- 'An End to the Southern Strategy, But No Post-Racial America' says David Love
- "A Question of Place": An essay on the power of community
- Just Equally Speaking….
- Eagles owe Philadelphia the 8 million it needs to keep libraries open
- who would like to see Verizon offer cable TV in Phila?
- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
Nutter Calls for Poor Philadelphians to Return Heating Oil
Submitted by Ben Waxman on Thu, 02/15/2007 - 12:54pm.
Hey, I found this interesting press release from Michael Nutter:
NUTTER CALLS FOR POOR PHILADELPHIANS TO RETURN HEATING OIL
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 16, 2007
NUTTER CALLS FOR A “NEW COLD WAR” AND URGES POOR PHILADELPHIANS TO SNUB CHAVEZ
Philadelphia - “Heating oil with a tint of red is pouring into Philadelphia,” said mayoral candidate Michael Nutter. “Venezuelan President Huge Chavez and Congressman Chaka Fattah have formed a communist cabal to funnel cheap heating oil to poor Philadelphians. They must be stopped.”
The partnership between the City of Philadelphia and Venezuela delivers over 5 million gallons of heating oil to low-income Philadelphia residents for a discount of 40%. The deal was negotiated by Congressman Chaka Fattah, who is also seeking the Democratic nomination for mayor.
“Sure, it might sound like a good thing, but it’s only emboldening our enemies,” said Nutter. “After all, we’re at war. Low-income Philadelphians need to start making some sacrifices too. Refusing to accept communist heating oil is a great place to start.”
###
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Quote
Yes, this is satire. Here is the quote that inspired it:
---
http://benwaxman.com
yes, it's satire but . . .
the actual statement is also serious red-baiting. Who cares if the oil comes from Hugo Chavez if it keeps poor people in Philadelphia from freezing to death? I mean is acceptance of the oil going to immediately result in the overthrow by force and violence of the United States of America? Pathetic.
Is it necessarily red-baiting?
There are two ways to view Nutter pointing out that Fattah failed to mention the connection to Chavez. One might be red-baiting. The other might be that it is deceptive for Fattah to attempt to get credit when the reality is that Chavez's offer is what made it happen.
True, you could read it either way
and it looks like Nutter wrote it allowing people to take it either way.
Huh
Stan, I wrote the press release. It's a joke.
---
http://benwaxman.com
Well, haven't had breakfast this morning
so I'm a bit slow on the uptake. I thought the first release was the joke, but not the second.
God, Sometimes I Love College Students*
Ben's fake press release!
Jennifer
* Yeah, there was no way for that not to sound condescending but I promise I mean it.
Is this a real press
Thanks for the clarification, Ben. But, I want to take the opportunity to say Screw Chavez! He is a lunatic and is increasingly a despot. Not to mention is increasingly agressive anti-American stance.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Oil
I'm not wild about Chavez myself, but in a city with a poverty rate of 25%, I can't imagine why this would be an issue. I mostly like Nutter, but I can't understand why in the world he would make this a priority. There are things to criticize about Fattah and his ideas. Getting cheap oil for poor people isn't one of them.
Besides, the U.S. already buys a ton of oil from Chavez's government.
---
http://benwaxman.com
Ah Ben, if the motivations
Ah Ben, if the motivations of Chavez were benevolent maybe I would agree with you. But, they are not.
Whether you like it or not, Chavez is increasingly obstructionist of U.S. interests, and, purposefully goes out of his way to do so. Do I have a problem with cheap heating oil for the poor--no. But, do I have a problem with a United States Congressman cohorting with Chavez, a man going out of his way to provoke hostilities with the nation I love so much--you bet.
Also, the man is increasingly supressing democracy and looks more and more like a despot. If you can promote the destruction of a once stable, albeit problemed democracy, then that is something for you to deal with. But, personally, I cannot.
I'm sorry, but the "in this case" argument doesn't work for me here--particularly with a nation who has made security deals with Iran and North Korea to attack the United States of we attacked either one.
