The Green Libertarian

...because our freedom and future matter...

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Welcome to the Green Libertarian Dot Net

I thought there were no "death panels"....

E-mail Print PDF

Is Dick Cheney Too Old for a Heart Transplant?

"As Dick Cheney recovers from heart transplant surgery, questions are being raised about whether the former vice president is too old for a new heart. Cheney, 71, who received the new heart Saturday at a hospital in Falls Church, Va., has been on the cardiac transplant list for more than 20 months."


Brought to you by the same people who said there were no "death panels". Well if a bunch of ninnies are complaining about Cheney getting a new heart because they hate him and wished he would die,

what would you call it when the national health system does indeed say: You are too old to live?

DISCLAIMER: I am no fan of Dick Cheney but I don't see the need in wishing people harm as seems to be perfectly fine (and not vitriolic) if you are a neo-liberal. I'm sure if Jimmy Carter, Bill Kilthem (I mean Clinton), or Ted Kennedy were denied a heart if would be A FAILURE OF THE AMERICAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!


Last Updated on Monday, 26 March 2012 14:29
 

The language of oppression

E-mail Print PDF


When the story of the Trayvon Martin shooting first surfaced, the alleged shooter George Zimmerman, was clearly described in news stories as a "white Hispanic". I find this most interesting since when someone (usually neo-liberal) describes "oppression against brown skinned people", they are very clear that there is about the racial distinction between "white" and "brown". Otherwise the us vs them argument doesn't work. Ultimately, white, brown, black don't mean anything other than what we continue to allow them to mean. IE referring the Barack Obama as "black" is clearly a racist statement. It stems from the time when one drop of black in white meant you were black, since you were tainted. No one calls him half white/half black which is slightly more accurate. Nor am I (or my relatives) from the Caucasus region.

This isn't the first time I've seen this odd paradox of the "white Hispanic". I recently watched a series on PBS with Professor Gates (yes remember him?) that was quite interesting, including America's early response to black led Haiti. It was part of an overall Black in Latin America. So I'm watching this series and keep thinking about all the horrible ways (I will say) non-European peoples always got/get held back by European governments. Then one on Cuba comes on and Professor Gates starts talking about how the "whites" of Cuba oppressed the "blacks". Now, in this country, they are called Latino/Hispanic (as a disadvantage minority underclass). Obviously, most peoples that fall under that classification are a mix of Spanish/Portuguese colonizers and the local indigenous population. But lets be clear, here in America, they are clearly not called white so they can maintain a separate non-white oppressed status.

Realizing that the overall neo-liberal effort here is:

  1. If a Latino/Hispanic person commits a crime against a non-white person, they are clearly white because the white in them was doing the oppressing
  2. If a Latino/Hispanic person has a crime committed against them, they are clearly brown skinned since that was the cause (hate crime) of their aggressor

Back to the Trayvon Martin shooting, this is important since it needs to remain an "oppression" situation instead of a screwed up, we don't know what happened, but George Zimmerman shouldn't have tried to play police man scenario. Otherwise we can't:

  1. Question Florida's controversial stand-your-ground law
  2. Question the proper use of firearms by law abiding citizens (realizing that George Zimmerman did not fall into this category)
  3. Revive the race discussion for the election

So in come the Feds to determine if this was a hate crime (whatever that means)

White people are bad... eternally (and guns)

Last Updated on Monday, 26 March 2012 14:21
 

They hate you for your freedom.... so we took it away

E-mail Print PDF

What Ever Happened to "Extremism in Defense of Liberty is No Vice"?

It’s more than a little ironic that conservatives think the first order of business when fighting terror is to sacrifice freedom.

 

Won't won't find Ron Paul playing with an Etch-A-Sketch

E-mail Print PDF

 

 

Obama keeps misogynist's $1million donation

E-mail Print PDF

 

Last Updated on Friday, 09 March 2012 11:14
 


Page 4 of 85

Subscribe to TGL

Quote of the Day

Gandhi was an anti statist in the sense that his vision of India meant India without an underlying government.[102] His idea was that true self rule in a country means that every person rules himself and that there is no state which enforces laws upon the people.[103][104] On occasions he described himself as a philosophical anarchist.[105] A free India for him meant existence of thousands of self sufficient small communities (an idea possibly from Tolstoy) who rule themselves without hindering others. It did not mean merely transferring a British established administrative structure into Indian hands which he said was just making Hindustan into Englistan.[106] He wanted to dissolve the Congress Party after independence and establish a system of direct democracy in India,[107] having no faith in the British styled parliamentary system.[106]

WIKIPEDIA 




BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN LEFT AND RIGHT