Mediation of the Honduran situation by President Arias may well be a good thing.
The selection of Costa Rican President Arias to mediate the dispute between former Honduran President Zelaya and the Government of interim President Micheletti appears to have been a wise one. It may be useful to speculate a bit about why and by whom President Arias was selected, as well as about the likely impact of these things on the power of Venezuelan President Chávez in Latin America.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Cindy
21 Handy,
I think we can safely dismiss anything Dave says unless he posts some reference.
27 - roger nowosielski
Well, you're not going to get it from the author of this article. He keeps on insisting that all other voices are equally valid, raising a general kind of issue which is of no help in the present case.
Stonewalling is another term for such tactics.
28 - roger nowosielski
To speak in such superlative terms of the military as Dave does while ignoring the long tradition of military takeovers and dictatorship regimes in Latin American countries is indeed to make a quantum leap. What puzzles me, what's Dave motivation in so doing? What purpose does it serve?
29 - Cindy
I don't know what Dave's purpose in continuing to voice nonsensical positions could be. I do know what the result is though.
30 - roger nowosielski
Interesting one from Bangkok Post.
Note the following:
"The Honduran Supreme Court said ahead of the talks that if the congress granted Zelaya amnesty, he could return to Honduras without fearing an arrest warrant for treason issued against him.
But many Honduran business leaders have opposed any return of the beleaguered leader.
"There has been an irreversible democratic transition in Honduras, and we're going to have to stick together to create jobs in the teeth of the global crisis and if there is international isolation," Adolfo Facusse, an employers' federation chief, told AFP.
A wealthy rancher who veered strongly left since becoming president in January 2006, Zelaya raised the ire of lawmakers, judges and his country's military by seeking to hold a referendum to rewrite the constitution so he could run for a second term."
31 - roger nowosielski
And here's an opinion from a native Honduran, non-white, I presume.
32 - Dan(Miller)
Cindy, you say I am interested only in the specific opinions of born and raised Hondurans. Seems rather exclusionary to me. Aren't opinions expressed by Chavez, Obama, Clinton, Arias, the OAS, ALBA, the UN, et al interesting as well? They certainly are relevant to their actions and to the impact of those actions on Honduras.
Do the opinions of immigrants -- legal and illegal -- to the United States matter in discussing affairs in the United States?
As to Dave's "nonsensical positions," I think he is correct in some respects. However, as to Honduras, it seems clear to me that the military was acting as the instrument of the civilian government. Please see the La Times piece linked in my Comment #10.
Dan(Miller)
33 - roger nowosielski
In fact, the following website is devoted to Honduras news from a wide range of sources.
34 - roger nowosielski
Another very interesting take from Spiegel Online.
Speaks of knee-jerk reaction on the part of the ruling elites (Mr. Miller included), and Zelaya's rather interesting turn/change of heart while in office. Definitely a must-read, because that's not the kind of news you're gonna get from Panama.
35 - roger nowosielski
A noteworthy quote from the aforementioned article:
A wealthy cattle rancher fond of wearing a Stetson hat in public, Zelaya is in fact a member of the established elite. But after taking office four years ago, he discovered that he had a soft spot for the poor. "He raised the minimum wage," Lúcio Cardona, 26, says appreciatively. According to Cardona, who works as a motorcycle courier for the Pepsi Cola distributorship in San Marcos de Colón, "the rich, of course, didn't like it."
36 - Cindy
If I want to know about something, I prefer to get the opinion of those directly affected to form my opinions.
I am very certain about one thing. I don't trust opinions from anyone who would not do likewise.
Do the opinions of immigrants -- legal and illegal -- to the United States matter in discussing affairs in the United States?
Do they live here? Then I am interested in them.
Aren't opinions expressed by Chavez, Obama, Clinton, Arias, the OAS, ALBA, the UN, et al interesting as well?
They would have to be interesting, as they are pertinent. I would of course want to hear them.
I was speaking more in regard to understanding what is happening and what action is desired, by the people who are and will be affected.
This is where I am not very interested in Larry, Mo and Curly's assessment.
I realize the Hondurans probably will find it very difficult to figure out what is happening right in their own backyard without the help of the Latin American (or U.S.) gringo brigade.
The smartest ones are, I trust, waiting to assess their situation until a bunch of white people, who've never been there, tell them what is really going on.
37 - roger nowosielski
"The smartest ones are, I trust, waiting to assess their situation until a bunch of white people, who've never been there, tell them what is really going on."