The US government buying oil from Venezuala--just another reason to get away from oil dependency.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Ay.
Ay.
OK, who says he is cavorting with Chavez? Don't you think that might be a little much?
And, where exactly are those security deals with Iran? Can I see some evidence that there is anything real to that? And where is the fearsome Venezuelan army, exactly? What is the size of their standing army?
And, yeah, I agree Chavez is quite a bad person, and he is a corrupt jackass. He is also, by all accounts, wildly popular in his Country. Find me one credible source that doesn't think he wins the presidential election, fair and square, if everything is run right.
And, there was a military coup against him, right, that the Bush admin basically gave a big wink too. So...
And, when people are literally freezing to death, and dying in spaceheater fires, and the little jackass is willing to give some free oil, why wouldn't you take it?
And, have you stopped buying gas from Citgo?
And, yeah, this all just seems silly to me. The problem is not a self important despot giving oil. The problem is that in the richest country in the world, people cannot afford heat.
I do not buy gas from CITGO.
I do not buy gas from CITGO.
It is all silly, but I wanted to make a point about Chavez, a man I detest.
Chavez has discussed these deals out in the open--a "party admission." So, I do not need a document to show them to you, they are there.
And, who cares about how fearsome their army is--they are building up, as per Chavez's own admission. Foruntately, we have been able to stop sales of fighter jets to them.
He is wildly popular because he uses every resource he can to make himself that way, while at the same time destroying term limits! Just because he is popular does not mean they are a true republic or democracy. It means he is effective. I can think of 2-3 other 20th Century dictators who were, in their time, popular among the people. Mussolini made the trains run on time, but he was still evil.
What I think is this: Chavez = bad and obstructionist. Let's just not deal with him at all. And, it gives us yet another reason to break our dependence on oil. As for the coup, I imagine that they would be more of a democracy today if it worked than they are now. But, that is my opinion.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Who cares? Well, we are the
Who cares? Well, we are the biggest kid on the block. Lots of people don't like us. When we fight wars and ramp up war talk, we end up stuck occupying countries, and things like that. We spend more money on our defense than just about every other country put together. I think we are safe.
If you are a Democratic Congressman, and the Bush Energy policy was written by big oil, and you have constituents that are in danger of freezing to death, would you honestly tell them not to take the oil? Are you comfortable telling the people getting the oil that?
Again, Chavez is a jackass. But it is a sad joke that Nutter tried to make this an issue in the Mayors race.
I'm uncomfortable getting
I'm uncomfortable getting that heat from a state run by Chavez when we can deal with it on our own terms with our own money. We are the richest nation in the world, not one should have to go without heat in the cold winter. But, our priorities aren't in the right places, so we make deals with creeps like Chavez.
I'm sure we could figure something out that would result in the same cost reductions, we just do not want to for some reason.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
If you read the article, I'm
If you read the article, I'm not sure a judgment of Chavez's aid to Philly was implied; certainly, there's a critique of Fattah taking credit for it as if he orchestrated it completely by himself. I do think that's fair.
In any case, it's definitely not clearly established in the article, and it's just half a sentence. Maybe we shouldn't extrapolate too much from it.
Volunteering for Michael Nutter
As for the oil policy--yes,
As for the oil policy--yes, it sucks. And, obviously, no one should freeze. But, this further indicates (1) the motives of Chavez are not good; (2) the need for better leadership; and (3) the need for local leaders who can work with the oil companies in this area, like SUNOCO, to do the same thing by using (a) public pressure; or (b) simply asking.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Only so much
I can read on this issue without responding:
Maybe the analogy of Mussolini to Chavez is a bit of a stretch?
Is there some way that I'm not supposed to read that as a justification for US involvement in overthrowing an elected leader? I'm sure that you must know of the economic, rather than ethical, reasons for the US involvement?
You are posting your outrage of dealing with Chavez, in this context, in light of our collusion with governments like Saudi Arabia, in light of how oil influences foreign policy at so many levels?
And seriously, you don't see any relevance of the history of US involvement in South America to Chavez's "provocation" of hostilities?
