one-size-fits-all fictional “war on drugs”. Our local helpers have been able to fit up Colombian rural workers rights activist Pacho Cortes as a “terrorist”, so the “war on terror” fits in here neatly too. As a stand-by we can de-stabilize the country by staging an incident on the border with our military friends in Chile requiring a State of Emergency and intervention from the OAS. Cool. And cheap too.

  Empire-speak

  “Venezuela remains a cause for considerable concern.........The United States has a major interest in preserving and regenerating democracy in Venezuela and facilitating a peaceful, constitutional solution to the ongoing political crisis. Foreign assistance resources will be used to improve the functioning of institutions that underpin democracy, in particular stronger, more democratic political parties and democracy-related NGOs. The absence of such dependable actors has greatly increased the distance between Chavez and his detractors and prolonged the crisis, with devastating effects on the national economy as well.”

  Translation

  Popular support for Venezuela's President Chavez is a real headache. We've got to find a way of getting the corrupt old oligarchy back into power again – preferably without an expensive armed intervention. We're pumping millions of dollars into subverting the electoral process, buying politicians and local civil organizations and propping up local opposition media whose credibility and sales are plummeting. It's a bummer that the Venezuelan economy is on the up-and-up but we can still get away with lying about that for another few months – no one in the US media will check their facts in any case. So give us time on this one.....and money....

  Empire-speak

  “In Cuba, the one country in the region that does not have a freely elected government, our policy is to encourage a rapid, peaceful transition to democracy characterized by strong support for human rights and an open market economy...... We intend to help create the conditions that will bring to an end the hemisphere's only totalitarian government and reintegrate the Cuban people as members of the community of the Americas.”

  Translation

  Cuba is the one country in Latin America that's consistently shown us up for the bumbling, hypocritical, mass-murdering, racist dunderheads that we are. This is not good for our self-esteem or for our international standing. We have to destroy the successful – relative to anywhere else in Latin America – social, economic and cultural arrangements Cubans currently enjoy, force at least 60% of the population into poverty – like we have everywhere else in Latin America – and sell off everything that belongs to the Cuban people to ourselves and our friends at pathetic knock-down prices – like we have everywhere else in Latin America – otherwise it'll never get to be a real member of our kind of neighbourhood – right? That costs money too.

  Exercise 4 – poverty, such a shame (tears rented from the walrus and the carpenter)

  Empire-speak

  “At the Special Summit of the Americas held in Monterrey, Mexico, this past January, the democratically elected Heads of State and Government declared their commitment to economic growth to reduce poverty.........The Summit declaration welcomed the progress achieved to date toward the establishment of a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and reaffirmed the commitment to complete the FTAA on schedule, that is, by the January 2005 deadline. The declaration contained numerous other statements of support for sound macroeconomic policies, prudent fiscal management, and public policies that stimulate domestic savings, meet the need for creation of productive jobs, and contribute to greater social inclusion.”

  Translation

  We had an excursion to sunny Mexico last winter where we stitched up a deal with our cronies from Latin America to protect the rich, keep wages down, maintain dividends , encourage capital flight and promote profitable speculation. We reckon to complete Continent-wide free (for us) trade-in-your-sovereignty deals at the same time as we impose conditions we wouldn't accept for a minute – “sound macroeconomic policies, prudent fiscal management, and public policies that stimulate domestic savings, meet the need for creation of productive jobs, and contribute to greater social inclusion.” - yeah, Alan Greenspan thought that was funny too.......it all costs money though......

  Empire-speak

  “At present, too many in the hemisphere are trapped in poverty and suffer from malnutrition. Without attention to their basic human needs - food, basic sanitation and quality education and healthcare, they will never be able to participate in the gains generated by economic growth and expanded trade. Consequently, we are continuing to dedicate significant resources to improve nutrition and healthcare in selected countries and regions.”

  Translation

  We couldn't care less about poverty as such but it's a bad advertisement for us to say so. We'll continue to spend around 0.1% of our GDP (peanuts, right?) throwing crumbs in the direction of poverty alleviation around the world, even some of it in Latin America – but remember all that “aid” is good for US business and it also means we can unload genetically manipulated foodstuffs on people who are too poor to be able to say no. And THAT means our agri-business industries end up holding the levers controlling food security throughout Latin America. Ditto pharmaceuticals. A good investment. Fund it.

  Empire-speak

  “In Nicaragua, the second poorest country in our hemisphere, our programs address fundamental obstacles to development, including food aid to ameliorate the impact of rural unemployment. We are also providing assistance to diversify agricultural production and link agricultural products to local, regional and global markets, giving small farmers a stake in the national economy.”