You must be kidding.
38 - roger nowosielski
the U.S. gringo brigade.
That is hilarious. Should earn the honors for the comment of the week.
39 - Dan(Miller)
re Comment #35, that's not the kind of news you're gonna get from Panama. Probably not. Panama has not had a military since Noriega was deposed. We do have a (somewhat inadequate) police force to deal with an increasing crime rate in the cities, and a quasi-military branch of the police to try to intercept the doubtless "non-violent progressives of FARC attempting to support their wonderfully humane revolutionary cause" (barf) by transporting drugs through Darien Province for sale elsewhere and in the process killing some locals. Since most residents of quite undeveloped Darien are Kuna, Emberá, Choco, Bribri, Bugle, Ngobe, Teribe & Wounaan Indians, it is probably reasonable to assume that at least some of those non-progressive obstructionists killed by FARC representatives have been non-white.
As to whether the native Honduran mentioned in Comment #31 is non-white or something else, I have no idea. However, it seems silly to "presume" such a thing. The population of most of Central America is of quite mixed ancestry -- black, white and what I suppose should be referred to as "Native Central Americans."
Dan(Miller)
40 - roger nowosielski
I think Cindy's use of "white" is meant to signify those who are in power, so as to contrast those views with views of the indigenous peoples.
41 - Cindy
Yes, 'white' meaning--the privileged--those who've been pillaging the planet at the expense of everyone else.
They often think they know better than anyone else, they rarely do.
42 - Clavos
Another very interesting take from Spiegel Online.
Speaks of knee-jerk reaction on the part of the ruling elites (Mr. Miller included)
Cool!! Dan got a mention in Spiegel online!
As the man once said, "It doesn't matter whether it's good or bad, as long as they're talking about you."
43 - Clavos
So Cindy,
Am I correct that my opinion in re Mexico and its affairs is valid to you?
44 - roger nowosielski
#42,
At last, his efforts paid off.
45 - Cindy
Sure Clav. But only as a member of the elite. ;-)
And now I must depart this sweltering office and go to imbibe some libations and other treats.
46 - Dan(Miller)
Cindy,
Like many other Gringos, I have made a country in Central America my home. I intend to live, eventually to die and to be buried in Panamá. When Chávez and others interfere in what I consider purely local affairs, beyond their proper borders, I become irritated. It is, I suppose, much the same way you might feel were the President of the Republic of Virginia to demand that the New Jersey Constitution be ignored because it diminishes his ability to control things there, and to fund and otherwise support a "coup" in New Jersey.
I also become irritated when the United States Government interferes in Central America as to matters which are none of its business. I was quite displeased a couple of years ago when President Bush's then ambassador to Panamá made a major speech, widely reported in the local press, chastising Panamá for corruption. Panamá certainly has corruption, and everyone here is well aware of it. However, significant and possibly effective steps were and are being taken to reduce it. It is, in my view, not really the business of the United States Government. I even wrote letters to the White House and to the U.S. Ambassador; there was, of course, no substantive response. Corruption remains endemic in the United States, and appears to be getting worse rather than better. I see very little being done to counter it effectively. How would the folks living in the United States react were the Ambassador from Panamá to berate the United States for its corruption? Perhaps a major speech in Chicago? Washington?
I disagree with the implicit suggestion that Gringos living in Honduras, Panamá and elsewhere in Central America have no opinions worth expressing on the situation in Honduras or elsewhere in Central America. What happens in Central America affects us, quite directly. The potential impact in the United States is far less. Many of us are "white," some are not. Most of us have more than enough to eat and to care for our families. These factors can legitimately be considered in evaluating our views. However, I fail to understand why these factors should require that our views be completely rejected as lacking any merit whatever. Nor do I see any reason for us to sit down and shut up. Some of us devote a great deal of time and effort to understanding what is going on in what we regard as our homes. Although many talk "to" the locals, some of us talk "with" them. There is a difference. On balance, I consider the views of those who talk "with" the locals, and try to become a part of the community, better informed than those of many who are not here and may never have been either recently or for an extended period.
I recognize that there may be some inconsistency between my views on the current situation in Honduras and that in Iran. The situations appear, to me, to be very different. To the extent that there may be inconsistencies, so be it.
Dan(Miller)
47 - roger nowosielski
That was very frank, Mr. Miller. And it does deserve a measured response. I'll take a stab at it tomorrow.
