Its quite possible to organize, don't be such a pessimist. We have been in seriously shitty situations before, but we did it, even if only for a moment.

It starts in your communities. It starts in REAL relationships not defined by capital. It starts it making people aware of their own power, that they don't have to take this shit anymore. I'm organizing in ATL. What are YOU doing? People should be in the streets, this is true. But this isn't Latin america. Its the United Statutes of selling caskets. Its the conglomeration of cities where people are their cubicles. Alienation has reached its alltime high from Capitalism.

But we must fight, my comrades. We must be organized. Why? If not for liberty, solidarity, equality, love. Do it because even if you lose, it is the only honorable thing left in this world

>> ^chilaxe:
Re:"they have insufficient humanity to ask him questions, since they're obviously subhuman worms."

Netrunner, did you really write that? Bronze age liberalism is beneath you. You should be a leader of progressivism instead of someone who drags it into filth.


I was paraphrasing Chavez's attitude. Politics is as much about anti-intellectual arguments as anything, and I think this may be partially a cultural difference between our politics and the politics in Latin America. I didn't see Chavez defend himself to Fox, I saw him say "you're dishonest, and evil, and so I'm not going to tolerate you questioning me or my behavior" and walking away. I got the distinct feeling he wanted to use words more along the lines of what I said, since they're more colorful and striking.

I kinda empathize with that position, even if I think Chavez isn't exactly the most fine upstanding guy in the world himself.

>> ^direpickle:
^Still, I'm going to still lean on the side of carelessness or incompetence rather than anything intentional on Bayer/Baxter's behalf.

Once they discovered the contamination in the US, and could no longer sell them here, they sold them internationally. I don't doubt the initial contamination was an accident, its the fact that they still sold it AFTER it was found.

"An examination of internal Bayer company documents by The New York Times reveals that the company was engaged in unsavory, probably criminal marketing practices. The documents reveal that Bayer continued to sell contaminated blood plasma causing thousands of hemophiliac patients to be infected with AIDS. The company continued to sell the contaminated blood in Asia for over a year when it had already introduced a safer, heated blood plasma version in the US and Europe in February 1984. "

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1151015

"A class action lawsuit has been launched against the Bayer and Baxter corporations on behalf of people with haemophilia in Asia and Latin America who contracted HIV or hepatitis through contaminated blood products supplied by the companies."

Also named in the lawsuit were the Armour Pharmaceutical Company and Alpha Therapeutic Corporation. The suit was filed in a US federal court in California.

All four companies are accused of distributing contaminated blood products in Asia and Latin America in 1984-5, even after such products were taken off the US market because of fears that they had not been properly screened for HIV and hepatitis C virus.

The class action contends that thousands of people with haemophilia contracted HIV or hepatitis C from tainted blood products. By 1992 the contaminated products had infected at least 5000 haemophiliac people in Europe with HIV, and more than 2000 people had developed AIDS. A total of 1250 people had died from the disease, the lawsuit added.

The lawsuit also found that by the mid-1990s most of the 4000 people in Japan with AIDS were haemophiliac people and that nearly all of the cases were linked to contaminated clotting factors traced to the United States.

In Latin America at least 700 cases of HIV are linked to use of contaminated blood products by haemophiliac people, the lawsuit said. In the mid-1990s the four companies paid out $640m (£390m; €545m) in damages to settle a similar lawsuit."

I don't want to pay for the health care of others if they willfully chose to ignore healthy life choices. If you stuff your face full of Doritoes every day, I don't want to pay for whatever problems come about because of that. If you drink booze or smoke all the time, and you get screwed up cuz of that, I don't want to help you either.

But if you were hit by a car, born with some problem, or catch some disease you had no control over... then I like the idea of paying for your care.

Also, I would prefer to pay for the health care of poor people in Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, and Asia, more than the people in say, my own country, the United States. So I'd rather not have national health care, but global health care, if I had to choose between the two. I also think that a national health care system will strengthen immigration restrictions in the US, which I think is a bad thing. I like the idea of an America full of opportunities for the poor people of the world. But if we have national health care, it's VERY likely that immigrants will have a harder time coming to America, because we'll see them as a drain on the health care system. (heck, one of the primary reasons we don't have national health care already is because of how many white conservatives view blacks/latinos/native americans as drains on their wallets already.)

