Job Discussion Forums

[delacosta]

I just posted and read your post Guy. That is the first defense of the desafuero that I have ever in my life heard. The desafuero was a last ditch attempt by a desperate government to block true political change from even being given the attempt at taking place in Mexico and was a defacto preemptive coup. Even Panista supporters hung their heads in shame. If it were defendable by law it wouldn't have been thrown out of court by a stunned court of appeal.

Simply defending the law? Give me a break. The criminal who supposedly owned that strip of land had been convicted and jailed previously for invading other parcels of land in Mexico state. He was a 'paracaidista' by profession. He attempted to extort the DF government and wasn't successful. His case only made it to court because he had federal backing. All the desafuero was was a demonstration of how far Fox and gang were willing to go to put a stop to Obrador. For the first time the sh**stains in their pants could be seen publicly. As for the PRI during this process they merely behaved like the opportunists they are and fell into line quickly. It was a sad and pathetic moment in Mexican history and thankfully was not permitted by the public nor the institutions who in this case stood up for justice.

It is precisely this kind of thing that the PAN and the elite that it aims to govern for so fear in Mexico, in other words standing up to barbaric injustice that has dominated Mexican politics for so long now. The Oaxaca case and the precedent it sets once again show its importance.

Tarring Obrador as a �populist� because he is willing to stand at the front of such a movement is cheap jingoism designed to cause immediate fear amongst those whom are easily impressed and uninformed.

[Guy Courchesne]

How could the desafuero be a last ditch attempt by PAN when it started in March 2001? You've fallen prey to the re-writing and re-presentation of history as it suited AMLO at the time. It's really a simple court case that became politicized, and the person who politicized it is AMLO. A victory won in the court of brinksmanship and a people willing to overlook certain truths if they are promised heaven.

Yes, Escobedo is an unsavory character, twice charged and convicted of fraud. It still doesn't change the fact that a court needs to make that determination. As chief of government in Mexico City, when a federal judge orders a halt to construction so that the case can be heard, you listen. Presumptive justice whithout due process is not something the head of a Mexico City government can afford to engage in. The whole spiel was thrown out by the Attorney General, and not by an appeals court as you incorrectly noted. And why was it thrown out? Because AMLO successfully turned law into political hay...old stlye Mexican politics at work. Fox and the federal government's position became untenable, and the case fell apart. The appeal continues though on the fallout from that. The question being addressed is who has the power to strip immunity when a politican is accused of a crime?

AMLO earned the populist term for doing just that...when something doesn't suit him legally or politically, he takes it to the vocal public. 'Help, help I'm being repressed!' without making mention of any of the facts. Populism is the tactic one uses when one is lacking a real policy to push.

Tactics which can be termed populist include pork-barreling. Handing out money to the elderly and single mothers. Great ideas that do a lot of good, but cheap politicking when they aren't backed up by policy to address the roots of the problem. Why do those people need government handouts? Are there longer term solutions and programs that can replace a direct subsidy? Utter silence on that question...AMLO was too busy trying on the presidential sash, secure in the knowledge that the elderly and single mothers will vote for him. Again, old style PRI politics.

What about building that second level to the Periferico in Mexico City? AMLO went so far as to open up a 1-800 line to hold a referendum on whether to spend the money allotted on the second level or on more light rail, badly needed to relieve the congestion for lower-income earning commuters. Everyone knew the result before it happened. Politically, the people who wanted the second level are those that drive out to Santa FE, to those big shiny corporate towers, are a valuable voting block that AMLO courted. Nevermind studies that showed increasing capacity for traffic is the worst thing you can in this city, and that non-polluting, cheap public transport would've served a greater number of people. But, again, that sash was starting to look pretty good when he imagined it on him, safe with the thought that now he's locked up the upper-middle class vote.

It was after this piece of idiocy passing as policy that I pegged him as a populist.

Then came the shows...the DF secretariat of culture put on show after show in the Zocalo, bringing in Mexican and foreign performers, all free to attend. I liked them...thought they were great. But at every show, there's AMLO on stage, letting everyone know who's bringing them this magic. Don't forget to vote for me, he may as well have said. And the masses cheered, though not as loudly because the stink ws starting to populate the air as people began to question where all the money was coming from for these things. And that sash is looking real good now.

Put it all together and you see what populsim is...it's a game of don't look behind the curtain...just watch the shiny promises.

...I think we're going to win a wordiest post contest soon.

