Monday, May 29, 2006

Utter Bias Displayed in Uribe Election

Before I begin, when I say "right" I mean capitalists and by "left" I'm referring to Communists, Anarchists and/or Socialists

BBC recently reported the "landslide" victory for Uribe and a White House spokeswoman said: "The president reaffirmed his strong support for Colombia in its continued battle against narco-terrorism, in moving forward on our free-trade agreement and in helping our democratic friends in the region."

Why was Uribe elected?

Uribe amended the Columbian Constitution in order to run another term for president. His goal is to eradicate the Marxist rebel group, FARC. He also plans on putting forth Free Trade agreements with the US and is working side-by-side with the US on the war on drugs.

However, extending term limits isn't democratic. Well, at least according to the US. When Chavez planned on amending the Venezuelan Constitution to allow himself to run again the next election, he met opposition from the White House. Condoleeza Rice claimed he was trying to "influence others away from democracy" and wanted to create a United Front against him.

This obvious display of bias is rampant in Washington politics and supports only the right. Leftists like Chavez, Castro and Morales are consistently under fire from US propaganda and hypocracy that it's undeniable unless you practice "doublethink."

How was Uribe elected? Was he...?

BBC neglected to tell the world the voter turn out in the recent election in Columbia. They painted FARC as the enemy by blaming all 200,000 deaths on the rebels and supported the capitalists interests. From the looks of it, Columbia is one of the few right wing beacons and BBC wouldn't want to create any doubt about it's so-called legitimacy.

A low 28% of Columbians bothered to show up to the voting booths for the 2006 presidential election. Even so, the right considers this victory a mandate to put an end to the Marxist rebels. However such low turn out would lead one to question the legitimacy of the administration. At least the White House seemed to think so. The US State Department claimed the election to show a "broad lack of confidence in the impartiality and transparency" in the electoral process and asked reform.

Columbia's resemblance to a police state is beginning to show. FARC promised not to cause violence during the election, however Uribe didn't trust their word and deployed 220,000 police and soldiers to protect, or in reality, intimidate the voters. FARC kept their promise. Places like Cuba whom the world wrongly labels a dictatorship has elections and the "guards" are small school children and the military is never spotted in the streets.

4 Comments:

Blogger Chris Palmer said...

A rather strange piece.

Let's get one thing straight. Cuba is a dictatorship. It has been ever since Castro came to power all those long years ago - and nothing has changed since. Don't try to delude yourself otherwise.

Communism and many forms of unweakened or undiluted socialism have been proven to fail miserably. Humans are not equal, but individuals.

Changing the law so that you may stand for re-election is perfectly democratic (it's just that it's not compatible with the US doctrine of fix term Presidency.) If he were however to outlaw elections, then that could be considered undemocratic.

However small an electoral turnout a Government or President is elected by - it is still democratic. Citizens are, by not voting still exercising their democratic right to choice freely whether to vote (rather than say, not having a vote in the first place.)

Marxist rebels have been destroying Columbia, as well as vast areas of Latina America. Finally one man is standing up to them - and he deserves our support. Clearly the Columbian people believe that is right, which is why he was elected with such an enormous majority... and the people are usually right, especially the people of Columbia who experience day to day life in that country, rather than some high school American teenager or a far distant British blogger.

As for your reading list, you seriously need to read some different books (in my opinion.) Heard of George Orwell? Try reading Animal Farm and 1984. Good books. Then start afresh and clear your head of this Marxist, Communist drivel nonsense. We live in the real world, not in some idealistic paradise.

5/29/2006 6:00 PM  
Blogger D_Bokk said...

I addressed the Cuba comment in a post. And I would like you to back up your vague statement with facts.

Your argument that humans are individuals would be valid, had humans naturally lived alone. Human history is that of with a tribe, country or something holding them together. Together they had protection and a means of survival. An individual cannot survive.

My point regarding how democratic increasing term limits is due to US statements against Hugo Chavez and praise for Uribe. Term limits seem to cripple popular movements and should be eliminated, in my opinion. My post was mainly to point out US hypocracy regarding Uribe, their ally and Chavez, their enemy.

Small voter turn out shows a mentality of people not caring anymore. As if their vote no longer counts. That point, however, was meant to show complete bias from the White House. Low voter turn-out in Venezuela, to them, is dictatorship and low voter turn out in Columbia is a mandate.

What has been overlooked in the Leftist who gained a good deal of support in the election. Carlos Gaviria Díaz's party gained a large vote percentage shows growing Columbian for leftists.

I've read 1984 and Animal Farm. Orwell was a Socialist, incase you were unaware. He wasn't anti-socialism as the books my imply but from what I gather against strong central government. I support the exact same thing.

5/29/2006 6:52 PM  
Blogger Chris Palmer said...

I was well aware that Orwell was a Socialist, but not in the extremes of Communism, Marxism, Trotskyism or another strange left-wingisms. My point was that Orwell understood the failures of those doctrines, summed up "all are equal, but some are more equal than others."

I will address Cuba in your other thread.

Humans can, of course, easily live alone. You apparently manage to do so at high school (talking to very few people..?) However, because humans chose to live together more often than not does not make all humans equal. Humanity has thrived on individuality - some people are better at for example sports, others acedemics, others something different. No two people are the same which is ultimate proof that humans ARE NOT EQUAL (though some few still continue to delude themselves otherwise.)

22% of the vote, by any standards - especially the main opposition, is not very good in reality.

5/30/2006 2:50 PM  
Blogger D_Bokk said...

Orwell's quote was a direct jab at Stalin and the vanguard system. He was not summing up communism. If you would like to prove otherwise, be my guest. However both of his books might as well called Napoleon and Big Brother: Stalin. Who is Orwell's enemy? Not communism, but Stalinism.

How can the human race survive when they're their own individual living solo? Sure I can do well as a loner, however without the aid of a network of millions of workers, peasants and scientists; I wouldn't have food, clothing or this computer. It's unnatural for a species to work against each other, as capitalism is defined by, and far more natural to work together for the same goal: survival.

What's with the misconception that communism assumes people are equal in every sense? To disprove you misguided statement, I will quote a well known quote by Marx:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Communism is basically equality with regards to class, in other words economic equality. Who decide the intellectual laborer deserves more than the manual laborer? The intellectual laborer. Who decides which job deserves more pay? The intellectual. The simple fix is giving the decison making over to the proletariat whom have shown their want for equal wages, as we've witnessed in many worker owned factories in Argentina.

Actually I don't even think his party ran in the 2002 election. The main opposition in the 2002 election was the Colombian Liberal Party. His party basically came out of no where.

5/30/2006 5:57 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home