Cheney's Oily Interests

Wondering why Vice-President Dick Cheney recently played footsie with Kazakhstan's autocratic leader--an oil-rich president with an awful human rights record whose recent re-election was fraudulent? (Hey, sounds sort of familiar.) No, it wasn't because Cheney wanted to mimic his boss, who recently received another oil-rich autocrat--the president of Azerbaijan--in the White House. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that Cheney used to occupy a cushy seat on Kazakh's Oil Advisory Board? (Did anyone see this in coverage of the Vice-President's trip?) As reported by Mark Ames in the June 2003 issue of The Exile, Cheney was a member of that board in 2001 and advised Bush to "deepen [our] commercial dialogue with Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and other Caspian states." On this trip, he pronounced himself to be "delighted" to be a guest of the Kazakh president, adding that the United States "is proud to be your strategic partner" and looks forward "to continued friendship between us."

Speak for yourself and your oily interests, Mr Cheney, not for the millions of Americans who still seek a moral compass in our politics.

Comments (69)

1. ah, dick, "go f*ck yourself" cheney...

   a real amuhrucun hero

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/16/2006 @ 12:01pm

2. "an oil-rich president with an awful human rights record whose recent re-election was fraudulent? (Hey, sounds sort of familiar.)"

   Hugo Chavez?

   Posted by Mask at 05/16/2006 @ 12:08pm

3. Cheney is doing the bidding of SUV owners everywhere. When will American's take personal responsibility for their profligate lifestyles?

   Bush and Cheney belong to the sausage-making style of government. People want cheap oil and cheap manufactured imports, they just don't want to have to worry about how this comes about.

   America look in the mirror! Or as Pogo said: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

   Posted by rdf at 05/16/2006 @ 12:17pm

4. ("Trying-to-change-the-subject-Alert") (/on)

   "an oil-rich president with an awful human rights record whose recent re-election was fraudulent? (Hey, sounds sort of familiar.)"

   Hugo Chavez?

   Posted by MASK 05/16/2006 @ 12:08am | ignore this person

   ("Trying-to-change-the-subject-Alert") (/off)

   Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2006 @ 12:34pm

5. I like my SUV and I hope we get more oil from Cheneys meetings....if we can take Chavez oil I see no reason to not take this guys oil as well, in fact, I'll bet he will be a more reliable source than the President for Life Chavez...

   Posted by john maasch at 05/16/2006 @ 12:35pm

6. Hey, did Kazahkstan's president offer oil at a discounted price for Americans in the Northeast? Just wondering....

   Posted by k330k at 05/16/2006 @ 12:48pm

7. Katrina's comments show a real lack of understanding of power politics and alliance formation. She seems to have lost her Atlas on the way back from her latest Greenpeace meeting.

   And as for her subtle comparison of Bush's human rights record to Kazakhstans leaders, perhaps she should go there and spout her nonsense in Alma Aty, and when they come at her with a cattle prod she may develop a better appreciation for how things are done here.

   Chip Thornton

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/16/2006 @ 12:52pm

8. OK, millions of Americans are seeking a "moral compass" in their politics. I get a little edgy when I read about terms like that one. 1.Do millions of Americans remember when "our politics" had such a "moral compass?" 2. If we had it, how did it get lost, and when? Did these Americans began to seek it under Clinton? Reagan? Earlier? 3. Were our politics guided by such a "moral compass" under LBJ? At home and in Vietnam? Sorry, but I haven't associated moral compass with politics for a long time. Golly, I don't even associate it (much) with our universities any longer. I know individuals who operate under such a compass, but hardly any institutions. I guess I see much of our society from a Brechtian point of view, paraphrased, to be sure: "First amassed wealth, then morality." But the amassed wealth is never enough, so...

   Posted by donescobar at 05/16/2006 @ 12:53pm

9. Posted by LILLIAN 05/16/2006 @ 12:34am: ("Trying-to-change-the-subject-Alert") (/off)

   I think that, as a general rule, one should assume that any posting by Zoro is an attempt to change the subject. That is, apparently, one of the only tactics available to his less than stellar intellect.

   Posted by orwell2005 at 05/16/2006 @ 12:57pm

10. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/16/2006 @ 12:35am

    More uninformed banter from the Oompah Loompah Brigade.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/16/2006 @ 12:57pm

11. And as for her subtle comparison of Bush's human rights record to Kazakhstans leaders, perhaps she should go there and spout her nonsense in Alma Aty, and when they come at her with a cattle prod she may develop a better appreciation for how things are done here.