[delacosta]

Sorry I didn't mean last ditch, more like desperate.
How has this reverted back to the federal election?
AMLO is of course a politician and engaged in political acts that would boost his popularity. Whether he was/is a shallow 'populist' or not is up to the people to decide. The people of DF overwhelmingly approved of his performance while he governed there. A vast majority of intellectuals and academics embraced him wholeheartedly. One would suppose that they aren't as easily fooled as the uninformed masses to which the 'populist ' measures were designed to entice, for the most part.
Unfortunately Fox and the rest of Mexico's ruling elite determined in the last election that Mexico wouldn't be granted the right to find out whether AMLO is full of hot air or not. The democratic evolution of a country allows for veering to the right or to the left. Fox had the chance to allow this to happen and chose not to. To bow down to what has/is taking place would be to condone a farcical simulation of a democracy, as was the case during the 70 years that the PRI ruled.

Just from my personal experience the only people who I've come across who support the PAN camp have been those distasteful right wing opportunists who don't give a damm about anyone or anything else as long as their personal interests are furthered. The kind that are living way better than the 50 or 60 million Mexicans who live in poverty yet opine that to raise the minimum wage from 50 to 60 pesos a day would hinder Mexico's international competitiveness. One must always compete with slave labour, don�t you know?

A great majority of professors and students where I work voted for Obrador, as well as maintenance and other campus workers. I spoke with one Doctor who said that yes it would be only fair that whoever were to govern Mexico should really pay attention to the poor in such an unequal country, BUT that he knew it would be better for him to vote for the PAN because his interests as a wealthy and well educated Mexican would be better served than under AMLO. I respect his honesty though must admit that I personally find it difficult to spend time or converse with such shallow and self-serving individuals.

I just don�t understand how one could live in gated communities driving to work in an air conditioned late model car wearing a set of clothes that cost more than what other people earn in a half a year and feel good with oneself and the world. Wait let�s do the math, rough estimates (I�m not to good at this as I buy 2nd hand whenever I can)
Gap khakis: 800.?
Ralph Lauren button down: 800?
Underwear and socks: 300?
Sunglasses: 2000?
Watch: 5000? Total not including jacket sweater etc roughly 9000 pesos. Minimum wage in Oaxaca state I think is around 45 pesos. Almost a year�s work just to wear the clothes on the back of an upper class man. Sounds medieval to me.

Maybe it�s just me, I don�t know. Somehow I can�t see a country with 60 million people living in poverty voting for a party who have always and will always put the interests of the upper class man described above before anyone else. Call the man who represents another vision a populist or whatever you wish to call him, I �d give my vote to him, especially if I had nothing to lose. Panistas do not give a rat�s ass about the poor, that�s not breaking news to anyone.

Anyways�.back to Oaxaca�
The 48 hour general strike declared by the state business groups doesn�t bode well for the use of force. It began this am at midnight. It could be an opportunity for the troops to come in while businesses are closed and workers are at home. Press releases have been stating that force is still being considered as an option, but that it will be gradual and not excessive.

Kinder gentler riot cops.

The teachers union, who had been flirting with the massive bribes being offered their leaders lately, voted in majority to not go back to classes. Gordillo is no longer supporting them and it is hoped that enough teachers and leaders will break away causing the �seccion 22� to fragment and eventually be replaced with a more compliant group who will obey la maestra�s orders as she has promised Calderon they would. Oaxacan�s are a difficult bunch and compliance is never what it seems here.

And Calderon, what�s he going to do when La Maestra starts demanding payment?
Poor man, poor poor man�

[MO39]

[Guy Courchesne]

I've been trying to use the word populist in a different way, for lack of a better word, unless there is one that escapes me. I'm not sure what you call a politician who comes across as a used-car salesman or one selling snake oil? Divisive when it serves him, ever on the hunt for the popular, emotive issue or opportunity to bolster his popularity. The first thing to go with this type of politician is sound policy. For that I mentioned the second-level periferico, which is a sacrifice of serving the needs of both the environment - the issue I would identify most with - and of the lower economic classes who need a cheap form of mass transit. Periferico II was a total grab at the middle to upper class vote. I don't trust chameleons.

For the shows, well, it was more a matter of my having formed a negative opinion of AMLO. This was pre-desafuero, but definitely as he was making it clear he wanted the presidency. It all seemed like a campaign.

I agree with a great deal of what you say Delacosta...I'm mostly playing the devil's advocate here, because Calderon is not the best choice either.