  Translation

  We continue to obstruct equitable and sustainable rural development in Nicaragua, as in the rest of Central America, by focusing on non-traditional exports, encouraging measures to wipe out self-sufficiency in basic grain production and to promote over-dependency on agro-chemicals. So far, as in Honduras, we have managed to encourage a massive demographic shift from rural to urban areas. This has created a satisfactorily large urban unskilled workforce desperate for jobs that foreign investors can soak up as cut-price labor for the maquiladoras. So domestically we have a reliable source of cheap tropical food products all year round and a handy alternative to Haiti, Mexico or Honduras for cheap maquila labor if those places ever get funny ideas about permitting labour unions or paying a living wage.

  Exercise 5 – militarization, good; environmentalism...are you kidding?

  Empire-speak

  “Notwithstanding Haiti, Colombia continues to present the most urgent case for law enforcement and other assistance in the region. Counternarcotics remains at the center of U.S. relations with Colombia, which supplies 90% of the cocaine consumed in the United States. However, as Colombia's three terrorist organizations - the FARC, ELN, and AUC - fund their activities with the proceeds of drug trafficking, a unified response is necessary. ........The total ACI request for FY 2005 (including Colombia) is $731 million. These funds are needed to support a unified Andean regional campaign against the drug trade and narco-terrorism.”

  Translation

  We're making no headway in Colombia. President Uribe is an ok bona fide fascist right up our street, though we're not sure how long we can keep on pretending he's helping us in the “war on drugs” since he depends on drugs kingpins in the army and paramilitaries to keep the guerillas under control. Never mind for now, we've called the AUC terrorists – don't take us too seriously on that one, they're our kind of terrorists – and issued extradition warrants for Mancuso and Castaño and some other guys but, hey, we need them to destabilize Venezuela – trust me. In any case we're using mercenaries down there so there are no comebacks – massacres, corruption - no worries. Anyhow, Colombia's cheaper than Israel right? So OK that cheque.....

  Empire-speak

  “Your letter of invitation asked specifically whether, in my opinion, there were any critical gaps in the Administration's foreign assistance request for the Western Hemisphere. Needless to say, there are always choices that must be made in putting together a budget of this kind. Our request level is sufficient to address the highest priority needs in our hemisphere.”

  Translation

  You don't seriously expect me to talk about the environmental disasters our policies are encouraging throughout Latin America do you? Desertification through promotion of unsustainable agricultural economic policies, catastrophic waste of water resources through encouragement of inappropriate hydroelectric schemes, systematic displacement of rural and indigenous populations as the direct and indirect result of energy exploration and exploitation programs and infrastructure integration plans like Plan Puebla Panama, devastation of vast areas of agricultural and forest areas through chemical and biological warfare as part of the bogus “war on drugs”, wiping out biodiversity with our multinationals' reckless propagation of transgenic crops ......no, let's not talk about all that...

  Exercise six – the final wind-up

  Empire-speak

  “The institutions of government, social services, and the free market economy we enjoy in the United States were not created overnight. We cannot expect that other countries in this hemisphere, most of which have a much shorter or inconsistent experience with democratic governance, will achieve a similar institutionalization of rights and freedoms in a few short years. .........As they become more stable partners in international endeavors and more open markets for our goods and services, we will become better friends in the broadest sense of the word. That is the overall objective we seek through our assistance program. I ask your support for full funding of the Administration's FY 2005 budget.”

  Translation

  We have no intention of letting the poor majority in Latin America decide their own destiny any more than we intend to permit genuine democracy and rule of law here in the US. You all voted for the PATRIOT Act didn't you? OK then. Just like here at home we will make sure the available political arrangements throughout Latin America serve our greedy destructive needs now and for the future just as we have always done since the Declaration of President Monroe.......That'll be several billions of dollars well spent on our overall military-industrial corporate welfare - we'll all do well out of this, believe me.

  Empire-speak:

  “Thank you for your attention.”

  Translation

  You guys vote through that funding now and thanks for faithfully neglecting your constitutional duty to subject this farrago of invention and half-truth of mine to any scrutiny worth the name.

  To contact toni solo : tonisolo01@yahoo.com

  Testimony of Roger F. Noriega, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Department of State, Before the Committee on Foreign Relations United State Senate, March 2, 2004

• kruuyai said on Dec 01, 2007....

  sheltercrow:  Unless you can find a way to relate your comments to this post, please cease and desist!  I'm addressing an important topic here, and while the issues you raise are also important, they belong in a separate post.

