When I first heard that Bush had been called the devil by Hugo Chavez of Venezuela at the UN, I thought it was more of that Nazi-name calling that goes on. But Chavez was using humour clearly in his address where he waved the book around. He’s a regular Jon Stewart - delivering blistering social comentary, while pimping a book, and using humour. Brilliant really, even if you don’t agree with his goal, track record, or sincerity. He certainly doesn’t believe you can smell sulpher where Bush has been. That’s probably just the smell of stale rum or coke.
Here’s an alternate view. I don’t really see how reading an intellectual book could be bad for someone. The worst that could happen is you get a hand cramp holding it up. I haven’t read the cited book, but am considering putting a hold on it, at my library. I bet the hold list is already rather long today.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Dumby | 22-Sep-06 at 12:41 pm | Permalink
John Stewart didn’t find Chavez funny. Last night he made fun of ol Hugo.
But I for one don’t think John Stewart is that funny, and often times he comes across as an apologist for ‘Yankee imperialism’.
Saskboy | 22-Sep-06 at 12:54 pm | Permalink
Dumby, of course Stewart wouldn’t like Hugo - he’s competition. And Stewart really isn’t all that keen on International politics, he pretty much only understands what goes on within the US, and more particularly the east coast. He wouldn’t know where Saskatchewan is, for instance.
Cam Vidler | 22-Sep-06 at 6:49 pm | Permalink
The thing is, Chavez is trying to rally the “rest of the world” (read Iran, Russia, N. Korea, etc.) in an attempt to counter US influence. Chomsky’s book falsely attempts to lends intellectual credibility to this agenda.
Although George Bush’s America has been a little off its rocker over the past 6 years, we should be very afraid if these nutcases ever achieve as much dominance as the US. I know it sounds pessimistic, but in a world with so many governments - many completely undemocratic - looking to gain influence or even worse, impose their “utopias” and “isms” on others, I welcome a strong United States to keep them in check.
Cam Vidler | 22-Sep-06 at 7:04 pm | Permalink
Noam Chomsky is nothing but a pseudo-academic Michael Moore. His thoeries are based on assumed motives and facts that are taken out of context.
He should stick his linguisitics research (which I hear is really quite good) and leave global politics to those who are less schizophrenic.
Saskboy | 22-Sep-06 at 7:49 pm | Permalink
I haven’t read Chomsky, but you as much admitted in your first comment that he’s pegged American influence in the world as the dominating force, and I guess people in South America can get out of reading it too. You’re possibly right about American domination beating domination of other nations, but that’s possibly biased by where we live. We don’t really have a good perspective on that. Maybe we need nations more concerned with the environment running the show, for instance (Not saying those other countries are).
larry gambone | 22-Sep-06 at 11:51 pm | Permalink
“we should be very afraid if these nutcases” How is Chavez a nut case? Someone who tries to help his people is being a nutcase? If you knew ANYTHING about Latin American history you would never make a statement like that. Chavez is a populist in the tradition of Latin American populism which begins with the Mexican Revolution. Facts taken out of context my ass.With the internet at your fingertips you have no excuse to write such Fox News drivel. Chomsky analyses of American Imperialism are always well documented. He applies his scientific training to these works. I dare you to try to challenge him factually.
Cam Vidler | 23-Sep-06 at 1:57 am | Permalink
Chavez is an insult to Simon Bolivar. His movement doesn’t deserve his name. The classical liberal is probably turning in his grave.
Like I said, social spending isn’t the only measure of freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, Chavez’s iron-fisted control of the economy isn’t justified by his oil bribes to rural voters. He’s running the type of feudal system that Bolivar fought against.
As for Fox news, I never read or watch that trash. As for Chomsky, he is a conspiracy theorist. His mass media theories are based on misconceptions of the broadcasting market. Did you ever think that American news might be more conservative because more Americans are conservative? News programming is mostly demand driven. Research consultants are used by station managers to recommend the most profitable programming. There’s a lot of left-wing stuff out there too if you look for it.
I don’t understand why Western culture has always had pseudo-anarchists like Noam Chomsky who end up supporting backward authoritarians like Hugo Chavez. They had them back in the Mao days too. Then the world found out about the government induced famines and the Left finally withdrew their support. I’m not saying he is comparable to Mao, I just think he’s just worse than Bush.
Cam Vidler | 23-Sep-06 at 2:02 am | Permalink
Libertarian Socialism is an oxymoron
Cam Vidler | 23-Sep-06 at 2:09 am | Permalink
That comment is directed to Chomsky.
By the way, Lula da Silva is a much better example of someone who is “helping his people.” His reforms and commitment to democratic institutions have been instrumental to the Brazilian economic growth that hopes to pull millions out of poverty.
Cam Vidler | 23-Sep-06 at 2:12 am | Permalink
His country is now running a trade surplus and is actually buying up American assetts.
The US is not the “oppressor” of South America. Populist politicians just use that to manipulate voters with group-think ideas.
Saskboy | 23-Sep-06 at 7:26 am | Permalink
“Research consultants are used by station managers to recommend the most profitable programming.”
That’s a problem though you see. Profitable programming means telling people what they want to hear, whether it’s the truth or not. That describes Fox News to a T.
“The US is not the “oppressor” of South America.”