    Chip Thornton

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 05/16/2006 @ 12:52am | ignore this person

    So Chip, sounds like you have a pretty good handle on the fact that "Kazakhstan's autocratic leader" has a pretty lousy humna rights record. Just wonder how you square that fact with this Dick Cheney statement...

    On this trip, he pronounced himself to be "delighted" to be a guest of the Kazakh president, adding that the United States "is proud to be your strategic partner" and looks forward "to continued friendship between us."

    Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2006 @ 12:58pm

12. "lousy humman rights record"

    Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2006 @ 12:59pm

13. Dangit...even my correction needs a correction...

    "lousy human rights record"

    Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2006 @ 1:00pm

14. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 05/16/2006 @ 12:52am: And as for her subtle comparison of Bush's human rights record to Kazakhstans leaders, perhaps she should go there and spout her nonsense in Alma Aty, and when they come at her with a cattle prod she may develop a better appreciation for how things are done here

    This is the only argument you whackjobs are left with: George W. Bush - Still better than Hitler.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/16/2006 @ 1:01pm

15. Got my own little fan club in LIL and ORWELL....hehe.

    That Kazakh President's problem is....he's not a leftist and he didn't "promise" (but no deliver, K330K) "free oil" to the "poor of America".

    If he had....Ms vanden Heuval would have let him off the hook for his human rights violations!

    Posted by Mask at 05/16/2006 @ 1:08pm

16. To Lillian,

    Of course they have a lousy human rights record. So does France and Israel and lots of our friends. And I don't "square"it. When you play power politics you have to deal with other (and for us that means most) powers that don't look at human rights the way we do. Maybe one day we can expect others to think in terms of human dignity the way we like to: But we can't wait for that before dealing with them and, as Iraq is showing us, we can't ram Democracy down their throats.

    Chip

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/16/2006 @ 1:33pm

17. To Orwell,

    Whackjobs???

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/16/2006 @ 1:34pm

18. Got my own little fan club in LIL and ORWELL....hehe.

    That Kazakh President's problem is....he's not a leftist and he didn't "promise" (but no deliver, K330K) "free oil" to the "poor of America".

    If he had....Ms vanden Heuval would have let him off the hook for his human rights violations!

    Posted by MASK 05/16/2006 @ 1:08pm | ignore this person

    Mask, if you're going to fantasize about having a fan club, why limit yourself so? I'm sure everyone at The Nation is truly impressed with the wit and intelligence of your posts.

    Well, everyone except Ms Vanden Heuval that is. While I'm sure everyone else here has noticed that you have been sporting quite an erection for her (virtually everything she writes elicits from you some trite, condescending snipe), I'm sure she couldn't care less what you have to say.

    Just for the record, I don't really care either. I just enjoy pointing out how inane and irrelevant most of your comments are.

    Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2006 @ 1:40pm

19. Well Chip, if you're trying to equate the human rights record of France to that of Kazakhstan, I'm afraid you lost me.

    I do however follow (I think) the rest of your post and agree to some extent. We can't change the world and are required to deal with other countries "as they are". However, I would draw the line at such pandering ("delighted", "proud" etc.) to autocratic regimes.

    Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2006 @ 1:48pm

20. ASTROTURF ALERT:

    DontRegulate.org, which has some banner ads on this site, is an "astroturf" organization funded by major telcos, and headed by sellout Mike McCurry.

    Many of the sites we visit have a policy of not excluding advertisers because of their political content. While this is an admirably democratic policy, it is yet another illustration of how we need to be that much more critical about our sources of information.

    http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0512-31.htm

    We now return to our regularly scheduled program.

    Posted by drhammer at 05/16/2006 @ 1:50pm

21. While I'm sure everyone else here has noticed that you have been sporting quite an erection for her (virtually everything she writes elicits from you some trite, condescending snipe), I'm sure she couldn't care less what you have to say.

    Just for the record, I don't really care either. I just enjoy pointing out how inane and irrelevant most of your comments are.

    Posted by LILLIAN 05/16/2006 @ 1:40pm | ignore this person

    Well, LIL...using THAT logic, doesn't that mean that YOU are "sporting an erection"....for me? Or does it only work in the direction that YOU want?