We should get back to Oaxaca, so this is my last post on AMLO/Calderon (until Nov. 20th anyway ).

Everyone agrees that there is much poverty in Mexico and everyone can see the difference in wealth distribution. But you ask how someone could live in a gated community and drive an air-conditioned car and feel good about themselves...you're not describing the fairly silent and large group of people who agree with economic policies that Fox has pushed and Calderon will push. These aren't evil people...these are families. Regular folk who may not work the earth to get their bread, but they do work in offices, and at sales jobs, and as civil servants, and as educators, and as many many other types of regular, boring careers. This is the 40% of Mexicans who are not under the poverty line. Their numbers are growing, slowly, and their wealth and purchasing power has increased. Most of the them live in the north and in the central states. Many believe that it is the responsibility of the individual to pull himself up by his bootstraps. Many worked very hard and saw education (or their parents saw it) as the means to personal progress.

Would you not agree that few Mexicans trust their government, whatever color banner they fly? These people don't trust their government either, so to me it makes sense to pick the party that they believe will cause the least amount of havoc in their individual lives.

It can be hard for a middle class individual to look back on the sweat and toil they went through to get to where they are and then hear that they're not doing enough because someone else has less than they do.

The reason AMLO did not get more than 35% of the vote is because the current economic situation for these people was enough to convince them that the better way lie in Calderon, and if doesn't lie with Calderon, it certainly is better than the massive upheaval AMLO seems to promise them. You can't convince these people otherwise...not when it's a matter of their children's education, their career, and their future - seen as stable and predictible - that are a big question mark with AMLO.

I try to be a centrist...but I find myself drifting right on economics while staying left on social questions. Odd to be this way in Mexico when Canadian politics, for me, would be a more natural place to find expression.

and thank you MO. I do try to stay informed...

[PlayadelSoul]

Wow, you would think that you guys were Mexican, and actually had a say in all of this.

[ls650]

[delacosta]

Hmmm, Is650, I don't know you well enough to say but unfortunately for me I'd probably have to say yes I would imagine you to be so.

I say unfortunate because it's best not to judge people and even if you were to posses these qualities I should really treat you no different than anyone else and respect that for whatever reasons at this point in your life you have remained shallow and self serving, if this were to be the case. Each of us are the way we are as a result of our respective life stories and are at wherever we are at in life and I often forget that, but it�s not up to me for anyone to be a certain way that is more acceptable or agreeing to me and where I am at in my life. Does that make any sense?


My comment is based on personal experience with those that I've come across who voted PAN. In your personal case I'd say you feel that way mostly out of being uninformed, but I may be misinformed!

It's like people who actually believe that the US invaded Iraq because they were looking for weapons of mass destruction and Al Quaeda. I try not to judge them but it can't be denied that they are misinformed.

And being misinformed in today�s age is a dangerous proposition. Unfortunately it also seems to be the goal of many governments and certain sectors of society to do all they can to purposefully misinform (manipulate) the public-and for reasons that are entirely self-serving.

The Obrador hate campaign being one such example. If one were to remain at a very shallow level of informing oneself and not take the time and effort to go beyond the misinformation campaign that is presented via the major means of commercial media then one would remain incredibly and pathetically misinformed, even to the extent of imagining that a government that has nothing in common with a population that is overwhelmingly poor and never has nor pretended to would somehow be elected to represent said people.

Many of those middle class that you describe Guy who voted PAN fell victim to the hate campaign. I agree that things didn't go bad for the middle class under the Fox reign, mostly I believe not due to anything he did but to soaring oil prices and a surplus of cash revenues-which he didn�t, for the most part, abscond with- in itself an unusual and honorable record for a Mexican politician. . It's more what he didn't do that he did well-he wasn't guilty of mismanaging the economy, that I concede.
If your main source of information is television, and it is for the majority of Mexicans it was quite difficult to not fall prey to the negative bombardment that was the basis of the PAN's election strategy. A strategy supplied by Dick Morris who told the PAN flat out that they could not win against Obrador based on anything or anyone they had to offer. The only way they could win would be to completely and without mercy tear the opposition to shreds. Obrador�s acceptance and popularity levels were, in political terms, through the roof. Calderon�s numbers were pathetic and most thought that the campaign would be between Madrazo and Obrador. AMLO would have to be degutted. This he was on national television, over and over again in prime time. Televisa and Azteca paid back generously for the legislation which was passed their way.

Whether the hate campaign was based on truth or lies was deemed completely irrelevant-the goal was to win the election and Morris-Guy I know you know this character-delivers the goods! It was so important for Pan and the elite it represents (not just Mexican) to win that it didn�t matter that such a campaign could and has torn Mexico in two. This is where Mexico is at today.

Then there are even people living in this quagmire of self delusion who manage to somehow believe that the most powerful country in the world lead by a former Texas oil man is seeking to bring democracy and freedom to a poor Arab country that just happens to be in possession of vast oil reserves by invading it, occupying it, killing, injuring, torturing and jailing thousands and thousands of its citizens.

But this was about Oaxaca...

Most of the businesses in Oaxaca remained open today after all, perhaps because APPO let it be known that those that didn�t open would be branded as collaborators with the Ruiz government. I don�t imagine it would be too difficult for the majority of small business (which are the majority of all businesses in Oaxaca) to choose to open their doors and hope for some business rather than none, unlike the large central hotels and restaurants who have lost almost 100% of their business due to the lack of foreign tourists.

[ls650]

[delacosta]

Actually, you never were. Saying who you would vote for isn't participating in a debate.

[ls650]

And there's not much point in trying now.

[delacosta]

Whatever...

The following has nothing to do with Oaxaca but much to do with speaking one's mind.
Well it's somewhat related I guess because we have been talking about the federal election and media manipulation and the right wing did use the image of Chavez in the campaign...

Kind of like yelling out the emperor's wearing no clothes.

Chavezphobes be warned, so skip it if you wish...




Here is another ZNet Update, this time assessing the recent Chavez UN Speech and its aftermath. We hope you will regularly visit the site - www.zmag.org/weluser.htm - and also consider becoming a ZNet supporter.

Here is the essay about the recent events...

--

Chavez, the Devil, Chomsky, and Us
By Michael Albert



What can leftists learn from Chavez�s UN speech and its aftermath? That the U.S. is the world�s most egregious rogue state. We already knew that and, in fact, so does most everyone else. That Bush and Co. engage in repeated acts of amoral, immoral, and antimoral behavior such as a devil would enact, if there was such a thing as a devil. We already knew that too. That the emperor has no morality, integrity, wisdom, or humanity. We knew that as well.

So is there anything in the episode for us? I think there may be.

I suspect many leftists would have been happier had Chavez torn into Bush and U.S. institutions by offering more evidence while employing a less religious spin. Perhaps Chavez could have called Bush Mr. War, or Mr. Danger as he has in the past, and piled on evidence to show how U.S. policies in the world, and grotesque domestic imbalances as well, obstruct desirable income distribution, democratic decision making, and mutual interpersonal and intercommunity respect. Chavez might have given evidence how U.S. elites and key institutions impede living and loving and even survival, from Latin America to Asia and back. He might have said that George W. Bush, as the current master purveyor of the most recent violations by the U.S. , is, in effect, doing the work of a devil � because he is the spawn of a devilish system. And I suspect many leftists would have probably been happier had Chavez added chapter and verse evidence for his assertions, though I suspect time limits precluded that.

But, hey, we can�t always get exactly what we want. And more, the dramatic �smelling of sulfur formulation� that Chavez used may have been exactly what got the sentiment in any form at all in front of millions of readers and viewers. The pundits wanted to use Chavez�s words to discredit him � but, in doing so, they put his claim before hundreds of millions of people. Perhaps without the dramatic formulation, we would have heard nearly nothing.

My guess is that Chavez treated the event as he does pretty much all his encounters. He said what he thought. He gave it a passionate, aesthetic, and humorous edge. He calculated that forthrightness would accomplish more than it cost. Content-wise, the speech was typical Chavez, even if most hadn�t heard him saying such things before, due to having not heard him say anything before. Here is Chavez commenting on Bush last March, for example, in a televised Venezuelan address: "You are an ignoramus, you are a burro, Mr. Danger ... or to say it to you in my bad English, you are a donkey, Mr. Danger. You are a donkey, Mr. George W. Bush. You are a coward, a killer, a genocider, an alcoholic, a drunk, a liar, an immoral person, Mr. Danger. You are the worst, Mr. Danger. The worst of this planet."

The cost of Chavez�s more recent and far more global forthrightness about Bush is dismissal of Chavez as a crazy lunatic by many people who already felt that way but were restrained in saying so, and by some people swayed by media ridicule of him, who had had no prior opinion.

The gain of Chavez�s more recent and far more global forthrightness about Bush is establishing that one can say the truth about the U.S. and less importantly about George Bush, and showing that doing so is in accord not only with truth but also with integrity. It is providing an example for others to be inspired by and act on. What is poison in elite eyes can be vitamins for us, and vice versa.

In that respect, what Chavez did reminds me a little of what Abbie Hoffman and some others did in the U.S. to the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, known more familiarly as HUAC, decades ago. Abbie and some others aggressively and dismissively ridiculed HUAC as beneath contempt and unworthy of respect. They laughed at obeying it and via their dramatic stance they moved the prevalent attitude toward HUAC from being primarily fear and trembling to being primarily disdain and dissent. Chavez tried something similar, I think. He voiced what others, even others in the room at the UN, also knew but kept quiet about. He hoped, I assume, that others would take strength and begin to voice their needs and insights too.

Bush is a vengeful, greedy, violent, but even more so, obedient thug. Yes, obedient, as in Bush obeys the dictates of the system he has climbed and now administers for the rich and powerful. Bush perfectly exemplifies the adage that in capitalism �garbage rises.� My guess is that Chavez felt that the benefits of standing up to the U.S. and its most elite garbage outweighs the costs of seeming to many people to be an extremist from Mars. So was Chavez right? Did the benefits outweigh the debits?


My country, the United States , exists beneath a blanket of disorienting and misleading media madness. It endures a climate of paralyzing and pervasive fear. It encompasses a deeply inculcated hopelessness born of educational and cultural institutions that snuff out communication of dissenting beliefs elevating instead pap and pablum. It suffers a life-draining anti-sociality produced by markets that reward callousness and punish solidarity. Garbage rises in the U.S. because nice guys finish last. And amidst all this, for anyone to tell the full truth, and even more so for anyone to display the appropriate levels of passionate anger that the full truth warrants, makes that person appear to be Martian, appear to be psychotic, appear to be irrelevant, and Chavez wants to reverse that context.

Did Chavez fall short of what could be accomplished on that score with one speech? I am not at all sure he did. But if he did, if the price of Chavez�s speech in delegitimating his own credibility in certain circles was greater than the gain in delegitimating greed and violence and in freeing people in very different circles from blind and uncritical obedience and fear, whose fault would that be?

Should we blame the one messenger who spoke up? Or should we blame the millions of messengers who know the same substance as Chavez, but hold their tongues?

There is a world class bully, Bush. He represents a class of rich and powerful �masters of the universe.� He administers their system of gross inequality. He expands the competitive market hostility they thrive on. He fosters the mental passivity they rely on. He abets the lifelong coercion they utilize. He epitomizes the ubiquitous crassness and commercialism they profit off. He lies to shield their true purposes. He throws bombs far and wide to defend and enlarge their empire. Of course irritating the bully and the system he shills for can unleash nasty behavior. Of course, for a time, in the ensuing onslaught, verbally assaulting the bully can diminish the dissident�s credibility, at least in some circles. It might even boost the bully a bit, in some quarters.

Likewise, when there is a climate of subservient obedience to a bully, as we now endure in the U.S., when the bully�s climate people feel that to tell the truth about him and his system is uncivil, and when the bully�s climate overwhelmingly castigates honesty and ridicules passion, then of course being passionately honest will be castigated and ridiculed and at least in part make the truth teller look deviant.

So, if that�s the risk, what is the solution? Should we forego truth telling? Or should we tell more truth? Should we coddle our likely enemies. Or should we organize and empower our likely friends?

Chavez needs allies, but not ones who say, hey, Chavez is an okay guy, even if a little over the top. Chavez needs allies who stand up to imperialism and injustice in all its forms be counted like him, even right up over the top, but allies who also bring to Chavez criticisms and ideas that run contrary to his own thinking and doing. Chavez embracing Admadinenjad was bad news. His suggestions, in other contexts, that the Venezuelan constitution be amended to allow him to rule longer are bad news. Truth to him, too. But at that UN Chavez wasn�t talking mainly to the people sitting in front of him in the UN with his speech. He was talking to people throughout the U.S. and throughout the world, saying, in essence, it is okay to rebel. And it is okay. And we ought to do it.

So that was one lesson. When you revile elites your effectiveness depends less on your particular words than on how many other people are willing to do as much or more than you. Chavez thinks in terms of winning massive change. Most people on the left think in terms of holding off calamities. The contrast is stark and at the heart of the recent incidents. We can learn from his attitude, I think.

Chavez waved around Chomsky�s book, Hegemony or Survival. I think there are lessons in that, too, even for us, even though we already know Chomsky�s work. First off, a person, even one that has great social advantages, can humbly aid others. You can get up and say to others, hey, this book, video, set of ideas, or organization is worthy of your time. You can use whatever avenues exist for you, whether it be access to your family or friends, or to your schoolmates or workmates, or to your local media, or even to larger mass media, or even to the whole world, to reach out with advice and pointers that you think are worthy. And you should do that. We all should do that. But we generally don�t. I suspect we are embarrassed to do it. Chavez probably wouldn�t even comprehend that. Just as he had reviled Bush before, he had celebrated Chomsky before too, over and over, with little effect. This guy Chavez tries and tries again. He loses, he loses, he loses, he wins.

I would guess that Chavez didn�t think to himself, they will revile me in their columns and commentaries, so I better not rip into Bush and celebrate Chomsky. The ensuing ridicule might reduce my stature, I better avoid it. To rip Bush and celebrate Chomsky will look strange, I better avoid it. If I do that I will be giving time to elevating someone else, and not myself, and I better avoid it. I will be displaying anger and passion, and that will brand me as uncivil and improper, it will label me as undignified and even juvenile, and I better avoid it. How many of us think like that, how often, is a question worth considering.

Instead, I suspect Chavez thought, Chomsky�s work deserves and needs to be more widely addressed. It affected me. It needs to affect others. I will try to push it into people�s awareness using all the means at my disposal to do so, which, indeed, he has been doing, though with much less success, for some time now. Of course, we can�t all push an author, a book, an organization, or an idea, and have it jump into international, domestic, or local prominence, whether on our first, fifth, or tenth try. We are not all heads of a dynamic country. We don�t all have a giant stage, or often even a large stage, or even any stage at all, from which to sing our songs. But we can still do our part, wherever we may be. And the fact is, we who know so much often don�t do our part. We often don�t point out sources of ideas and discuss them with our workmates, schoolmates, and families at every opportunity. If we have audiences for our work, again we don�t use our writing, talks, and other products to promote valuable work by others beyond ourselves. Why is that? Sometimes we are afraid of reprisals. Sometimes we are afraid of looking silly. Sometimes we just don�t want to do it because it isn�t our thing. Cheerleading and recommending, that�s not my thing. I doubt it will work. I won�t bother trying. Then our foretelling of failure is fulfilled. Well, we need to get over all that.

Again, I think the difference between Chavez and most others even on the left is that Chavez is seeking to win, and we are instead seeking, as often as not, to avoid alienating pundits or to even appeal to them. We are seeking to avoid annoying anyone we like, or anyone we might like, or who might like us. We are seeking to avoid looking odd to anyone, or to avoid making a mistake, or to avoid seeming shrill and angry, or self serving, or passionate. And we need to transcend all that.

I think what made Chavez seem so peculiar to so many people is that what he did was, in fact, incredibly peculiar. To stand up to the classist, racist, sexist, authoritarian leader of the U.S. and to mince no words reviling his immorality, was indeed incredibly peculiar. So let�s all stand up to power and privilege and take the stigma out of doing so. It is part of removing the smell of sulfur from the air.

And, at the opposite pole, Chavez celebrated and openly and aggressively aided an anti classist, anti racist, anti sexist, and anti authoritarian set of ideas and their author. And that too was peculiar. And we all ought to be doing that too, for lots of able authors and worthy ideas. Indeed, we should do it so much that solidaritous movement building behavior comes to be typical, rather than seeming Martian. We should do it so much and so openly that we move from telling the truth to feeling about the truth the way a caring and sentient soul ought to feel about it, and finally to acting on the truth and on our passionate feelings in accord with wide human interests and in pursuit of compelling and worthy aims. To hell with the dictates of markets and pundits alike.

[PlayadelSoul]

Oh dear, not another wannabe revolutionary who is going to tell the people of the world how to live, because he knows so much better than they do. Save us from ourselves, please!!

[ls650]

[delacosta]

Id love to B. This is a public forum, post away.

If you recall,I did say that it was unfortunate that I would have that opinion of you without knowing you hardly at all.

And I also explained that even if you were a self centerd shallow person that it's not necesarily a bad thing. The world is indeed full of such people and I could never claim to at least some of the time not to fall into that category.

No one's perfect.

I didn't insult you. You asked a question and I answered it. Sorry if you didn't like the answer.