Sean Penn and Danny Glover can go to hell

by Wordly Andre 55 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  watson

  Why are lefty pinko surrender-monkeys so damned obtuse??

  Oh yeah...LOL!
• 

  sammielee24

  Once the oil is gone, maybe, we can all stop hating each other

  Aint goin to happen. You must have read by now about the corn shortage in Mexico that is driving up their food staple? The costs for them to buy the tortilla - a main food staple - has risen 40% in many places. This means that the poor cannot afford to eat tortilla's and instead are using cheap noodles. They are exporting their corn to the USA because the USA is determined to be 'green' and want the corn for the ethanol...thus Mexico is having to import their corn and pushing up the cost of food in that country. sammieswife.
• 

  heathen

  Since America is quite clearly moving to some sort of marxist state itself perhaps they merely want to take a look at what we're in for in the near future.
• 

  falcon

  .
• 

  sammielee24

  There are many opinions and stories about what is going on around the world. While I don't like actors straying away from entertaining me.lol..I do like to read all the varied stories to see if I can find a truth. I don't know a lot about Chavez but I do know that stories abound about the good and bad he has done to his country. I also recognize that all media, everywhere, is not always truthful. Chavez has improved the life for the poor in his country which is probably why he was voted back in on a majority. Built hospitals, houses, provided land, jobs, improved education and healthcare for people that did without. I could care less about what Penn and Glover do - Penn in Iraq and his writing attempts on the subject, were annoying at best - but - they are free to go where they will. Here is an article that I read on Chavez while I was trying to discern wether he was a dictator or not.....sammieswife.

  Is Hugo Chavez a Dictator?