    BTW, truly off-topic, I wonder how RESE and PLUNGER are going to do with the release of the video of the Pentagon 9/11 video coming out today?

    Posted by Mask at 05/16/2006 @ 1:51pm

22. Really, Lillian, old girl, there's no need to get ugly. Your right, though about Katrina not caring about about the comments: Most elitists don't unless the thoughts fit with their own distorted view of the world

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/16/2006 @ 1:52pm

23. Why worry about what Khazakstan's human rights records? Jeb will be bringing democracy to them very soon anyway. Keep buyin' and drivin' those SUV folks. It's our precious way of life.

    Posted by pcr at 05/16/2006 @ 2:02pm

24. I agree, Lillian, his words were a little flowery. Figured he was just playing to the crowd :)

    Chip

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/16/2006 @ 2:11pm

25. MAASCH - spoken like a true, unprincipled Republican. Of course, you'll take Chavez's oil to fill up your gas guzzler. Heck - you'd buy direct from Osama himself, if he had unleaded for your SUV.

    Why does that make you unpricipled? Because, Chavez is the GOPs worst enemy (in the Western Hemisphere), but only when you aren't getting something you need from him.

    But, the minute you can gas up your guzzler on Chavez's political dime - he doesn't seem that much of a threat after-all, now does he?

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 05/16/2006 @ 2:13pm

26. CAN SOMEONE TELL ME WHO AN ELITIST IS?

    ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF AN ELITIST A RIGHT-WINGER THAT SPENDS ALL HIS/HER TIME ON A LEFT-WING BLOG???

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 05/16/2006 @ 2:16pm

27. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 05/16/2006 @ 1:34pm: Whackjobs???

    Yes, whackjobs. I am sorry. Do you prefer to go by Zero's "Oompah Loompah Brigade"?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/16/2006 @ 2:25pm

28. No, an elitist is someone who believes that their "priciples" are good enough for everyone else except them. Witness Hillary's comment in San Francisco regarding the removal of money from us "for our own good". Somehow I don't think anyone will be taking anything away from her.

    It doesn't have to be liberals though: Hitler, Stalin, the Enron Boys, Kennedy, anyone who fits the above.

    Chip

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/16/2006 @ 2:31pm

29. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 05/16/2006 @ 2:31pm: It doesn't have to be liberals though: Hitler, Stalin, the Enron Boys, Kennedy, anyone who fits the above.

    How about your boy, the Decida? Does he fit the category?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/16/2006 @ 2:39pm

30. To Orwell,

    Yes, actually he does from time to time. And I'd prefer to be called Chip, since thats the old name and this forum is supposed to be peopled by sometimes excitable yet intelligent life forms

    Chip

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/16/2006 @ 2:51pm

31. JM

    Mr. "I Luvs my SUV"....doesn't it both you in the least that the US represents ~5% ofthe human race and consumes 25% of global energy production?

    On an associated "up note" GM stops production of the H1 as of next month: Extinct

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/16/2006 @ 3:00pm

32. Mr. "I Luvs my SUV"....doesn't it both you in the least that the US represents ~5% ofthe human race and consumes 25% of global energy production?

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 05/16/2006 @ 3:00pm | ignore this person

    I thought we evil 5%ers (you too, LEFTOF) consumed 25% of ALL the world's resources, not just "energy production"?

    Posted by Mask at 05/16/2006 @ 3:05pm

33. With Cheney being so delighted with meeting the Kazakh president, maybe when they're done playing footsie they can go out for a quail hunt.

    Posted by nathanhale at 05/16/2006 @ 3:15pm

34. Posted by NATHANHALE 05/16/2006 @ 3:15pm

    Yea, it would be nice if someone shot Chaney in the face for a change.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 05/16/2006 @ 3:18pm

35. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 05/16/2006 @ 2:51pm: Yes, actually he does from time to time.

    So this elitist thing is something you can move in and out of? Sometimes you're an elitist and sometimes you're not. When is the Decida not an elitist, Chip?

    this forum is supposed to be peopled by sometimes excitable yet intelligent life forms

    So why do you and the rest of the oompah loompahs insist on continuously posting here?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/16/2006 @ 3:18pm

36. Lay off of Ol' Cheney. It's hard making money off of oil, war and human rights abuses. It's not as easy as living paycheck-to-paycheck.

