> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> User Info

May 16th, 2006

01:33 am - Rant about Capitalism, again http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4774475.stm In the wake of Hugo Chavez visitting the UK, the United States of America has declared Venezuela a "country of concern". This means an arms embargo on Venezuela. Now aside from all the things I could say about the arms trade, I'm concentrating on the fact the USA is trying to censure Venezuela. This is a total joke, except for the fact it is not funny. So Venezuela may or may not be supporting or fighting against internal terrorist groups. Ultimately, this is neither the business of the USA nor the true issue at stake. The real issues are: 1. Years of left-wing governments has invested in healthcare and education. Venezuela might not be a "western" country with an excellent welfare state, but it is certainly getting that and looks to continue doing so. This goes against American neo-liberal (what a bullshit phrase) economics, and prevents the "western" countries grubbing out the country like a team of sumo wrsetlers at an all-you-can-eat Chinese restaurant. 2. This years public reclaimation of Venezuela's oil reserves will mean these socially just and sensible programs will be able to continue, and even grow, at the expense of us making money out of Venezuela's oil. This is a big issue with the current risk of turmoil in the middle east, the USA doesn't want a load of commies redistributing oil and oil wealth back to their own country. (Incidentally, in English law, if you find oil, gas or coal on land you own, it automatically belongs to the Crown. Not so different eh?) 3. Venezuela's left-wing President, Chavez, has publicly denounced President Bush as a "terrorist" and accused him of commiting genocide in Iraq. Not something Bush is going to be too impressed with, especially with his with us or against us rhetoric. 4. In the USA, Pat Robertson, a respected Christian televangelist (note, not respected by myself or any Christian I know personally) suggested on live television, "We have the ability to take him (Chavez) out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability" on the basis that it would stop Venezuela becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism". He also refers to him as a "strong-arm dictator". I mean, is that fucking ridiculous or what? He was democratically elected, repeatly in the past 8 years or so, and a brief coup in 2002 ended when literally millions protested in the street and the army changed to Chavez side. Christians should never be advocating or perpetrating violence - to suggest assasinating a democratically elected leader on the basis he might prevent you sucking the oil out of his country as fast as you'd like is ridiculous. 5. Venezuela has ties with Cuba and Iran. So if they talk to the USA's enemies, that basically makes them the USA's enemies, right? There will probably be a war over this, unless the rest of the "western" world can get it into the USA's thick skull - You do not own the world, No-one died and made you King, and promoting democracy while calling democratically elected leaders dictators is a little two-faced, even for you. Capitalism - what's it done for us? Current Location: Cambridge, UK Current Mood: cynical Current Music: None, as it is quite late Tags: america, capitalism, politics

(2 comments | Leave a comment)

December 20th, 2005

11:52 pm - I found a reason to post! But sadly not a good one. Have been thinking these things for a while, but have now been inclined to post them by: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm Gist of the story is that a student requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's little red book (the Chinese dictator/communist leader's book about Communism). This, coupled with "visiting foreign countries" led to him being interviewed by the department of homeland security and the book not being given to him. WTF? Apparently the US government monitor peoples library loans in order to spot this kind of "terrorist" activity. And as for visiting other countries and maybe having a clue about a culture other than your own :-O ! The saddest part of the story is a bit by this guys professor where he says that "he had been planning to offer a course on terrorism next semester, but is reconsidering, because it might put his students at risk." America could well get shafted by terrorists, but action like this won't help them. All they are doing is: Pissing off potential terrorists - anyone see Spooks? There is an episode where a Muslim is wrongfully detained by the Government, in solitary confinement for 2 years. While not in solitary, he gets turned into a terrorist. Not a real story, but very plausible. Also, our intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan may well radicalise people - when America kills your leaders and drops a bomb that kills your family, you may well become more pissed off at them, even to the point of terorism - I DO NOT CONDONE TERRORISM, but I have the ability to imagine other peoples' point of view. Resisting understanding terrorists. GWB would like to see the world in black and white ("Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."[1], "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil [referring to Iraq, Iran and North Korea]"[2]), but for people who are out of preschool, there are at least 3 sides to every story. Only by understanding the causes of terrorism and fixing them will we defeat terrorists. Back on the original point of my post, the errosion of civil liberties is frightening[3]. Fuck fear and think for a minute - is it really worth throwing away our freedom in order to fight the people who, by GWB's assertion, "They hate our freedoms"[4]? George Bush also says "By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. (Applause.)"[5] That sounds more like a description of Bush's government than of terrorists. Robin p.s. Remind me not to visit America [1]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html paragraph 30 [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil [3]http://www.magnacartaplus.org/civil-liberties/attacks.htm ID Cards (monitoring of potentially everything, proposed only) ASBOs (reduces standard of evidence needed to impose punishments on people, better to have some more offences of anti social behaviour and prove it in court) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (allows judges to sit without juries in some cases, allows people to be retried for serious crimes if "compelling new evidence", allows use of hearsay evidence and evidence of bad character, including previous convictions/acquittals) The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (gives any cabinet minister right to do almost anything in the event of an emergency - probably necessary, but not checked very well) The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (you can be locked up with Eminem played to you and no trial, indefinitely, if a court can be convinced "on the balance of probabilities" that you may be participating in terrorist activities) The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (every offence is arrestable, which means your DNA and fingerprints can end up on file even if you are not even charged with the most minor offence, and you can't protest within 1km of Parliament - something Tony Blair praised , saying "thank God they can. That's called freedom" (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article332161.ece) (I tell a lie, you can, but you must apply at least 24 hours in advance and the police may refuse without oversight)) Terrorism Act 2000 (Groups can be banned by MPs without any evidence and any association with that group (e.g. wearing a badge, organising/attending a meeting) is an offence) Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 "Permits the Home Secretary to certify any foreigner as an “international terrorist” if he/she decides that they are a risk to national security" and then detain them indefinitely Police Act 1997 (Police can bug a property without a warrant in order to collect evidence for serious crimes) Plus, rumours of "rendition" that the Government seems keen to play down, but the ACPO is now investigating, and lots of evidence has been produced by civil liberties groups. And finally, read this: http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspect.html - would you like that to happen to you? What about if it also included 28 days of detention? What is you also ended up getting tortured in Pakistan or Poland? [4]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html paragraph 24 [5]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html paragraph 27 p.p.s. I guess referencing it is a bit anal, but hey! Then anyone who disagrees can be at least sure my facts are correct. However, I have probably missed the point on some of the legislation, for this I apologise and hope you can still see my point. Current Mood: sad Current Music: Lacuna Coil Tags: ethics, politics, thoughts

(Leave a comment)