48 - Dan(Miller)
Heck, even the Revolutionary Marxists of Iran, in an Open letter to the workers of Venezuela on Hugo Chávez’s support for Ahmadinejad, have come down pretty hard on el Presidente Chávez. The open letter states, among other things,
With his support for Ahmadinejad he has ignored the solidarity of the workers and students of Iran with your revolution, and in a word, made it look worthless. Most are aware that two weeks ago Ahmadinejad, with the direct support of Khamenei, committed the biggest fraud in the history of presidential elections in Iran and then, with great ferocity, spilt the blood of those protesting against this fraud. You just have to take notice of the international media reports to be aware of the depths of this tragedy. All over the world millions of workers and students, and also those of Marxist and revolutionary tendencies (which mostly are the supporters of the Bolivarian revolution), protested against these attacks.
In of spite this, Chávez was one of the first people to support Ahmadinejad. In his weekly TV speech he said: "Ahmadinejad’s triumph is a total victory. They’re trying to stain Ahmadinejad’s victory, and by doing so they aim to weaken the government and the Islamic revolution. I know they won’t be able to do it." And that "We ask the world for respect." These rash and baseless remarks from your President are a great and direct insult to the millions of youth who in recent days rose up against tyranny. Some of them even lost their lives. Many of these youths came out on the streets spontaneously and without becoming infected with the regime’s internal disputes, or becoming aligned with the policy that US imperialism is following for taking over the movement. In addition, the remarks of your President are an insult to millions of workers in Iran. Workers whose leaders are today being tortured in the prisons of the Ahmadinejad government and some of them are even believed to be being punished with flogging. Workers who were brutally repressed by the mercenaries of the Ahmadinejad government for commemorating May Day in Tehran this year are still in prison.
And it goes on from there. Gee whiz. I wonder how I find myself allied, at least in small part, with the Revolutionary Marxists of Iran.
Dan(Miller)
49 - Clavos
Life is full of delicious ironies, Dan(Miller).
Nonetheless, your cause (and theirs), in this instance at least, is just.
50 - Dave Nalle
What puzzles me, what's Dave motivation in so doing? What purpose does it serve?
As always, my "purpose" is to expose people to the truth, even if they are predisposed to ignore or deny it. In this case Cindy chooses to show the elitist's ignorance of the role which the military plays in developing nations and the character and composition of such a military. This exposes her prejudices -- which we're already pretty familiar with -- and just leaves those of us with some common sense and real world experience shrugging, as usual.
Dave
51 - Cindy
Dave,
Substantiate your opinions with references or, as far as I am concerned, they go directly into the circular file (unless they bounce off the rim).
52 - roger nowosielski
What I think Dave ought to do is to account for the apparent propensity of the military to go haywire and assume dictatorial powers (as it has done so many times in the history of Latin America), and that's regardless of its presumably humble beginnings and the initial show of public support. Or its use as a tool at the hands of the ruling class.
Thus far, he's been silent on these matters.
53 - Dan(Miller)
Here is an article which does a reasonably good job of putting Latin American military coups and civilian coups in perspective.
Dan(Miller)
54 - Cindy
Dan(Miller),
I am glad I slept on my reply. Clav serendipitously presents the best way I can explain my thinking.
Nonetheless, your cause (and theirs), in this instance at least, is just.
This is the crux of the matter to me--justice. I am not suggesting you should be quiet or your opinion unheard. I am asking, what about the people who cannot simply move away and decide to retire elsewhere? What about the people who are not being helped by your system of 'rule of law'? What do they say? How can they tell someone like you that the rule of law has never helped them, if you won't even consider their perspective in your analysis?
An analysis that does not consider the voice of the lowest economic classes is not a reasonable analysis. That is pretty much all I am saying. I am tired of only the people who benefit having a voice, the owning class, they are a smaller group than the people who do not.
Also, whatever the result of their misconceptions about what happens when some have power over others, I generally find justice is the aim of the Marxists I talk to.
P.S. Life is full of delicious ironies... --Clavos
I always think, it's the messy parts that are the best.
55 - Dave Nalle
In Latin American and many other third world countries the military is one of the only routes of upward mobility for the peasantry, because there is a constant need for footsoldiers and by its nature a military will recognize hard work and ability with promotion of some sort.
This makes the military much more in touch with the general population than other institutions in a developing nation. Its soldiers retain ties to their families and communities and awareness of their concerns. The military is often looked on favorably by the general population when the government is seen as a tool of the elites.