  Written by Peter Lackowski

  Monday, 13 February 2006

  Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro have often met as the leaders of their countries, and they have clearly developed a warm personal friendship as well. The Bush administration, Fox News, and the Venezuelan opposition try to use this as "proof" that Chavez is taking orders from Castro, that Chavez intends to turn Venezuela into a "communist dictatorship," with capitalism severely curtailed, and freedom of speech limited. In reality there has been a lot of cooperation between Cuba and Venezuela. Cuba is a world leader in many aspects of medicine, and Venezuela has oil, so they have traded oil for doctors, and also for technical assistance in education, agriculture, and other areas. But the idea that capitalism is under attack in Venezuela is simply absurd. I was there for a month before Christmas, and the scene I saw was more like capitalism on steroids. Venezuela has huge malls with atriums and half a dozen floors, stores just like ours, and lots of stuff made in China, just like in the U.S. Venezuela also has a huge "informal economy," including thousands upon thousands of street vendors selling just about everything. Food, produce, clothing of all kinds, watches, jewelry, books, luggage, copies of CD’s and DVD’s, little figures to put in crèches (crèches were everywhere), makeup, cell phones, office supplies… Before Chavez the police used to clear them off the streets and take their merchandise. Now they completely fill the sidewalks in many parts of the city, and nobody bothers them. This year people were buying a lot! Ironically the prosperity that led to all this consumption has led to a huge surge in the flow of trash. There were little mountains of it in Caracas streets when I arrived. By the time I left a month later they were just starting to get it under control. I saw McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken, TGI Friday’s, Subway, and Little Caesar’s, demonstrating that franchising is functioning well. One of the tackier symbols of international capitalism is the huge red coffee mug inscribed with the word "NESCAFE" on top of a tall building in the heart of the city. Venezuela has signed joint venture agreements with 19 international oil companies, and is negotiating with the 20th, ExxonMobile. The government is vigorously supporting small businesses in the form of cooperatives. In cities across the country neighborhoods are organizing, with help from the government, to draw up maps of the settlements where poor people have built houses on public land so they can get titles to their houses, thereby creating massive amounts of private property in the form of titled real estate. The government has been quite encouraging to capitalist development in general, seeing it as fundamental to a prosperous society. Chavistas make it clear that they are not following any model from Russia, China, or Cuba, or any other scheme or theory of how society should be organized. They often talk about socialism, but they don’t mean nationalizing industry or eliminating private property. By "socialism" they simply mean basing decisions on what is good for the whole of society. Chavez frequently refers to Jesus as a great teacher of socialism, with his message of love and caring for the least among us. The army runs mega-mercados in various parts of town. These are big open air fairs, where the soldiers sell pork hindquarters at a very low price. Hundreds of people line up for meat, and they also buy things from farmers, fishmongers, and other private merchants at a big open air market. The prices of basic commodities are regulated, and low. But the fun part is all the "non-basic" commodities, like the machine that squeezes fresh sugar cane into a cup of juice, served with a squeeze of citron. Blocks of something like brown sugar, but more delicious. Honey in the comb. All the usual vendors of food clothing, and everything else. And the Venezuelan music that turns everything into a party. This is one of the ways the army promotes national security. It sells food that everyone can afford, and it provides small businesses with a secure location (patrolled by soldiers!) and a guaranteed clientele. Moreover, these are customers who might have some money left in their pockets after buying basic commodities. The Venezuelan army promotes the nutritional security of the nation, and the people create the fun and profit. Venezuelans say that their Bolivarian Socialism is a "process," something that they are inventing, discovering, and creating. There are some basic ideas: participatory democracy, social justice, Latin American integration, and independence from the empire to the north. Education, health care, adequate nutrition, and decent housing seen as fundamental rights. But there is no formula for achieving these ends. The process is experimental and open ended. Chavez is the president because millions of people see themselves as directly connected to this process. Nearly all of the poor people, and a lot of the middle class, are benefiting from the educational, health, and food missions. But many are also connected to a broad social movement consisting of neighborhood committees, cooperatives, and unions of many kinds (such as the housewives’ union.) These people are the ones who took to the streets when the oligarchy kidnapped Chavez and tried to set up its own government. They know that they put him back in the palace, and they approve of what he is doing there. The oligarchy, and the portion of the middle class that looks to them for leadership, see this state of affairs as the world gone crazy. An egomaniacal demagogue supported by a bunch of malcontents and troublemakers. Votes bought with cheap food and Cuban doctors. Worst of all, it’s being paid for with money that used to go to them. The big newspapers and the private TV and radio stations are relentlessly opposed to Chavez. They extensively quote Chavez’s critics, putting the worst possible spin on everything he does, often treating him with disrespect and derision. Nevertheless, there has not been any attempt by the government to censor them. The election for the National Assembly on December 4 was a good example of how the opposition press operates. Since the constitution of 1999 has been in effect, elections for the National Assembly have not been at the same time as the election for the president. Therefore, turnout has been low, around 30% of registered voters. Polls gave pro-Chavez candidates a big lead, predicting a 70/30 split in the legislature. Opponents of the government raised various fairness issues, and the election authorities made changes in the procedures that completely dealt with those issues, in the opinion of delegations of independent observers from the European Union and the Organization of American States. Nevertheless, four days before the election all of the opposition parties agreed to boycott the election, and they told their supporters not to vote. Of course with the opposition not voting, and with government supporters seeing no contest for their candidates, the turnout hit an all-time low of 25%. The next day the headlines of the two biggest newspapers in Caracas triumphantly proclaimed: "Abstention at 75%!" In other words, the opposition had told its people not to vote, and since 75% of registered voters did not vote, they claimed that it was a great victory for their side. In reality it was probably a rough measure of Chavez’s hard core, because who else would bother? Because of the boycott, 100% of the new National Assembly supports Chavez. Already opposition figures have begun to sneer at the legislature as a mere rubber stamp for Chavez, more proof that he is a dictator, because only a dictator would have no opposition in the legislature. 50 out of 167 National Assembly members are women, by the way, a world record. Just think of their task: creating laws to enable a peaceful revolution. So, is Chavez a dictator? Bush, Fox, and the Venezuelan oligarchy will tell you that he is. But they live in a looking-glass world where conquest is called liberation, aggression is called defense, and economic domination is called free trade. A world where real democracy is called dictatorship.
• 

  heathen

  Anyway I thought it funny how GW is calling other countries the axis of evil and all that crap but the chavez comes out and calls Bush the devil . I was ROTFLMAO.....................
• 

  undercover

  One would think that entertainers would have learned a lesson from Jane Fonda's ill advised stunt back during the Vietnam war.

