Artfldgr says:
“The people of Venezuela can win, their voice can rule the day regardless of the brute force arrayed against them. And nobody can dispute that either.”
Then I guess I am a nobody…
When one goes to a casino, one can meet lots of people who will tell you stories of their great wins. I often deflate them instantly from their braggadocio by asking them one question. did you take the prize home with you?
Have yet to meet someone randomly that could answer yes to that (I know there are those that can walk away, I am one of them and I doubt that I am totally unique even if I am not the majority).
The public has not won anything. all that happened was that Chavez was inching up the situation so that the minimum amount of application would suffice.
If he rolled into the street with tanks, everyone ni the world would squawk, but if he can get a vote to work, then he can play the vote game.
The fact that he lost, doesn’t mean a damn thing since he has how many years to make good on this?
The change will come at some cost. The actual cost is unknown. One can walk in and say, I will pay a huge price and have what I want (the way we think they all have to act, but they don’t actually). However a more prudent person with a lot more time will basically low bid the auction and inch up the costs. So rather than bid 100 million and be done with it, they start with 10 million, then 20 million, etc… and if it tops off anywhere UNDER the 100 million, they get away cheap.
However the option to do the decimating move is never off the table! Which is why playing this inching voting game will work. its end result is not a removal of office of a [person who will try again, its result is an infinite series of tests till they fail on one of them.
The peoples vote means nothing… as of the end of that vote, the people who were key in breaking it are now targets. One way or another they will be affected and then there will be another vote of some sort.
“It doesn't have to be that way. Venezuelans have shown themselves, and the Russians, that there is pathway out of the darkness.”
One person sees a beacon of light… ever thought your in a tunnel and the light your approaching isn’t the sky but a train bearing down on you?
No… this is like the leftist dippies in movies who feel they have been rescued and run right into the hands of a camp that ends up smiling and cutting them down at the moment they thought they had reached salvation. (for sociopaths such demoralizing ends are sweeter than candy)
“He's asking the questions, as Americans always have done. Nobody's trying to stop him from doing so. Americans are the most self-critical people on the planet, the most apt to change and reform, and that is why we are by far the strongest.”
This last line is a joke…
This self criticism for lack of perfection that doesn’t provide answers is the prime cause of Americas malaise and its current sloped move to downfall. Isn’t is sweet that they are telling everyone that arsenic tastes great, it has such a wonderful almond flavor.
The kind of criticism that we do was sourced from the Franfurt school and was designed to lead to a malaise that would rot us from the inside and destroy our values and morals and are ability to see the world validly. After all, how else can someone convince you that a loss was a win?
The first meaning of the term critical theory was that defined by Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School of social science in his 1937 essay Traditional and Critical Theory: Critical theory is social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it. Horkheimer wanted to distinguish critical theory as a radical, emancipatory form of Marxian theory, critiquing both the model of science put forward by logical positivism and what he and his colleagues saw as the covert positivism and authoritarianism of orthodox Marxism and communism. Core concepts are: (1) That critical social theory should be directed at the totality of society in its historical specificity (i.e. how it came to be configured at a specific point in time), and (2) That Critical Theory should improve understanding of society by integrating all the major social sciences, including economics, sociology, history, political science, anthropology, and psychology. Although this conception of critical theory originated with the Frankfurt School, it also prevails among other recent social scientists, such as Pierre Bourdieu, Louis Althusser and arguably Michel Foucault and Bryan Reynolds, as well as certain feminist theorists and social scientists.
The part they are leaving out is that one does not offer solutions… but basically everyone has a never ending gripe fest. Eventually everyone hates their own country, and so allow for its to change. if America is so bad, and capitalism is so bad, then how about communism?
Of course once the change over to communism such critiques with no end or positive result are stopped. Why should they let the poision they gave us kill themselves?
Many Critical Theory analysts see society as the ground on which competing ideologies struggle for domination (p. 247). Following Gramsci, they define hegemony as a process of domination, whereby one set of ideas subverts or co-opts another (Gramsci, 1971). They conceptualize it as a process whereby one group in society exerts leadership over others. They point out that hegemony is what binds society together without the use of force. This is achieved when the upper classes supplement their economic power by creating "intellectual and moral leadership." The upper classes make compromises to achieve this leadership. In other words, culture is one of the sites where the struggle for hegemony takes place.
The process of hegemony occurs in many ways and in many settings. In essence, the process of hegemony takes place when events or texts are interpreted in a way that promotes the interests of one group over those of another. The process can be as subtle as co-opting the interests of a subordinate group into supporting those of a dominant one. For example, during the 1980s advertisers often exploited the "women's lib" theme, making it look as though the corporation supports women's rights. What happened was that women's rights were being reinterpreted to promote the interests of the capital economy. The point to remember is that ideology has always played a central role in this process because it structures the way in which people understand their experience, and it is therefore powerful vehicle for shaping how they interpret events.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~rseiler/critical.htm
How does that lead to what we are? it doesn’t.
The person writing takes the moral moementum we have and credits what good we have left as a product of the theory that has destroyed all we have lost.
How sweet, no?
“If we wish it to be so, and if we will stand behind our wishes with blood, sweat and tears, the forces of democracy will bring down those that stand against us. We should never forget that.”
Did anyone cue the music? Pomp and circumstance? Wagner Das Valkeries? Maybe the Carmina burana?
The forces of the REPUBLIC brought down tyranny, Democracy is mob rule and needs an elite to control it or it destroys itself. in the old American tradition, the mob controlled who would serve them over them… now the mob is manipulated into establishing rule with powers in violation of the constitution, as a matter of conveinience, pragmatism, and expediency.
A democracy never existed long, nor has it ever accomplished the things that these people think it did.
Twas the republic that did that… since democracy has taken hold we are rotting to the core and almost communust? How does that differ?
It doesn’t.
Its about the same concept of reading the sign over the door that says “Arbeit Mach Frei”, and believing it.
del.icio.us | 
digg | 
technorati | 
stumble upon | 
furl | 
reddit