    Posted by bjkron at 05/16/2006 @ 3:23pm

37. To Orwell,

    Now if we Ommpahs didn't get on here and give you some logic, all you'd ever hear would be your own socialist trite. No one ever grew more intelligent by listening to just one side of things. And yes, that means me too.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/16/2006 @ 3:40pm

38. The Pentagon released the video today of the MISSILE HITTING THE PENTAGON.

    Nobody who sees the government's video can honestly claim that they "See" an aircraft. NOBODY.

    That's a missile coming in at grasstop level.

    Turn off the sound when you watch it on TV, because literally Every talking head is telling you thatt you are seeing an aircraft - when none ever appears on screen.

    Watch and use your intuition.

    http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/raytheon-connection-to-9-11

    Americans (too many) do not know that Raytheon executives were killed on 9-11, or at least wound up permanently missing, which may be a more accurate way of saying it. It is who wound up missing that is most interesting.

    This is an excerpt of the email we received and is information that we knew as of the issuance of the flight manifests for all four of the planes allegedly involved in 9-11:

    Subject: Raytheon and 9/11

    OK, I'm not gonna say anything here, except to let you read the evidence and then you can tell me what you think. (These are people who supposedly died on 9/11.) Mike

    Raytheon and 9/11

    2001-09-11 Stanley Hall Raytheon Director of Electronic warfare program management. Raytheon did the retrofit of the A-3 that hit the Pentagon, where Bush claimed Flight 77 hit it. Disappeared on American airlines Flight 77, the one that supposedly hit the Pentagon but did not.

    2001-09-11 Peter Gay Raytheon VP of Electronic Systems on special assignment at the El Segundo, CA division office where the Global Hawk UAV remote control system is made. Raytheon did the retrofit of the A-3 that hit the Pentagon, where Bush claimed Flight 77 hit it. Disappeared on American airlines Flight 11, the one that supposedly hit the North World Trade Tower I.

    2001-09-11 Kenneth Waldie Raytheon Senior Quality Control for Electronic Systems. Raytheon did the retrofit of the A-3 that hit the Pentagon, where Bush claimed Flight 77 hit it. Disappeared on American airlines Flight 11, the one that supposedly hit the North World Trade Tower I.

    2001-09-11 David Kovalcin Raytheon Senior Mechanical Engineer for Electronic Systems. Raytheon did the retrofit of the A-3 that hit the Pentagon, where Bush claimed Flight 77 hit it. Disappeared on American airlines Flight 11, the one that supposedly hit the North World Trade Tower I.

    2001-09-11 Herbert Homer Raytheon Corporate Executive working with the Department of Defense. Raytheon did the retrofit of the A-3 that hit the Pentagon, where Bush claimed Flight 77 hit it. Disappeared on United airlines Flight 175, the one that supposedly hit the South World Trade Tower II.

    These are not only the type of people but they are the people that would be assigned to UAV type projects involving Mode 4 and Mode 5 upgrades. Why would they be in Boston and those planes coming from that direction and from north of Manhattan Island?

    That 16 foot tunnel through three rings of the Pentagon is only made by a directional blast weapon. Rumsfeld has even slipped up and mentioned the missile that hit the Pentagon.

    Some have seen the Pentagon parking lot camera video and the white trail of smoke. Jets do now leave white trails of smoke at sea level, but Thiokol powered AGMs do, at all attitudes.

    Posted by plunger at 05/16/2006 @ 3:42pm

39. I know you right wingers hate Chavez for your own personal reasons mostly to do with an "horreur de classe" for anything or anyone that smells of socialism. But don't you ever wonder about the real reason the U.S. has such a hard on for Chavez ? Don't you wonder why we would turn down Chavez' offer of $50 oil preferring Saudi oil which is currently ping-ponging between $70 and $75 ? The answer is simple: Chavez wants his 50 dollars in old fasioned green-backs as opposed to "petrodollars". "Approximately $600 to $800 billion `petrodollars' are ( recycled ) annually from OPEC and invested back into the U.S. via Treasury Bills or other dollar-denominated assets such as U.S. stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.".

    This allows our grand children to fund our tax cuts.