Citrohan, it's odd that you would leave out the huge number of democracies in Latin America and Africa that are not perceived as scientifically productive. Many of these democracies have far higher voting participation rates than America, and yet this has not led to any major scientific breakthroughs from these societies. We don't have to constantly judge democracies on a national scale either. We can go city by city, too. How scientifically productive are the democracies of Baltimore or Washington DC, for example?

There are probably more scientific breakthroughs coming from the non-democratic society of China than from all of the democratic societies of Africa and Latin America, too. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were capable of far surpassing modern day Africa and Latin America's achievements in science as well. Both societies were probably far more oppressive than, say, Jamaica or Costa Rica. Scientifically speaking though, Nazi Germany and Communist Russia were far more impressive.

As for why I brought up free speech vs democracy, you said this: "It makes totally sense; a free society, where ideas and information can be easily exchanged, coupled with a healthy amount of capital from the private sector to fund research is the best environment for scientific advances."

In this one statement, you seemed to combine free speech, capitalism, and democracy into one whole body that cannot exist separately. I think this is very incorrect. Capitalism and democracy are very much at odds at each other. At best, they are checks against each other's excesses. Free speech is not necessary for either of the two, as well. This is why I don't think science and democracy make sense together. Democracy doesn't care about the truth, it cares about what's popular. Many aspects of science are highly unpopular to this day. One could argue that global environmental catastrophe is approaching quickly, and that this is well known amongst the scientific community, and has been for decades, and yet the world's democracies have done nothing and have basically led us to our doom.

And is capitalism compatible with science? I'm not sure, but I think it's more compatible with science than democracy is. At least capitalism has a kind Social Darwinism going for it, where the uneducated and lazy masses can be tossed aside with little guilt, left to die early in poverty. Scientists seem like elitists just by their nature, able to ply their trade to great economic benefit, rising to the top of the income brackets. Capitalism is very much the ideology of the elites it seems..

I don't think that there will be any respect or trust for the United States internationally until they prosecute their war criminals. Every country on the planet will continue to distrust the US. If the US were to prosecute Bush and Cheney for their obvious and massively documented multitude of crimes that they have committed it would actually send a shockwave throughout the world with the signal that corrupt leaders will not last or benefit from their actions. Think of how powerful an influence that would be to Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Qatar, the United Emirates, etc. etc.
I'm getting the impression that people from the Scandinavian countries, Canada, all of Latin America, Mexico, the entire Caribbean, Asia, western Europe, etc. etc. are at the very least not on line with the US's ongoing selfrichous imperial trajectory. But that's the people. Not the governments, but look at the tea leaves in the air. It should be underlined that Latin American countries will never again be dictted by another US dictator again. That's a huge change.Anyway...Obama's hope and change slogans have worked so far... I just hope that people within the us will push him to work for your interests. If you sit back he'll follow just about any special interest pushing him. Citizens rather than random corporations or insurinse companies need to push him.

I would like to elaborate in stating that American interventionism has been shown to only occur when a horrific event occurs to justify the following aggression.

Sometimes it is justified in the case of Pearl Harbor but historically the Gulf of Tonkin and 'Soviet Nuclear Bases' in Grenada as well as nuclear weapons in Iraq have shown that it's been most commonly justified through outright public manipulation and coercion.

At the same time we have a hypocrisy when it comes to state terrorism executed by the US which is good and state terrorism of other states which is bad. The US killing thousands in Latin America and paying CIA games in Afghanistan and Iran is OK. But we wouldn't think so if these states committed those actions themselves. So Iran possessing Nuclear arms is bad, but the US possessing Nuclear arms is okay.

Mr. Reich never was charged with any crime...the line about convictions does need to go under poindexter.. but hey, if I say it enough it will become true anyway, right.. but I'm ok with just this info:

From 1983 to 1986, Reich established and managed the inter-agency Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean. He was accused by Congress of engaging in "prohibited, covert propaganda activities" in his efforts to promote the Reagan administration's policies toward Nicaragua.