  While Fonda, Penn, Glover or any other actor has the right and the freedom to do as they have done, they don't help themselves or their cause when they hang out with the wrong people.

  I understood what Fonda was trying to do back then, she just went about it all wrong and ended up stirring up a hornet's nest that, to this day, still causes people to boycott her movies and talk shit about her. At the time it made the anti-war movement loss a step in that all war protesters were compared to her.

  I saw Sean Penn on Real Time With Bill Maher and found myself agreeing with him for the most part when he was speaking of the Bush Administration. But I think it was a bad move to meet with Chavez. The argument can go on all day about whether Chavez is good or bad, an evil dictator or a benevolent ruler, but the perception of the majority of the US citizens is that Chavez is not a good ruler (facts don't matter...perception rules the day). Since most feel this way, to purposely go and stir up a hornet's nest like this will harm your efforts to bring attention to the wrongs of the Bush Administration. Now all it does is get people stirred up into hating you for hanging out with Chavez the Enemy and it takes attention away from the evils of the would be dictator who is trampling all over the U.S. Constitution.
• 

  Who are you?

  Chavez has improved the life for the poor in his country which is probably why he was voted back in on a majority. Built hospitals, houses, provided land, jobs, improved education and healthcare for people that did without

  I would think that the overall poverty rate of 35% within Venezuela might be a relevant issue and important measurement of how well the poor are taken care of by the socialist government.

  Summary from an article by Francisco Rodriguez http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/app/article.aspx?id=697

  American journalist Sydney Harris once wrote that, “we believe what we want to believe, what we like to believe, what suits our prejudices and fuels our passions.” Chávez has galvanized much of the international Left with an ideal of a popular democratic revolution in which the country’s poor have risen to redress deep social injustices. There is a deep gap, however, between those idealized beliefs and the realities faced by the Venezuelan poor. The rectification of the region’s deep economic and social inequalities is a moral imperative, but it is simply not happening under the government of Hugo Chávez.

  Francisco Rodríguez is an adjunct fellow at the Independent Institute and an assistant professor of economics and Latin American Studies at Wesleyan University.
• 

  Who are you?

  Interesting article...

  Beware Chavez' 21st Century Socialism

  Latin America’s real need now, as for centuries past, is precisely the opposite of Chavista authoritarian socialism.

  BY WILLIAM RATLIFF

  Gilbert and Sullivan could have written a brilliant comic opera about the recent spectacle of Hugo Chavez chasing George Bush around Latin America from south to north, shouting all the way. The two hit five countries each, Bush, for once, preaching ”social justice,” and Chavez playing the modern “truth squad” by “correcting” and interpreting everything the American president exclaimed. Bush never mentioned Chavez by name, while the Venezuelan focused entirely on the dangers of the American “devil.”

  In fact, the engagement underlined the very serious alternative approaches to national development competing in Latin America today. Bush denies that his long-overdue trip that began in Brazil and ended in Mexico was forced upon him by the growth of Chavista authoritarian populism in Latin America, but the denial rings hollow. The outcome of this competition is important for the United States, but it is critical for Latins.

  Bush is not popular in Latin America, but polls show that he is nonetheless slightly better liked than Chavez. That said, many Latins are in agreement with a lot of what the Venezuelan leader says. He has taken over the role Fidel Castro held for decades as the region’s foremost anti-American purveyor of economic tripe and false hope. But the popularity of Chavez’s authoritarian populist message has been seen in recent elections and policies from Argentina and Bolivia to Mexico.

  If one flushes out Chavez’s constant ad hominem attacks on Bush, his message can be boiled down to three basic points: (1) most of Latin America is plagued by seemingly intractable poverty and inequality; (2) the United States and entrenched domestic elites and institutions are responsible for this situation; and (3) his “twenty-first century socialism” is the silver bullet, the bright and shining hope of the impoverished masses who seek freedom from exploitation and a joyous future. He is dead right on the first point, right on part of the second point, and dead wrong on the third.

  Much of this message resonates around Latin America because so many people are so frustrated by centuries of regimes that have constantly failed to serve popular needs. Extreme poverty and inequality have characterized the region since pre-Columbian times. But Chavez’s message also resonates because it is far easier to blame the U.S. for one’s problems than to reform the traditionally unresponsive Latin culture and institutions that are responsible.