    Posted by MikeKing at 05/16/2006 @ 3:43pm

40. Actually, we come here for an alternative to the 24-hour McNews tripe that passes for journalism these days. While this site has an obvious left/progressive slant, there has not been a single mainstream news outlet that has pointed out the financial interest that Cheney has had with Khazakstan nor its potential influence on US policy. Sadly, we have to turn to biased partisan websites for that level of investigative journalism.

    Posted by bjkron at 05/16/2006 @ 3:46pm

41. Posted by BJKRON 05/16/2006 @ 3:23pm

    Yea, nobody said being Satan was easy.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 05/16/2006 @ 3:46pm

42. Yea, nobody said being Satan was easy.

    Posted by BLUETEXAN 05/16/2006 @ 3:46pm | ignore this person

    Satan never had it so easy....

    Posted by bjkron at 05/16/2006 @ 3:54pm

43. No, an elitist is someone who believes that their "priciples" are good enough for everyone else except them.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 05/16/2006 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person

    Interesting definition, Chip. Sounds like it's straight from Ann Coulter. However, I prefer actual definitions...

    Cambridge Dictionary of American English: elitist - adjective = Characteristic of the elite, and esp. not caring about the interests or values of ordinary people.

    Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary: elitism - noun = When things are organized for the benefit of a few people with special interests or abilities.

    American Heritage Dictionary: elitism = The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

    Huh, in each of those definitions, it seems the current crop of BushCo neocons fits extremely well.

    Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2006 @ 4:03pm

44. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 05/16/2006 @ 3:40pm: Now if we Ommpahs didn't get on here and give you some logic

    And what exactly is logical about your original post - "George W. Bush - Still better than Hitler"?

    all you'd ever hear would be your own socialist trite.

    So Chip, you equate opposition to the police state tactics of your boy Bozo with socialism. Or is it opposition to the Decida that is socialism?

    No one ever grew more intelligent by listening to just one side of things.

    I guess you haven't been to the US anytime in the last 5 years, Chip. If you had visited, you would have seen that it was not possible to exist in the US without the constant drumbeat of the oompahs. The notion that anyone could have avoided hearing the whackjob side of things is nonsensical.

    In any event, you did not answer my question. You say that the Decida is an elitist from time to time. When is the Decida not an elitist, Chip?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/16/2006 @ 4:12pm

45. Most of the time. Oh and BTW, I never said George W Bush-Better than Hitler: You did. Please stop putting your opinions in my mouth. Its almost time for dinner, you know.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/16/2006 @ 4:27pm

46. I accept your definitions, Lillian, or rather the books. I think they fit the people I mentioned perfectly.

    Chip

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/16/2006 @ 4:29pm

47. BTW Orwell, do not make the mistake of thinking there is a difference between socialism and dictatorship. There was no difference between the socialism of Hitler and that of Stalin: Both subject the resources of the country to the will of the State: Both Torture and Kill thier opponents: Both make free will subservient to the will of the Gov. and crush the press, speech and religion. There is usually some social vehicle by which control and the logic of their actions is justified: Hitler used race, Stalin used Class. Both murdere millions in the pursuit of their goals. Its time we as Americans stopped making the "left-right" distinction between these two systems. Bottom line, their isn't any difference.

    CT

    CT

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/16/2006 @ 4:36pm

48. Most of the time. Oh and BTW, I never said George W Bush-Better than Hitler: You did. Please stop putting your opinions in my mouth. Its almost time for dinner, you know.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/16/2006 @ 4:39pm

49. Chip:

    You are confusing socialism with fascism. Socialism uses the resources of the nation for the good of its citizens. Just because an autocratic ruler takes state control of the resources and uses them for his own political gain in the name of socialism does not make it so.

    Calling Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia socialism is like calling our subsidized defense and pharmaceutical industries capitalism.

    Posted by bjkron at 05/16/2006 @ 4:43pm

50. Well, everyone except Ms Vanden Heuval that is. While I'm sure everyone else here has noticed that you have been sporting quite an erection for her (virtually everything she writes elicits from you some trite, condescending snipe), I'm sure she couldn't care less what you have to say.

    Posted by LILLIAN 05/16/2006 @ 1:40pm

    This is beautiful, a classic that should be enshrined in the archives of blogitry.

    Posted by skeletonman at 05/16/2006 @ 4:45pm

51. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 05/16/2006 @ 4:27pm: Most of the time.

