Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Why I couldn't bear to see every last idiot disappear
It doesn't take much creativity to piss people off if you are a nutcase, you just say what you think. It's easy. People who express their opinions frankly are often held in high esteem for "speaking their mind", in other words, not hiding their true feelings behind deceit. Of course, to others they can be seen as tactless, narrow minded or having a head full of rocks. There is an obvious distinction between being brave and too stupid to know the consequences when you speak your mind. And of course, if you are a warped bigot with a twisted interpretation of your own religion, what's on your mind is going to be something very very stupid. So thankyou Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and the man who thinks God put George Bush in the Whitehouse, for speaking your mind. On his evangelical TV show this week, Robertson declared that the US administration should assasinate the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. While the methods may be a bit direct for many Republicans, I'm sure the sentiment is widely shared.
Now, in the twentieth century various US [and occasional British] governments have done their utmost to nip any Latin American democratic or social reform in the bud, with a multitude of interventions aiming to keep the various regimes within the sphere of influence first outlined in The Monroe Doctrine. Chavez is the latest example of a leader seeking economic independence, and since being elected in 1998 he has been subjected to propaganda campaigns, attempted coups and intimidation. The Bush administration positioned a warship in nearby waters, backed anti-government riots and demos and poured scorn on the result of a globally approved referendum held last year which kept Chavez in power. Chavez himself has said repeatedly that he fears assasination, which could be hysterical or could just be in keeping with the historical record. Meanwhile so-called "experts" lined up in the US media, among other things accusing him of supporting terrorism and seeking nuclear weapons [one of the commentators in question listed among his credentials: having a Venezuelan wife. Well, such a qualification clearly puts him at the front of the queue for pointing out what's what in Venezuela. The logic is flawless, especially if one believes that Prince Charles is an expert on racehorses].
The point of these ravings is that although Bush's cronies probably wont send Chavez some exploding cigars, his democratic regime is under pressure, and the pretexts given for undermining it are weak. US policy really hasn't changed since September 11, new justifications have merely emerged for their attempts to safeguard their position at the top of the pile. While Robertson was given a light slap on the wrists for his outburst [a hard slap around the face wouldn't go amiss] it is still worrying to think what will happen in Venezuela [not to mention Iran, Syria, Uzbekistan, now that the US has no military base there, and Nicaragua, should Daniel Ortega reemerge]. Assasination has been ruled out by various officials [no guarantee of course, but lets have fun and take them at their word] but that doesn't preclude a return to past tactics.
Due to my firm belief in free speech, and my vindictive need to pour piss on even the easiest of targets, I feel compelled to revisit one more past episode of the lunatic expressing himself. Anyone who has seen The Power of Nightmares will have seen Robertson come out with this little gem. If only I knew the context:
"I don't like Jesus Christ, who is my Lord and Savior, being dumped in a vat of urine by a homosexual, and then have my money to pay for it."
Ah, free speech. Robertson can use it to demand someone's death, I can use it to state that a gay three-legged monkey with a crack problem is probably closer to God than Pat Robertson.
Now, in the twentieth century various US [and occasional British] governments have done their utmost to nip any Latin American democratic or social reform in the bud, with a multitude of interventions aiming to keep the various regimes within the sphere of influence first outlined in The Monroe Doctrine. Chavez is the latest example of a leader seeking economic independence, and since being elected in 1998 he has been subjected to propaganda campaigns, attempted coups and intimidation. The Bush administration positioned a warship in nearby waters, backed anti-government riots and demos and poured scorn on the result of a globally approved referendum held last year which kept Chavez in power. Chavez himself has said repeatedly that he fears assasination, which could be hysterical or could just be in keeping with the historical record. Meanwhile so-called "experts" lined up in the US media, among other things accusing him of supporting terrorism and seeking nuclear weapons [one of the commentators in question listed among his credentials: having a Venezuelan wife. Well, such a qualification clearly puts him at the front of the queue for pointing out what's what in Venezuela. The logic is flawless, especially if one believes that Prince Charles is an expert on racehorses].
The point of these ravings is that although Bush's cronies probably wont send Chavez some exploding cigars, his democratic regime is under pressure, and the pretexts given for undermining it are weak. US policy really hasn't changed since September 11, new justifications have merely emerged for their attempts to safeguard their position at the top of the pile. While Robertson was given a light slap on the wrists for his outburst [a hard slap around the face wouldn't go amiss] it is still worrying to think what will happen in Venezuela [not to mention Iran, Syria, Uzbekistan, now that the US has no military base there, and Nicaragua, should Daniel Ortega reemerge]. Assasination has been ruled out by various officials [no guarantee of course, but lets have fun and take them at their word] but that doesn't preclude a return to past tactics.
Due to my firm belief in free speech, and my vindictive need to pour piss on even the easiest of targets, I feel compelled to revisit one more past episode of the lunatic expressing himself. Anyone who has seen The Power of Nightmares will have seen Robertson come out with this little gem. If only I knew the context:
"I don't like Jesus Christ, who is my Lord and Savior, being dumped in a vat of urine by a homosexual, and then have my money to pay for it."
Ah, free speech. Robertson can use it to demand someone's death, I can use it to state that a gay three-legged monkey with a crack problem is probably closer to God than Pat Robertson.
Comments:
<< Home
i believe that the context of that quote surrounded the national endowment for the arts and the Mapplethorpe exhibits, although i could be wrong
I wonder why he hasn't had the prefix "That Idiot" leagally added to his name since it inevitably comes up proceeding Pat Robertson, as in "That Idiot Pat Robertson."
I wonder why he hasn't had the prefix "That Idiot" leagally added to his name since it inevitably comes up proceeding Pat Robertson, as in "That Idiot Pat Robertson."
yes, i'm sure you're right here. I looked into it [do your research first then you can have your fun later, damn it] and I think it is Mapplethorpe [i know almost nothing about him other than he is a homosexual and therefore must be bad] and also Andres Serrano, who made "Piss Christ". This is news to me, since the only reason I knew of him was through those Metallica album covers he did. Is he gay too? And does that prohibit him from, ahem, "baptizing" religious figures.
Post a Comment
<< Home