• silverwhisper said on Dec 01, 2007....

  kruu, if you delete the last comment by sheltercrow, it will stop making everything look like a link.
  
  ed

• sheltercrow said on Dec 01, 2007....

  Feel free to delete any and all of my comments.

  neocon agenda

  Roots of the Neocon/Cheney Agenda

  The Neocon Agenda For America

  Neoconservative / Neocons

• kruuyai said on Dec 01, 2007....

  sheltercrow:  I deleted the one so that everyone else's comments wouldn't be underlined, but I don't like to delete comments, because it's too much like censorship.  I'm just asking you to use common sense and address the topic at hand... please.

• sheltercrow said on Dec 01, 2007....

  I did get a little long. I was trying to demonstrate one instance of obfuscation that the neocons are so good at. It takes that much effort to refute just part of one article by one Think Tank member. I will leave these links and let it go. Good luck.

  
  

  American Scholars Symposium: 9/11 and the NeoCon Agenda - Episode 1

  
  

  American Scholars Symposium: 9/11 and the NeoCon Agenda - Episode 2

  
  

  American Scholars Symposium: 9/11 and the NeoCon Agenda - Episode 3

  
  

  American Scholars Symposium: 9/11 and the NeoCon Agenda - Episode 4

  
  

  American Scholars Symposium: 9/11 and the NeoCon Agenda - Episode 5

  
  

  The Neocon Agenda

• cotteralladams3 said on Dec 04, 2007....

  Bush is certainly an autocrat but he isn't Hitler.  I understand the criticism against him.  America needs a reformed democratic system but mostly people have to stop supporting the Republicans.  Perhaps an alternative to the Democrats is needed.  They need to vote.
  
  As for Naomi Wolf, she is an extremist herself, turning the women's rights movement into radical matriarchal feminism.  It was around the nineties that traditional feminism took a radical turn to the left with books by Susan Faludi and Naomi Wolf.
  

• kruuyai said on Dec 04, 2007....

  cotterall:  If you look at actions rather than just words, there doesn't seem to be all that much difference between the dems and the republicans anymore.  It will be interesting, when a democrat eventually gets into office, to see if they actually go ahead and reverse the constitutional damage that has been done by the Bush administration.  I don't think that voting is enough at this point.  It just gives us the illusion of democracy, but what control do we really have over our "leaders" once they get into office?
  
  Naomi Wolf is far from radical, and your equation of feminism with leftist politics makes no sense.  Feminism doesn't depend on whether the prevailing socio-political system is capitalist or socialist (right or left), and if you half the world's population is being controlled by the other half of the world's population based on gender, and it takes radicals to change that and bring the world back to where it should be, then I support that. 
  

• kruuyai said on Dec 04, 2007....

  cotterall:  " Bush is certainly an autocrat but he isn't Hitler."  Nobody's saying he is, but now that you mention it, the Bush family certainly does have some interesting ties to Hitler.  George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany... here's a link.  You can also check it out on Wikipedia.  Here's some more information.   If you google "prescott bush nazis" you come up with about 130,000 references.
  

• silverwhisper said on Dec 04, 2007....

  kruu: um...actually, i think bush is considerably more totalitarian than any previous president in recent memory.
  
  ed

• kruuyai said on Dec 04, 2007....

  ed:  I'll go one step further and say that he's more totalitarian than any previous president in the history of America (at least as far as I know... has democracy ever been quite so endangered before?  We've faced some scary situations, and the people have always been able to overcome them, but that's because they took action... an ingredient that seems to be missing from the pie this time around...

• Kilgore_V_Trout said on Dec 27, 2007....

  
  Bush is a foolish puppet.

• kelly said on Dec 31, 2007....

  I have finally gotten around to making good on my promise to watch this video.  It is fascinating to say the least.  It is also more than a bit frightening.  I actually felt slightly sick to my stomach listening to it.  However, Naomi Wolf is not a fear-monger and she ends the talk very inspirationally.
  
  
  I second Kruu's advice to watch this video.  You don't even really have to watch it as the voice is all that really matters.  Just please listen to it.  The founders of this country were willing to fight and die for our freedoms.  Fortunately, if we act soon enough we won't have to be that drastic.  Just start speaking up and staying aware.
  
  
  In fact, I'd like to issue a personal challenge to silverwhisper--if he sees this--to watch/listen to this video all the way through if he hasn't already.  I think it's that worthwhile.

• sheltercrow said on Dec 31, 2007....

