Chavez’s Diatribe Was Thought-Provoking
Dear Editor,
I can’t help noticing these days how much the network news anchors and talk show hosts act like pavlovian dogs when it comes to the mention of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. Apparently if you are a patriotic American you must call them nut cases, crazy, or terrorists whenever you refer to them. I read the text of Chavez’s Sept. 20 speech to the U.N. and found it utterly fascinating. It probably deserves being called a rant, but it was extremely well written, creative, and witty. Needless to say it was not very flattering to President George W. Bush, but it contained some views about the current world situation that were both thought-provoking and potentially embarrassing to me as a patriotic American. I don’t like being embarrassed by things my country does, so it caused me to imagine how my country might change to further peace and good fellowship in the world. I’m the kind of American who believes being especially sensitive to mistakes made by my government and striving to correct them is the most patriotic thing I can do. Whether the inspiration comes from friend or enemy, nut case or savant, if it helps me improve my country, it is a good idea.
I have listened to too many tiresome boring repetitive rants from Bush that involved considerable deviation from the truth. I believe it was a grave mistake to inflict war on Iraq, and I dread to think of the real reasons we did it. By now, many Americans have serious misgivings over American foreign policy throughout the last century and so far in this one, and a large number of respected and patriotic writers of note are pointing to its tragic consequences. One of them is Noam Chomsky, and his book “Hegemony or Survival” was cited and highly recommended to Americans by Chavez in his UN speech. Today’s news reported increased sales of this book by Amazon.com.
I believe it would be more fitting for America to publicly apologize for the 26 year exploitation of the Iranian people by the CIA-installed puppet Shah-of-Iran (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) from 1953 to 1969, than to call Ahmadinejad a nut case. Then, after the apology, we could call him at least as much of a nut case as Bush. Both leaders have said and done some pretty nutty things, so if you’re inclined toward name-calling, go for it. Whether he is or is not a nut case, I appreciated the simple and inescapable logic of his suggesting America should get rid of its nuclear bombs as a gesture of good will.
I’m less interested in which leader is called a nut case or crazy, than in being able to judge for myself whom to listen to or to believe. God knows I’ve listened to a lot coming from world leaders since 2000 that I don’t believe. I am very interested however in resisting the pavlovian training being offered by the Bush administration to dismiss the words of anyone who isn’t with us in this so called war on terror. Whether he is a nut case or a prophet, in his speech to the UN, Chavez spoke to the epicenter of current strife in the world and to the hope of its resolution.
Roy Guist, Morgan Hill
The Ravages of Parkinson’s
Dear Editor,
I remember my father … as he died slowly of starvation from Parkinson’s disease.
We don’t know yet what causes Parkinson’s disease. We don’t know yet how to cure it. We don’t know this month who next month will be diagnosed with it. About 4,000 Americans died of it this month and will every month until we find a cure.
By his votes, Congressman Richard Pombo seems content. If no other cure can be found, but by embryonic stem cell research, he seems content to have the deaths continue.
His votes on this issue show me he is not unlike Osama bin Laden. Both are content to have my family die for their religion.
I wonder what the names are. The names of the people in his family he would be content to watch die as I watched my father die for his religion.
Richard Fellows, Pleasanton