  In fact, seeking earthly salvation from a Chavista Messiah is the ultimate non-starter because Latins have marched down that road before in different guises. This “twenty-first century socialism” is simply an aggressive and globalized rehash of the authoritarian, statist paternalism that caused and maintained Latin America’s underdevelopment in the first place. It is precisely the ancient Iberian view of people, economics and institutions that over many centuries made and kept Latin America the most unequal region on earth.

  This “socialism” may survive for a few years in Venezuela where Chavez is now consolidating power with a recent electoral mandate. He is able to do so by throwing around multi-billions of petro-dollars and bailing out failed and failing “socialist” programs. Other countries that have fallen or threaten to fall under the spell of a Chavista Messiah, most obviously Bolivia and Ecuador, but lack the petro-billions, will crash more quickly if they don’t just smolder indefinitely in continuing hopelessness.

  The new Bush interest in “social justice” is a belated effort to communicate with Latin populations that often consider the U.S. the model of social and economic opportunity but also of exploitation and selfishness, an impression intensified by tough U.S. security policies since 9/11. Both presidents cited their “generous” aid packages of several billion dollars in recent years-- Chavez claiming that only his more extensive aid will really benefit the people. But this type of economic link is insignificant when compared to other forms of economic interaction.

  Incomparably more valuable than foreign aid is the U.S. as a market for Latin goods and a workplace for Latin nationals. Latin exports to the U.S. last year topped $330 billion and remittances sent back home from Latins working in the States were more than $60 billion. Those realities matter far more to millions of Latins than measly aid and Chavez offers nothing even remotely comparable. Indeed Chavez sustains a major portion of his anti-American socialism from his massive oil sales at astronomical market prices to the United States.

  Latin America’s real need now, as for centuries past, is precisely the opposite of Chavista authoritarian socialism. Specifically, it needs vastly expanded, high quality education that promotes entrepreneurship and personal responsibility. It needs the creation of opportunities for all to work and grow with equal protection under the law. It needs greater pluralism, economic liberalization and truly free trade.

  The United States is not perfect in these areas, but it is light years ahead of Venezuela. Several Latin countries are tilting, in varying degrees, in the constructive direction: among them Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Brazil. Washington should support these countries and they in turn should join the U.S. in quietly but firmly demonstrating how free trade and markets offer a potentially productive alternative to Chavez’s scape-goating, paternalistic recipe for continuing inequality and poverty. Indeed, if the Chavista model wins out, the moderates may well be swept away in the chaos.

  As an immediate signal of seriousness, Washington should clean up the contradictions and counterproductive aspects of American trade and immigration policies.

  William Ratliff is Adjunct Fellow at the Independent Institute, Research Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, and a frequent writer on Chinese and Cuban foreign policies.
• 

  Wordly Andre

  Look who Chavez considers friends, Cuba, Iran, & North Korea yeah these countries scream freedom to me, if thats who he looks up to and wants his country to be like and Sean Penn and Danny Glover are ok with that?? Yes he speaks about how he is giving land to the poor and is making Oil, natural gas, and food crops State owned, but if you really look at what he is claiming to give the poor indians in Venezuela, its crap, he took over the Heinz land in Venezuela to give to the poor, no housing, have any of you heard of a big housing boom in Venezuela?? no because what they are living in is ghetto camps, small huts made of pieces of metal signs, and wood, no floor no running water, nothing. Venezuelian oil is worth billions surely enough to buy some material and a local home depot, what is Chavez buying? Migs from Iran and gathering up weapons, he isn't helping the poor, however he is taking away land from his own countrymen who he considers has too much, this isn't about taking away from the rich to give to the poor, its about quashing those with money who oppose him. People in his country who have spoken out against him have lost everything, some have moved to America because of fear of going home, and even while here they are afraid to speak out against him out of fear of what he will do to their families back home. I don't care what Chavez says about Bush or even us Americans, Most of the world hates us already, my anger over Penn & Glover is that they are famous people who should know better, Chavez is a danger to his own people, a danger to the region, and a dictator.