The OPD declassified Central Intelligence Agency information and disseminated it to influence public opinion and spur Congress to continue to fund the Reagan's administration's campaign against Nicaragua's Sandinista government.

The OPD was highly controversial and was criticized by numerous government sources, including a staff report by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which characterized it as a domestic political and propaganda operation.

The OPD also violated “a restriction on the State Department’s annual appropriations prohibiting the use of federal funds for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by Congress.”

He also helped terrorist Orlando Bosch gain entry into the U.S. after being imprisoned in Venezuela for bombing a Cuban airliner, killing its 73 passengers. Bosch spent time in a U.S. prison for attacking a Polish merchant vessel bound for Cuba. Thirty countries have refused Bosch asylum because of his criminality.



You saw the part of : "Abrams was pardoned by President George H. W. Bush " .. not too shabby a deal. then his son could hire him!

and re: Poindexter "The convictions were reversed in 1991 on technical grounds ". which means what it says... technicality, not that he wasnt actually a scumbag liar.

So, go ahead and apologize for these liars. I'm sure they can't get enough republican hugs and free jobs.

http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/Central_America/Iran-Contra_Felons_Get_Good_Jobs_from_Bush

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-bush-appoints-former-criminals-to-key-government-roles/

http://www.libertyforlife.com/eye-openers/iran-contra-us-criminals.htm

Now, remember, my mistake immediately means GWBUSH never appointed any criminals. That's logical. I guess not getting caught = good behavior in your book, too...

Rychan, You say that... I'm really not sure i buy that... That truly sounded to me like he didn't even realize he was talking to a Spanish reporter... about a Spanish president... I really think he thought he was having a conversation about latin America... until the reporter mentioned Europe he didn't say a word about it... and honestly... how ridiculous is it that he can't say... yes I would meet an old Nato Ally... it's completely absurd.

*sigh* You'd think the lower and middle-class WASP's would have changed by now. (And I am one; a WASP, not a racist, mind you)

Hmm, let's see...

1830-1850: Huge immigration of Western Europe to the US. Irish, Italian, etc. #1 complaints? Lack of assimilation to the "American ideal" and: http://www.videosift.com/video/De-Tuk-Er-Jeeerbs

1885-1895: Another huge immigration...this time Eastern Europe. Poles, Jews, Eastern Bloc countries. #1 complaints? Lack of assimilation to the "American ideal" and: http://www.videosift.com/video/De-Tuk-Er-Jeeerbs

Since 1900, immigration from every country in the world, more from Asia and Latin America now. And guess what? We still have the "American" ideal and we still have jobs. Unemployment is about the same rate and so is crime. Nothings changed.

Oh, except we now have cool shows like South Park... http://www.videosift.com/video/De-Tuk-Er-Jeeerbs

How is this show not still on the air?

Who won the match? I hope the girl from "Latin America" and the girl from "The Amazon" won.

Also, does anyone else think they just rented out a hotel conference room for their studio?

Or, as it's known in Australia "Flying High". True, and from wikipedia apparently it was only us and the Philippines who called it that... odd.

I mean, we call the Aeroplanes, but so does England.

Actually, from further reading in Wiki, it had a tonne of brilliant names around the world:

German: The Unbelievable Flight in a Crazy Airplane (Die unglaubliche Reise in einem verrückten Flugzeug)
French: Is There a Pilot on the Plane? (Y a-t-il un pilote dans l'avion?)
Portuguese (for release in Brazil), Fasten your seatbelts,the pilot is gone (Apertem os cintos, o piloto sumiu)
Italian It's the craziest plane in the world (L'aereo più pazzo del mondo)
Finnish Hey, we're flying! ( Hei, me lennetään!)
Spanish Land as you can (Aterriza como puedas)
Latin America And where is the pilot? (and ¿Y dónde está el piloto?)
Norway Help, we're flying (Hjelp, vi flyr)
Swedish Look, we're flying (Titta vi Flyger)

Yowsers... I wonder what film has the most different names around the world?

Oh, and a brilliant film, I saw recently the one of the films it was spoofing (Airport 1975) and loved seeing some of the plot points they were spoofing.

Great film, with many lines that are quoted regularly in our household.

