Comments on: Oh, Danny Boy

By: Buddy Larsen

Buddy Larsen — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:21:00 +0000

Case in point, Venezuelan standards of living under Hugo are in a tailspin. If hurting the oligarchs is worth also hurting the little folks (who before Hugo were seeing steady improvements in the measurements), then Hugo has a case. He must not really think he has a case, though, since he is blaming the VRWC for his “troubles”. If hurting the private sector is good enough, then what’s the problem? Especially now that he can change (AKA “dump”) the Constitution anytime he so dictates. His 60% in the last election says so, says he.

By: stu

stu — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:21:22 +0000

The major difference in philosophy is that we on the right value freedom greater than equality(of condition) and those on the left,the opposite. The history of mankind confirms my observation that those that placed a higher value on freedom/liberty have done a greater job in promoting equality than the totalitarians, large and small(”we’re in this together”).

By: shannonlove

shannonlove — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:14:50 +0000

I think the behavior of Glover et al is best explained by assuming that they simply do not care about the outcome for the peoples of places like Venezuela.

For most Leftist, the real people in the world are just stage props in the Leftist own little social-political psycho-drama. They “care” about them only to the extent that their suffering can be exploited in the context of our own internal social and political squabbles. Leftist choose their positions on such issue based on their own self-interest. When they can no longer exploit the plight of the poor and oppressed they forget them.

You can see such actions very clearly in recent history in the cases of Indochina, South Africa, Nicaragua etc. Once the plight of an area ceases to have internal political ramifications they drop it like a hot potato.

I think it is time to stop looking at most Leftist as bumbling but well meaning and instead see them for the dangerous narcissist that they are.

By: Soldier's Dad

Soldier's Dad — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 09:51:59 +0000

“I wonder at the source of the disconnect. I mean the deeper source”

The fundamental divide between left and right has always been how one viewed the relationhip between financial and human “Capital”.

This has always been contentious in Hollywood…where the “star” was the reason people would see a movie…the realities of blockbuster film making is that the need for a large infrastructure to film the movie meant the “studio”, I.E. financial capital would recieve the lions share of the profit.

Performing artists have always resented the “cut” those who provide the facilities take.

This is also why journalism tends to lean left…prior to the internet..if one wanted to be a journalist…one needed to own a printing press…which is a fairly expensive item.

One will find that “lefty” politics is prevalent in capital intensive industries.

By: Roger

Roger — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:40:48 +0000

You are right, Perry de Havilland, not to call Glover a liberal. He is not in any sense. He is not, strictly speaking, a socialist either. He is more of an “as if” socialist. Someone who affects socialist attitudes while living as a capitalist – rather like Castro in that regard.

By: Perry de Havilland

Perry de Havilland — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 00:59:41 +0000

“He’s a raging hypocrite and a supporter of totalitarians. He is, in short, a Liberal.”

Stop abusing the language. Call a socialist a socialist for they are profoundly illiberal. Maggie Thatcher and Frederic Hayek are/were ‘liberals’ (small L). Reclaim the language.

By: Paul A'Barge

Paul A'Barge — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 22:30:49 +0000

Danny Glover is not essentially a good man. He’s a raging hypocrite and a supporter of totalitarians. He is, in short, a Liberal.

Disregard his mumbles.

By: Buddy Larsen

Buddy Larsen — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 21:49:34 +0000

Jimmeh’s done a lot better job of getting even with USA for rejecting him in 1980, than he ever did of thanking USA for electing him in 1976. Sending him to monitor an election is a GREAT deal for whomever the anti-American candidate is.

By: heather

heather — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:58:07 +0000

Fighting the Chavez-types is like playing a ‘whack-a-mole’ game: there are always people who want to force other people to do their bidding.

Which is why the US Constitution is so precious for human freedom. It has enough conflict of interest built in it, so that one totalitarian is usually cancelled out by another totalitarian.

And remember: good ol’ Jimmeh Carter and his Carter Center, supported the (probably fraudulent) election that Chavez won. By doing so, he legitimized Chavez to the American people. Jimmeh just LOVES (anti American) dictators.

By: Jim C.

Jim C. — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:57:16 +0000

No surprise. No doubt he has suffered injustice and racism. Being born and raised in SF, his anger at those injustices has been egged on until it has become a firestorm. Nuff said.