Saturday, August 27, 2005
Pat Robertson: Living Proof that there is nothing common about common sense.
Preventable death used to kill thousands of Venezuelans but American idiocy has the potential to kill thousands more. Pat Robertson, a preacher with amazing popularity and dreadful stupidity said that the U.S. should “take out” (remember those two words) Venezuelan President Jugo Chavez. From Robertson perspective the majority elected President, (not dictator, if anyone wants to challenge me on this one, put it in the comments and wait for the reply) deserves to die because he disagrees with U.S. policy. And disagree he does. But so do Canadian cattle ranchers, loggers, and many more. Best line up the gallows, Pat.
The American press has spilled enough ink covering this story, and the way they did it is abominable. The circulating issue has not been whether or not Robertson needs a straight-jacket, but whether or not it would be right for the U.S. to pop Chavez.
Why is the U.S. media consuming time and space with the question of the method of removal? Wolf Blitzer was all on about the practicality of this sort of stunt, saying that Gerald Ford forbid the act in 1979. The ensuing debate centered on the cost of toppling nations. Should the U.S. go through an expensive war to ruin its opponents and follow Ford’s protocol, or should they just send in the SEALS?
The non-U.S. media did a good job in putting Robertson in his place. Canadian papers quickly reminded the holy man that killing thy neighbour goes against one or two of the commandments. Based on this, Robertson retracted his statement and said that this use of the term “take out” could mean “kidnapping” or something like that. This guy can’t even rebuttal himself out of a wet paper bag.
How the hell did it come to this? An idiot in the states says something completely stupid, the media plays on his idiocy to ask even stupider questions, and then you have an all out security crisis in Venezuela. Chavez already believed that the U.S. wanted his ass, and now with the holy man saying the same thing, he is convinced.
Chavez is a controversial figure. I have met Venezuelans who have retracted their citizenship because of his actions, and I have met others that well tears in their eyes when they tell tales of their illiterate parents finally receiving healthcare. The man has his enemies and his allies, and he knows both well.
The real issue at hand here is the fact that Robertson, who likely gets paid more than I do and is much more famous than I, had the ability to be an idiot and capture the public imagination, if only for a moment, over an idiotic idea. If I said something like that I would be screwed as hard as possible. Anyone who has invested time and effort in education and self betterment would be hung out to dry for saying such things. Ethics, the law, goodwill and common sense keep most of us from being this dumb, and yet this fucker gets on the front page of an entire continent. But in the U.S., the land of dreams, anything is possible.
The American press has spilled enough ink covering this story, and the way they did it is abominable. The circulating issue has not been whether or not Robertson needs a straight-jacket, but whether or not it would be right for the U.S. to pop Chavez.
Why is the U.S. media consuming time and space with the question of the method of removal? Wolf Blitzer was all on about the practicality of this sort of stunt, saying that Gerald Ford forbid the act in 1979. The ensuing debate centered on the cost of toppling nations. Should the U.S. go through an expensive war to ruin its opponents and follow Ford’s protocol, or should they just send in the SEALS?
The non-U.S. media did a good job in putting Robertson in his place. Canadian papers quickly reminded the holy man that killing thy neighbour goes against one or two of the commandments. Based on this, Robertson retracted his statement and said that this use of the term “take out” could mean “kidnapping” or something like that. This guy can’t even rebuttal himself out of a wet paper bag.
How the hell did it come to this? An idiot in the states says something completely stupid, the media plays on his idiocy to ask even stupider questions, and then you have an all out security crisis in Venezuela. Chavez already believed that the U.S. wanted his ass, and now with the holy man saying the same thing, he is convinced.
Chavez is a controversial figure. I have met Venezuelans who have retracted their citizenship because of his actions, and I have met others that well tears in their eyes when they tell tales of their illiterate parents finally receiving healthcare. The man has his enemies and his allies, and he knows both well.
The real issue at hand here is the fact that Robertson, who likely gets paid more than I do and is much more famous than I, had the ability to be an idiot and capture the public imagination, if only for a moment, over an idiotic idea. If I said something like that I would be screwed as hard as possible. Anyone who has invested time and effort in education and self betterment would be hung out to dry for saying such things. Ethics, the law, goodwill and common sense keep most of us from being this dumb, and yet this fucker gets on the front page of an entire continent. But in the U.S., the land of dreams, anything is possible.
Comments:
the americans already have to account for the other, possibly more deadly, September 11th in 1973 when they put Pinochet in control of Chile.
I wondered at first if US complaints were about similar "too communist leaning for american liking" fears but then I discovered that the US gets 15% of its oil from Venezuela.
I wondered at first if US complaints were about similar "too communist leaning for american liking" fears but then I discovered that the US gets 15% of its oil from Venezuela.
# posted by 
: 27 August 2005 at 09:22
: 27 August 2005 at 09:22
In 1979 Gerald Ford was back to taking gum-chewing & walking lessons. It was Jimmy Carter who forbade assassinations.
# posted by : 27 August 2005 at 13:15
: 27 August 2005 at 13:15
Post a Comment