Food subsidies create a vicious cycle of increased production, you get subsidized for a a certain amount, once you profit you decide to expand production (you are in a competitive market after all) so next years yield is even larger, you get subsidization and press the government to export your produce as well to other nations (see CAFTA, NAFTA and GATT on their effects on agricultural markets in Mexico and Latin America).

Next year you expand production again, you lobby for even more protectionism trade policies because my god those darn Latinos and Africans can produce everything at much lower costs! So you get more subsidization, export more at lower cost of production, dumping more goods on the world market while only allowing domestic agricultural competition. This goes on and on and on... its not to the benefit of the consumer who ends up paying more for basic food items, still facing risks from a industry fixated with output over quality (Fast Food Nation? Spinach a la E.Coli? Lobbying FDA to lower standards?).

"...is there a hand sign for huge sloppy vagina?"

A video I saw in a sociology class showed different ways to say "whore" in different cultures, including a gesture done in some parts of Latin America with the hands put together in front of one's crotch with thumbs touching at the top and fingers touching at the bottom, to construct a make-shift "large vagina".

I guess gender jokes cut both ways.

Yeah, 'natural family planning' is about as effective as Russian roulette is at not getting you shot.

I can see how in 'Old World' countries the Catholic Church still has a lot of sway... it also exerts similar powers throughout Latin America. However, here in the US and Canada, which were first settled by predominately Protestant peoples who had fought against the repression of the Catholic church and continued to preach that it sought to control our country from abroad, the Roman Catholic Church has pretty much failed to gain any strong political powers. When the United States Constitution was drawn up that idea of 'Separation of Church and State' undoubtedly came not only from the English experience of having lived under the Anglican Church where the King is defacto spiritual leader, but also from the memories of the Catholic Church and the inquisitions carried out all over continental Europe.

Also, the bulk of the Catholic population in this country came over in the great waves of immigration towards the end of the 19th century from Catholic countries, Italians, Germans, Polish, Irish (my people, W00t), etc. With an established system of political power already set in place by predominantly Protestant peoples, Catholics, only up until very recently, were largely disenfranchised and politically without power in this country, so even if Rome tried to exert its might via its people, it would have had a hard time accomplishing anything. Those in power almost universally viewed the immigrants as superstitious, unwashed, uneducated, masses... largely because they were poor, but also because they still were a part of the 'Old' religious system. To some extent that lives on today in the current immigrant 'crisis' involving Mexico... the rhetoric that often accompanies that, "oh they'll just breed and breed and not work and we'll have to support the lot of them... and then if they outnumber us, then they'll start changing everything thing, and OMG lets just deport the lot of em"... is so similar to the rhetoric spewed forth regarding my ancestors only a hundred years ago it makes my head spin sometimes... I mean fuck, the Irish were barely human beings in this country really until WW2, and in retrospect I feel damn lucky sometimes that I'm getting a college education.

But anyway, the point I was getting to, is that there is a pervasive political paranoia regarding Catholicism in this country... like, whenever someone of Irish or German descent runs for the Presidency, everyone is always like, Wait, what church does he go to? This happened with John Kerry (who had been politically savvy enough to go Methodist decades earlier), and it happened with JFK, who actually was our only Catholic President ever, and at the time, the predominant worry about him prior to his election was if he was all of a sudden going to start taking orders from Rome after being sworn in.

Also, in the last 40 years or so, the number of active Catholics in this country has declined rapidly. I think this is due not only to that whole priests touching little boys thing (that certainly has turned a lot of people off from the church) but also because of the shift to modern American culture and all the other things about our society that impact pretty much all religions in this way. Yes, there are still people who go to church, but as Krupo said, over here anyway, if you are Catholic, what you hear in church, is probably vastly different from what you actually do in real life... there is just a lot more detachment than you see back over in Europe, or even in Latin America... Catholics over here, for the most part it seems, are, like my family, and are only really Catholic on Sundays.

I hope that clears up things for you looris, why, when you say stuff about the Catholic Church controlling people (which I believe you are right about, especially in Italy and other countries on that side of the Atlantic), we people over here are just like, "Say What? Catholic Church doing something more than holding bingo raffles? Whatever"