So you think he’s lying about the US supporting a coup attempt in his country? I don’t think he is. One only need to look at recent history to see that he’s either right, or a darn good liar - using the USA’s bad reputation for “country building”. Iran, Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Guatemala, have all felt the oppression and destructively guiding hand of the CIA and subversive American money directed to local rebels and thugs. And those are just the obvious examples I’ve heard of in my lifetime which started when I was just a small child (the examples, not my lifetime :-)). One could say destroying the drug crops of Columbia is yet another form of oppression. Every time I eat a banana, I wonder who died or was forced off their land so it could be grown.
“Populist politicians just use that to manipulate voters with group-think ideas.”
Does that mean you think it’s bad if South/Central American elected [or not so elected] politicians use group-think, but when a North American unelected media monopoly (i.e. Fox News) does it, its alright because it’s for profit and they took focus groups’ opinions?
Cam Vidler | 23-Sep-06 at 10:43 am | Permalink
whoa, whoa, I never said that I think Fox News is good journalism. I’m just trying to say that they are not, as Chomsky thinks, in cahoots with the US elite in order to manipulate americans to support aggressive foreign policy (even though the results may be the same, it is not a conspiracy). Their message is simply, like you said, the opinions of conservative americans spit back at them.
You do have a point about US political intervention. I agree that their methods are unethical. When I say that they are not the “oppressors” I just mean that it is not the US’s fault that there is poverty in S. America. Economics are not zero sum. Just look at Brazil and Chile’s trade relationship with the US, access to the US market has bid up wages in these countries relative to those who have isolated themselves (i.e. Venezuela, Bolivia).
The US should not be forcefully inserting themselves into the politics of other countries, I’ll say that any day. But it doesn’t change the fact that liberalization of the region will raise standards of living. Chavez believes he can strong-arm his populace, destroy small businesses, nationalize industries, economically isolate his country, and still achieve goals of economic growth (he is sadly mistaken).
RossK | 24-Sep-06 at 11:22 am | Permalink
“I’m just trying to say that they (FOX News) are not, as Chomsky thinks, in cahoots with the US elite in order to manipulate americans to support aggressive foreign policy”
Two words: Ailes, Roger.
.
Ashley | 24-Sep-06 at 1:19 pm | Permalink
Saskboy says: [from Ashley's account]
“I’m just trying to say that they are not, as Chomsky thinks, in cahoots with the US elite in order to manipulate americans to support aggressive foreign policy”
Count me as a conspiracy theorist then. I think that Rupert Murdoch’s ties with the Bush administration make things more than just one rich guy rubbing the back of a rich-guy Administration. If it walks like a duck, etc.
RossK, who’s Roger Ailes? I don’t have time to google it right now.
“Chavez believes he can strong-arm his populace, destroy small businesses, nationalize industries, economically isolate his country, and still achieve goals of economic growth (he is sadly mistaken).”
That’s a political difference. What’s the goal of economic growth? Is it to raise the standard of living for the rich and middle class, or to equalize the rich and poor’s standard of living.
RossK | 24-Sep-06 at 1:52 pm | Permalink
Ailes, Roger — He’s the middle child of the attack-dog obfuscopalooza, located right between Atwater, Lee and Rove. Karl.
Made his name on Willie Horton.
Now President of FOX News.
.
art | 26-Sep-06 at 3:44 pm | Permalink
After listening to CBC, CNN spout their drivel for longer than I care to remember it’s indeed refreshing to listen to FOX news, especially BILL O REILY remember “the spin stops here”. Some people just can’t bear to listen to the the truth.
Saskboy | 26-Sep-06 at 9:51 pm | Permalink
BWHAHAHAHA! Funny stuff. Oh wait, you’re serious??
“After listening to [Fox News] spout their drivel for longer than I care to remember… Some people just can’t bear to listen to the the truth.”
I wouldn’t describe CNN or CBC as “refreshing”, but pretty much reality is the opposite of what you just wrote. Fox News is for conservatives who can’t bear to hear the truth. CBC and CNN don’t always give it, but Fox News strives to suppress the truth.
Neaka | 02-Dec-06 at 2:53 pm | Permalink
you’re an idioit !!!!!!!!! neaka
Saskboy | 02-Dec-06 at 3:30 pm | Permalink
Neaka, would you be able to direct your insult at anyone in particular, rather that just venting your rage?
dmitry | 23-Apr-07 at 12:06 am | Permalink
i generally agree with saskboy… and definitely not van vilder:
“liberalization of the region (South America) will raise standards of living”
huh? for whom? it seems to me that regardless of political bent, though, no one can conceive of the reality of the situation— could it be because no one has actually read noam chomsky and his detractors, and then perhaps a few other viewpoints besides, and thought about what makes the most sense. and though it is popular to believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion, in some cases, that is just not true. in fact, the only cases where all opinions are equal are in matters of taste. you can’t look at the fact that, for example, latin america suffers some oof the worst wealth distribution in the world, then trace the support of the US administrations for the leaders who have some of the worst records out of the overall dismal record (as chomsky does), and then say that the US is not responsible for latin americas poverty. just as you can’t claim that the earth is flat after observing the evidence to the contrary. economic policy is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of perspective: often times, that of the rich, or that of the rest.