The result is that the military tends to be far more responsive to popular unrest than the government of the ruling elite. This can be a good thing, but the problem is that a military leader who is charismatic and good at promoting himself as a populist -- like Hugo Chavez and dozens of others -- can use the military to advance himself as a champion of the people and be viewed by those people as somewhat legitimate because he comes from the military rather than from the plutocratic or aristocratic ruling class.
If you want evidence of this it is present in scores of examples all over the third-world over the last 200 years. The classic model is Napoleon, who came out of the military as a populist leader. The dynamic is even more powerful when the military forms an alliance with an element of a democratic government against another. It raises the legitimacy of that faction in the eyes of the people who respect strength and have confidence that "cousin carlos is a sergeant in the army and he wouldn't support El Jefe if he was a bad man."
For some reason the elitists of the American left don't seem to be able to understand or accept this dynamic, which is a tragic commentary on their complete ignorance of history.
Dave
56 - Cindy
Dave the military hawk. Dave, please go drive your family in front of wherever the closest military action is and then tell me what you think.
There is no way to peace - peace is the way. - A.J. Muste
It is as simple as that. Bombing people and killing them for peace--just look how well that's worked so far.
57 - Dave Nalle
Cindy, have you ever even been in a war zone?
There's absolutely nothing hawklike in my #55. Nothing pro-war.
As usual you confuse an informed awareness of how the world works with an endorsement of the things on which I comment.
Dave
58 - Cindy
Supporting military is supporting war Dave. That is the bottom line. Say Yes to Peace. There is only one single way to do that. In the meantime we'll have to suffer all the people who think their particular wars are justified.
Read Gandhi, MLK, A.J. Muste, Tolstoy, Jesus. Say Yes to Peace, Dave.
59 - Cindy
Dan(Miller),
For your perusal: Statement by the Libertarian Communist* Organization in Chile against the military coup in Honduras
Once again the bourgeoisie allied with the armed forces tipped a coup against a constitutionally elected president in the institutional framework of their own class. It is strange in the eyes of the world one action of this magnitude, even more so when those same national bourgeoisie did gargle with "Never Again" and other phrases for the bronze after bleaching sponsored dictatorships and coup waves that ravaged the continent during the second half of the twentieth century.
*Libertarian Communists = Anarchists
60 - Baronius
Hilarious, Cindy.
61 - Baronius
I'm sorry, Cindy. That was rude of me. I hate it when people leave snide little comments like I just did.
You're missing the point of what Dave is saying. You're throwing slogans at him rather than consider his idea. Soldiers are often looked upon as successes and protectors in a healthy society. You mentioned Jesus; recall the respect He showed the centurion.
That Chilean statement pushed me over the edge. There's something about extremely bad political ideas that encourages a ponderous writing style. I thought it would disappear with the fall of the USSR.
62 - Cindy
I'm sorry, Cindy. That was rude of me. I hate it when people leave snide little comments like I just did.
That is okay Bar, I was just going off to build a catapult to launch you over the wall into the reservation (don't worry there is a screen top so you can breathe)...er, I mean I was just going off to cry because you hurt my feelings.
Bar, Please provide references to your positions on Jesus and what he believed. My motto is 'never trust a Catholic to tell you what Jesus said'.
Bar, did I ever tell you my husband is a Christian, who is sort of Catholic? You know, in that, doesn't go to church but believes in the blessed virgin sort of way.--Just so you know I don't hate Catholics any more than I hate individual police officers, soldiers, or other potential threats to humanity.
63 - roger nowosielski
Dan (Miller),
I'm going to respond to your #46, and just as Cindy had stated she slept on her reply, so did I. In a way, my response will be along the lines suggested in #54. Let be elaborate.
What I see is a reaction of a person responding to their immediate circumstances, the immediate exigencies facing them, dire as they may be. Still, it's a reaction by and large. It brings to mind, in fact, the life at the frontiers, marked by all kinds of hazards, insecurities, and dangers to life - in short, the business of physical survival.
This isn't of course to criticize this state of mind, for who am I to tell what a person would feel or think when faced with immediate dangers and perils to their own life and that of their loved ones. But having said all that, I must say it's a matter of choice. If Panama is not safe, then why be there? Fuck the money. Why feel like a hunted animal when one can live in a relatively speaking safe environment, however much one may detest it? Dangers can come from all quarters, and we have no reasonable assurance that we shall make it into the next day, or the day after next, but still ... I must conclude therefore it's the choice you've made and now you have to live with it.
So the question, in essence, pertains to a mindset that comes with being exposed to physical danger, or at least uncertainty. Granted, the physical circumstances in which one finds himself determine how one is going to think. But I should assume that apart from all that, we should be able to transcend our immediate circumstances and be governed instead by a larger picture. Especially in case of persons as intelligent and articulate as you. At the very least, why remain in a situation where one is bound to respond like a hunted animal and succumb thus to the lowest in human nature if other options are available? I value my humanity and my ability to respond as a human more than anything else, and I'm certain you do, too.
The point is - I would never condescend to be in a position where my values would have to take second seat and be overcome by the exigencies of the moment.
So the question is, why do you? Is it really worth it?
64 - Cindy
Bar,
BTW, the voices of people who have been at the mercy of the ruling elite are not about to disappear. They are getting louder.
Someone you may be able to relate to on the matter. A video interview (5 minutes but the important part is at the very beginning)of the famous anti-capitalist anarchist Alan Greenspan: Greenspan says, "It is in the nature of Capitalism... that it never seems to get acceptance by the vast majority of people. And the reason is that one of the key aspects of Capitalism is competition, which is a very difficult things when you are competed out of business."
Greenspan quotes Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter as he explains why Capitalism is "creative destruction".
The system works for you. Goody for you. It doesn't work for most people.
65 - roger nowosielski
Schumpeter is a hell of an economist and first-class thinker. Required reading.
66 - Clavos
Um, Cindy,
Is not Greenspan a follower of the great Ayn Rand, which would make him an Objectivist and thus a strong advocate of unbridled Capitalism, certainly not an Anticapitalist anarchist, n'est-ce-pas?
67 - Clavos
And, Cindy, I would say that the example of the United States, the wealthiest society in history, with the largest middle class in the world, while certainly not perfect, is real proof that Capitalism does work for most people living in a capitalist economy.
Not all, true, but most?
Unequivocally yes.
68 - Cindy
Clav,
Re: 67 - Darn it. I am sure now my irony button is broken. Just yesterday, I posted "Anarchists rule" in twitter and someone started telling me how anarchists shouldn't rule. (sigh)
68 - There are too many things I could say to this. I'll save them for some other time. I a) don't want to get into a long discussion and b) I am the chipleader in my poker game with only 4 others left and if I pay close attention I will have another $200 to donate to a good cause.
69 - Dan(Miller)
Roger, you seem, in your Comment # 63, to have misread my Comment # 46. I have little doubt that you did your best.
I am not living in fear of what Panamanians may do to us; indeed, I am not much concerned. Adequate precautions against crime, reasonable in most any rural area without police nearby, are not very difficult to take, and we have taken them. The incidence of violent crime, while becoming rather high in Panamá City and in various urban areas, is far lower here. The rash of burglaries recently experienced nearby has pretty much vanished, with the arrest of several people from outside the area. In most respects, I am very happy here, and feel far less vulnerable to violent crime than I would in most places with which I am familiar in the United States. It also costs significantly less to live here, quite well.
Having also spent time in Venezuela just after Chávez came to power and at various times over the next couple of years -- and having kept up with the things happening there since -- I was a bit concerned during the recent Panamanian Presidential elections that a Chavista might win; it seemed unlikely, and she lost by a very wide margin.
Venezuela is a beautiful country, with many pleasant people. Up in the Andes, the university town of Merida is delightful. Had it not been for the problems we considered likely to result should Chávez remain in power, we might well have settled within thirty or so KM of Merida. The problems in Venezuela have become substantially worse than we had thought likely, and very many people there are increasingly suffering from oppression and economic hardship.
The intended thrust of my comment was that having lived in Central America for a significant time, and having become increasingly familiar with what goes on here by talking with the locals, reading the newspapers and otherwise, I feel free to offer my views on happenings in Honduras and elsewhere in the region. My perspectives may be flawed, and to some extent they are in a continuing state of flux. You may, of course, take my views for whatever they may be worth or simply reject them because I often find President Obama's policies and statements unacceptable, or on whatever basis you wish. I fully expect your attempts at amateur psychoanalysis to continue; I generally find them amusing.
I do disagree with the notion that Chávez has made life better for most Venezuelans. As I tried to point out in an earlier article, I consider it quite clear that Chávez has done the reverse and that he is a bad, egomaniacal person, trying very hard to retain power indefinitely regardless of the consequences to Venezuela. Were something similar to happen here or in Honduras, or to continue elsewhere, I think that the results would be very bad -- for everyone except those in power.