  There are 8 in this series about Abu Ghraib - Very serious

   
  This is a tough one.

• kruuyai said on Dec 31, 2007....

  Kilgore:  yep.
  
  kelly:  I'm glad you got around to watching this.  I've emailed it to every American I know.  Some have written back, thanking me for sending it.  Most have remained silent, so I don't know if they've watched it or not, but I think we need to do eveything we can to get this message out.  Now is really the time.  It's amazing how people can live in the middle of such major political changes without putting two and two together and see how drastically their (our) lives are about to change.  How easy it is to let others "safeguard" our freedom for us.  How easy it is to lose it.
  
  sheltercrow:  I think I will opt not to watch these videos, because I'm already convinced, but I'll leave them up in case somebody wanders by who needs convincing.
  

• silverwhisper said on Jan 01, 2008....

  guys, i have sleeping guests in my home or i'd listen to it now. will try to remember to return later.
  
  ed

• sheltercrow said on Jan 01, 2008....

  
  I do love to post so here are a couple of mine that may help out your central concern...
  
  Cheney's Law
  
  Abu Ghraib
  
  From sheltercrow with respect.
  
  

• kruuyai said on Jan 02, 2008....

  sheltercrow:  Thanks.  This is much better... providing links to relevant posts.  It makes it much easier for people to follow the thread and whichever tangents they want to go off on.  Good idea.

• TinSoldier said on Jan 26, 2008....

  I'll have to (maybe) watch the video later, but this all seems like so much alarmism and crying wolf. Heh. No pun intended.
  
  The US is far better politically than we have been in the past. We no longer shoot striking workers. We no longer have stuff like the House Un-American Activities Committee. J. Edgar Hoover is no longer in charge of the FBI. While the feds may be keeping more records than they were in the past thirty years or so, I'm sure that it is still fewer than in the 30s through the 60s.
  
  Yes, there are reasons to worry about the current administration (even I as a Republican can see that) but we are not about to start interning Muslims or making them wear a crescent on their clothing and smash in the windows of their businesses.
  
  We are far less sexist and racist and classist than we have been in the past. Yes, we can still improve, and inequities should be pointed out. And when the government violates the Constitution that should also be shouted from the rooftops.
  
  But we aren't about to go any further down the road to fascism or totalitarianism than we already have in the past.
  

• sheltercrow said on Jan 26, 2008....

  
  

  

  NLRB policy shifts
  
  October 20, 2007
  
  In a three day flurry, the NLRB issued several decisions announcing changes in the Board's policies and legal interpretations. Most of them were pro-employer, with the Board's vote divided along party lines.
  
  

  • New rules for voluntary recognition bar.
    
  • GC must prove salts have "genuine interest" in employment .
    
  • Reasonably based lawsuits do not violate the Act.
    
  • At-will replacements permanently replace strikers.
    
  • Recognizing union after merger not dependent on due process.
    
  • Revised election ballot.
    
  • Employee misconduct discovered through employer's unlawful conduct.
    
  • Backpay: GC has burden as to employee seeking work.

  It's good to see your back Tin
  
  The Wandering Stiletto: Torture for a Thought Crime.
  
  The Wandering Stiletto. Key False Statements.
  
  Government Crooks in this Country? EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.
  
  

• TinSoldier said on Jan 26, 2008....

  It's good to see you too, sheltercrow.
  

• sheltercrow said on Jan 26, 2008....

  

  Tin there is a tussle going on here come a join

   

• TinSoldier said on Jan 26, 2008....

  Already there, man. Already there. You got any of that popcorn left?

• kelly said on Jan 27, 2008....

  "But we aren't about to go any further down the road to fascism or totalitarianism than we already have in the past."
  
  
  Maybe.  I'm sure you remember the quote about the price of freedom being eternal vigilance.

• sheltercrow said on Jan 27, 2008....

  

  Or eternal bogging.

   

• TinSoldier said on Jan 27, 2008....

  Kelly -- yes indeed. I don't mean to imply that we should allow ourselves to backslide into where we have been before.
  
  sheltercrow -- did you mean blogging? ;-)
  
  
  

• sheltercrow said on Jan 27, 2008....

  

  Or eternal blogging.

  Quite so. My spell checker must be set to level alienated.

• kelly said on Feb 03, 2008....

  Oh, glad to see that.  I thought that "bogging" was yet another hip term I was unfamiliar with.  ;-)

Comment on "The End of America"

Currently tagged	america Naomi Wolf politics democracy fascism totalitarianism (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously