News | September 24th, 2006
People take their seats. It’s good vs. evil, evil vs. good, or evil vs. evil–depending on your position. As with any good matchup, everyone has an opinion. That’s what it is so exciting about life, right? To be visible, to be seen, to be acknowledged–and so we take a position and express it. We may not do it with words, yet we do it. We wear the colors of the team we favor, or at least we sit in their section… if nothing else, we have our critique of the other side, our inner Charles Barkley… or of the game itself.
But for our experience to truly be fun, for most of us, it needs to be psychologically safe. So what we need from our position is a good enough reason to make it ok to sit on the sidelines… or if we are on the field, we need a reason to be ok with dirty tactics. And a colorful enough critique of the game, of our opponents or of any who dare play will do. If they are all evil or foolish enough in our eyes, we’re safe on the sidelines (or safe playing dirty) and the game will be fun to watch.
Hot dogs!! Get your hot dogs here!!
It’s Chavez vs. Bush for the future of the world! The crowd roars! Each fan shouting their opinions, judgments, complaints–from their safe and confortable positions. The Bush supporters shout this, the Chavez supporters shout that, other sides are cheering and shouting… there are “We’re number one” foam fingers every where… and quite a few middle fingers to boot.
For from a position, not only are we seen, we are safe–comfortable. No, not from the attacks of others. It’s never about what others think of us, ultimately. It’s what we think of ourselves. The trick is we must limit who we listen to, because our critics might have us face the painful reality about ourselves. And so, we take a seat on the sidelines of life, content to watch as our world falls apart.
Sounds a bit gloomy, but think about it. You have criticisms of the other side. No doubt you’ve concluded a few things about their character. And from your position of judgment, you expect them to step forward from their position and cause the change you recommend? While you sit safely behind your own judgments, not daring to expose your humanity or see that of the other? The funny thing is how we get all worked up, angry, animated, frustrated… and we think we are taking a stand as we berate the other side and argue against their position. Allthewhile they can’t hear us. They hear only our judgment, and are thus validated in their own judgments of us.
Popcorn anyone?
Don Gosen
Sep 29th, 2006I’m in Venezeula once a year. Chavez is popular among the working class – Venezeula is a good country filled with many wonderful people. The world doesn’t revolve around the USA, we’re all neighbours here. Bush and Chavez should sit down, together and work this out. Don
Errol McClean
Oct 2nd, 2006The Chavez-Bush “rancour” is a contemporary argument tjhat
represents a couple centuries of hegemonic conflict…beginning with colonization by European countries that have continually
extended their hegemony to other states. In fact had America not been powerful enough to battle Britain successfully, gain & defend its borders from British & European exploitation, Chavez
& bush would have been both arguing as allies of oppressive hegemonic European forces. But USA having acquired its position of strength joined the European hegemonic allies to exploit smaller states – not in the form of ‘colonization’ but as a hegemon in world system relations. This is done primarily through Corporate USA(with backing of the US Govt-State Dept & white house) in relation to developing world Governments…Chavez represents the new face of developing nations that challenges the hegemony of larger industrialization nations. His country’s oil-based economy gives him a platform from which to challenge the larger states…as did USA use its vast resources to fight back the British attempts at hegemonic imposition.
The Bush Administrations ‘macho’ style has ignited the ire of many states…Chavez & Venezuela happen to be in a position to push back. In fact this condition describes the situation with Iran/USA relations…The outlook for world relations as the global economic system becomes more tightly interwoven is that larger states can no longer dominate smaller states, especially sporting the ‘macho’ style of the Bush posture.
halima
Oct 4th, 2006I do agree fully with Errol’s comment,that chavez represents the new face of developing nations that challenges the hegemony of larger industriliastion nations…The developing world needs the likes of chavez and the president of Iran…Without those kind of leaders who believe in what is best for their people and not what the ‘heads prefects’ of the world thinks its best for them…it will be a day dream for a developing nation to make a single step of success.
The time must come when the so called Presidents of the ‘independent states’ run their countries on home based policies and not policies imposed by the developed world via world bank , IMF , UN and the likes.
Do You know what led to the world’s suffering today? Endless bloodshed and terrorism? …People were tired of being dictated and being imposed of what ,when and how they should run their affairs.
The time has come for the leaders of the developing world to stand on their feets..Castro showed the way( now his time is over) Now we have Chavez……..
Our dream of success will be far from reality if the “might” will be entertained ! Viva to all those leaders who will stand front to protect the interests of their people.