Dan(Miller)
70 - Cindy
Okay we can argue now, I just wiped everyone out. :-) I love this game.
So, on a variety of levels I disagree,
a) It depends on what you mean by 'work'. If you call its resultant sniveling, violent, miserable, soulless, selfish, anxiety-ridden, insecure, psychologically damaged, fucked-up, controlling, creepy, sexually sick, zombie robots evidence that it is 'working',then I say okay, it's working.
b) If you mean exclusively economically (even within just the U.S.), I don't have the exact numbers in front of me. How do you arrive at you conclusion?
c) Capitalism exists all over the place. The U.S. and others made sure of that. It's not working for the Maquiladora factory workers or the sweatshop laborers. So, your argument implying second and third world countries aren't included is flawed.
d) If you mean the people who live in a Capitalist society benefit, then I agree. They do it because their country rapes the rest of humanity. That doesn't 'work' for me.
71 - Cindy
71 to Clav, of course.
72 - Ruvy
I realize the Hondurans probably will find it very difficult to figure out what is happening right in their own backyard without the help of the Latin American (or U.S.) gringo brigade.
The smartest ones are, I trust, waiting to assess their situation until a bunch of white people, who've never been there, tell them what is really going on.
Hmmm..... Let's change this around just a bit to gie it a more realistic perspective and look.
"I realize the Israelis probably will find it very difficult to figure out what is happening right in their own backyard without the help of the American infantile left brigade.
The smartest ones are, I trust, waiting to assess their situation until a bunch of infantile American leftists, who've never been there, tell them what is really going on."
There! Fixed it for ya, Cindy!
Yer welcome.
Ahhh. The air in Samaria is so nice in the evening. The green lights from the mosques dot the sky...
Have a good week!
73 - Clavos
It depends on what you mean by 'work'. If you call its resultant sniveling, violent, miserable, soulless, selfish, anxiety-ridden, insecure, psychologically damaged, fucked-up, controlling, creepy, sexually sick, zombie robots evidence that it is 'working',then I say okay, it's working.
Oh good, we agree (though I might have put it a bit differently), but, as one of those sniveling, violent, miserable, soulless, selfish, anxiety-ridden, insecure, psychologically damaged, fucked-up, controlling, creepy, sexually sick, zombie robots who has manged to live very well on a number of levels for the past fifty years, I think it works, at least for those of us who are sniveling, violent, miserable, soulless, selfish, anxiety-ridden, insecure, psychologically damaged, fucked-up, controlling, creepy, sexually sick, zombie robots, which is the majority of the people living in this particular sniveling, violent, miserable, soulless, selfish, anxiety-ridden, insecure, psychologically damaged, fucked-up, controlling, creepy, sexually sick, zombie robotic society.
It's not working for the Maquiladora factory workers...
Have you actually conducted or seen the results of a survey conducted among those maquiladora workers, most of whom have improved their lot in life by becoming such, instead of remaining on their pitiful, arid nonproductive patches of land given to them to farm after the socialistic "land reform" Mexican revolution? Sure, they don't live as well as one of my clients able to buy a large yacht, but the improvement afforded them by their employment, miserable as it may seem to you and me, in a maquiladora is substantial for them.
If you mean the people who live in a Capitalist society benefit, then I agree. They do it because their country rapes the rest of humanity.
Yet here you are, living in the most quintessentially Capitalist society on earth, raping the rest of the world, just by virtue of living here.
Shame on you, Cindy. Move to the miserable place of your choice, and put your convictions to work bringing anarchy to the Mexican campesinos or the subjects of Robert Mugabe.
74 - Cindy
73 - Ruvy. I agree. I already showed you I stand in solidarity with some Israelis.
But your comparison to my statement is not really a parallel. It leaves off a whole people's opinion; can you figure out whose?
75 - Cindy
74 - Clav,
Yet here you are, living in the most quintessentially Capitalist society on earth, raping the rest of the world, just by virtue of living here.
That is true. But your suggestion hardly helps. The best I can do is do what I can do every day and move toward rejecting Capitalism. There is no escaping it--no matter where I move. And if it would help to punish myself for being born here, I would--if it would help--clearly it won't.
Simply because my living this lifestyle damages other people, doesn't mean that sacrificing my life will save them. On the other hand that I live here doesn't make it okay, what this society chooses to do.
Once a person is aware of what needs to be done, one can only do one's best to move toward doing that.
For me, one of those things is this little saying I got from a video:
"When I refuse to forget. When I refuse to stay silent. I resist."