    The Decida believes the laws of the country do not apply to him. According to your definition, I don't know what could be more elitist than that.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/16/2006 @ 4:47pm

52. No, an elitist is someone who believes that their "priciples" are good enough for everyone else except them. Chip

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 05/16/2006 @ 2:31pm

    Principles such as the rule of law, respecting the protections offered by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, telling the truth, admitting mistakes and taking responsibility for those mistakes?

    Yeah, we've got some real role models in the executive branch right now, don't we?

    Posted by skeletonman at 05/16/2006 @ 4:49pm

53. Mask

    Yes....am one of the "evil empire" but do my best to "show them the light". [For instance, I recycle almost everything, have CF bulbs in nearly all places, in house, drive a small 86 p/u w/210,000 miles and try to "browse low" on the foodchain.)

    For the record the 25% is energy production....wouldn't be surprised if the other was about that as well though. Will research it and see what I find. A casual search shows that China is fast approaching though!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/16/2006 @ 4:51pm

54. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 05/16/2006 @ 4:39pm: Oh and BTW, I never said George W Bush-Better than Hitler.

    Sorry, I was paraphrasing. You said:

    And as for her subtle comparison of Bush's human rights record to Kazakhstans leaders, perhaps she should go there and spout her nonsense in Alma Aty, and when they come at her with a cattle prod she may develop a better appreciation for how things are done here.

    I took that to mean that you were defending Bush's human rights record by pointing out that it is better than that of Kazakhstan's leaders. To be fair, I guess I should have paraphrased it as "George W. Bush - Still better than Kazakhstan".

    But "George W. Bush - Still better than Hitler" captures the same sentiment with a bit more flair, don't you think, Chip?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/16/2006 @ 4:52pm

55. So this elitist thing is something you can move in and out of? Sometimes you're an elitist and sometimes you're not. When is the Decida not an elitist, Chip?

    Posted by ORWELL2005 05/16/2006 @ 3:18pm

    When he's taking a dump?

    Posted by skeletonman at 05/16/2006 @ 4:52pm

56. BJ,

    Fascism was originally applied to Mussolini's Italy, however Stalin actually began using the term to describe Hitlers Germany to distinguish Hitlers National Socialism from his own brand.

    Socialism in any form will never help its citizens in the long run, because in order to make it work you eventually must hold a gun to someones head to make them give up what you, the authority, has decided is more than your fair share. How many people do you think Bill Gates has employed, or created employment for, by doing what he has done? We wouldn't be talking now if it wern't for guys like him. Do you think he would have ever even started his company if the State told him he must give X amount of his creations away to someone else, just so everything is"equal".

    If you consider that political and economic rights are synonomous, and I do, then economic equality and political/social freedom are incompatable. And as far as helping people, do you realize that more money went to help Katrina and the Tsumani victims from individual donations than from Gov. in both cases. Man is the king, BJ, not Gov., and when that stops, its the beginning of the end.

    Chip

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/16/2006 @ 5:02pm

57. BTW Orwell, do not make the mistake of thinking there is a difference between socialism and dictatorship.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 05/16/2006 @ 4:36pm | ignore this person

    Oh Chip, here we go again with definitions. Actual definitions looks like this...

    dictatorship - [noun] a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)

    socialism - 1. [noun] a political theory advocating state ownership of industry or 2. [noun] an economic system based on state ownership of capital

    Chip, while I understand the points you are trying to make, please, let's not engage in "redefining" words. They mean what they mean, not what we want them to mean. There IS a difference between socialism and dictatorship. (And facism, for that matter.)

    Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2006 @ 5:09pm

58. Lillian,

    What'r you,Webster? :)

    You keep quoting definitions that state what I said. Yes, Socialism is state ownership of resources- Thats a bad thing And the State owning my wealth without my permission is dictatorship. THATS a bad thing Definitions aside, any of the above systems need some bureaucratic dictator telling me what I can do, where I can go, and how much I get to keep of my hard earned wealth. Call it what you want, but to me thats dictatorship. There is already far to much of that here

    Chip

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/16/2006 @ 5:20pm

59. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 05/16/2006 @ 5:02pm: Do you think he would have ever even started his company if the State told him he must give X amount of his creations away to someone else, just so everything is"equal".

    Um... Yes.

    (Perhaps you forgot. He did start his company. And the State did tell him he must give X amount of "his creations" away to someone else.)

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/16/2006 @ 5:33pm

60. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 05/16/2006 @ 5:20pm: any of the above systems need some bureaucratic dictator telling me what I can do, where I can go, and how much I get to keep of my hard earned wealth. Call it what you want, but to me thats dictatorship.

    Every form of government involves a state telling you what you can do, where you can go, and how much you get to keep of your hard earned wealth, Chip. Other than anarchy, could you point to a system of government in which that is not the case, Chip?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/16/2006 @ 5:37pm

61. How many people do you think Bill Gates has employed, or created employment for, by doing what he has done? We wouldn't be talking now if it wern't for guys like him. Do you think he would have ever even started his company if the State told him he must give X amount of his creations away to someone else, just so everything is"equal".

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 05/16/2006 @ 5:02pm | ignore this person

    Chip, I'll bet it was completely inadvertent on your part but you picking Bill Gates was an absolutely perfect example. Please read...

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2003-01-12-gates_x.h tm

    You see, Bill Gates actually SUPPORTS the notion of paying taxes! He strongly agrees with his father, Bill Gates, Sr. who says (of the estate tax)...

    The wealthy should pay the tax because they owe a special debt. Their riches, he says, would not be possible without a strong society supporting capitalism.

    "Most of the things that have generated the enormous advances in our economy are things that started on some campus or in some laboratory," Gates said in an exclusive interview last week. "And most of those are because the government financed it."

    Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2006 @ 5:42pm

62. Am I mistaken or did the editor and publisher of The Nation just say the 2004 election of Bush as President of the United States was fraudulent? Hey, this might make a great story for The Nation to uncover.

    Posted by Mendoman at 05/16/2006 @ 6:57pm

63. Am I mistaken or did the publisher and editor of The Nation just say that Bush's 2004 election was "fraudulent"? Hey, that might make for a great investigative piece in The Nation.

    Posted by Mendoman at 05/16/2006 @ 7:20pm

64. Why do the independent minds of the Nation blog insist on taking a guy named "Chip" so seriously?

    Posted by pcr at 05/16/2006 @ 8:17pm

65. LOC,

    "Mr. "I Luvs my SUV"....doesn't it both you in the least that the US represents ~5% ofthe human race and consumes 25% of global energy production?

    On an associated "up note" GM stops production of the H1 as of next month: Extinct

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 05/16/2006 @ 3:00pm | ignore this person

    No, it doesn't bother me,,we also produce some of the worlds best improvements on life and technology which has a positive effect for all ther world.

    The hummer will go extinct due to lack of sales.

    Because, Wrong again..(you must tire of being wrong so much) I don't buy gas from Chavez and I don't think he GOPs worst nightmarre. I think he will soon be Venez. worst night mare..

    PS You like him selling F-16s to Iran?

    Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2006 @ 01:00am

66. JM

    re: your "conservative" energy perspective...must suck being you

    Were was I wrong BTW? Do you TRULY know where your crude derives?

    ...and where do you suppose Chavez got them F-16s? Oh that's right...Reagan sold them to Chavez. I believe Reagan was a Republican...must tire being wrong so much, huh?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/17/2006 @ 11:07am

67. Posted by LILLIAN 05/16/2006 @ 5:42pm

    You took the words ( and the example of Gates ) right out of my mouth Lillian.

    Chip:

    "If you consider that political and economic rights are synonomous, and I do, ...". Fine Chip, and I don't. Moreover I don't think there are many who would.

    Political rights derive from certain truths thought to be "self evident", universal and essentially immutable. At least they were considered such by those 18th century thinkers who framed our Constitution. Economic rights depend on local and national laws governing property rights, taxation, questions of inheritance, contract law and a million and one other considerations. They in point of fact derive entirely from the whim of a particular society at a particular time. And as such they can, and should, be adjusted when they become unjust.

    "...then economic equality and political/social freedom are incompatable". Since I reject your premise, naturally I don't have a lot of use for your conclusion.

    Posted by MikeKing at 05/17/2006 @ 12:22pm

68. Feel Free, Old Boy, to have as little use for my conclusions as you like. I certainly didn't derive them from YOUR train of thought.

    CT

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 05/17/2006 @ 1:17pm

69. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 05/17/2006 @ 1:17pm: I certainly didn't derive them from YOUR train of thought.

    The Chipster prefers his conclusions to be thought-free.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/17/2006 @ 3:49pm