D.E.II--we are talking about
D.E.II--we are talking about Chavez, not Saudi Arabia, who I hold in no high esteem. But, Venezuala is close and, in my mind, makes direct threats.
I do not think the comparission is a stretch and only time and history will show us whether I am right.
Last, I do not care why Chavez was provoked. It is irrelevant to me. This is where you and I disagree on foreign policy (we have done this dance before). But, a threat to the United States is just that to me, regardless of why that threat is there. Sorry, we disagree on that and I'm not going much further down this road. Do I disagree with much of our involvement in South America--yes. But, I live here and want to protect my people from the likes of Chavez.
I will admit, on foreign policy issues, I am probably more the the center than the average progressive. I am firmly against our Iraq war and always have been. But, in general, this is the way I am. I can't help it some times.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Guess we've got one of those
agree to disagree issues.
I'll just add that I'm perplexed that you could actually see Venezuala as a credible threat to the US.
A question for you. Not a rhetorical one, but one for some thought. Imagine that Obama wins the election. Still think that Chavez would be a valid threat?
Perhaps not. But, I think
Perhaps not. But, I think Chavez has a problem with the notion of America more than the individual president. I doubt there is anything that will change his own designs in South America either.
But, I see a nation building arms in South America and using oil money to buy influence and compete with other nations (who may be arming themselves too). Then, I see who Chavez aligns himself with, and, honestly, I see it as a threat. Maybe not a huge threat, but enough to make me stir.
Could we crush Venezuala? I do not think there is any question related to our military capabilities. While we may not be able to handle an insurgency, in a conventional war, it is clear. So, I guess their credibility is diminished by our own might.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
As per: "The problem is not
As per:
"The problem is not a self important despot giving oil. The problem is that in the richest country in the world, people cannot afford heat."
I guess the answer is to embolden the self important despot rather than work out a system that is a bit more sustainable that making our own citizens reliant. Yeah, that doesn't work for me either.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Obviously, I think we should
Obviously, I think we should be energy independent. But, till we are there, are you comfortable telling families without heat that they can't have it?
I'm uncomfortable getting
I'm uncomfortable getting that heat from a state run by Chavez when we can deal with it on our own terms with our own money. We are the richest nation in the world, not one should have to go without heat in the cold winter. But, our priorities aren't in the right places, so we make deals with creeps like Chavez.
I'm sure we could figure something out that would result in the same cost reductions, we just do not want to for some reason.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Well, again, when Big Oil
Well, again, when Big Oil writes your energy policy, and you refuse requests to let the deliberations see the light of day, things get screwed up.
So, that is where we are. Screwed up priorities in Government. Which has led us to a situation where a despot is giving oil to our poorest citizens. It is bizarre and awful.
But, are you comfortable telling them they shouldn't take the heat?
Do I want people to freeze,
Do I want people to freeze, no Dan, of course I don't. That is the essence of the question. But, if and when we retake the Whitehouse, it is my hope that this BS with Chavez will be put to a permanent end and out citizen's heating needs taken care of.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
So you support right wing governments in S America...
1)Chavez is another bogeyman created by the right wing
2) He poses no threat whatsoever to regional stability and belief that he does make you either gullible or someone who has allowed fear to consume them.
3) It's a natural progression of cyclical power movements. The Republicans want you to fear the new leftist movement as hurting America when in reality they are hurting the Republican party. You bought the fear from the last thirty years of republican rule in this country. As the Democratic cycle takes place in America, Venezuela and Chavez will become our ally.
4)I love how you chose Mussolini over Hitler or Hirohito being that he was the least powerful of the three. Yet Italy still had one the strongest armed forces in the world. Look to see where Venezuela ranks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces
5)I love how you claimed that you didn't have to provide evidence of your claims about Chavez. Then I don't have to take you seriously.
I'm sorry, but I never said that . . .
I'm also sorry to inform you that, in my profession, party admissions ARE evidence. And, I deal with evidence every day.
I also have to apologize that I find that Chavez is more than a right wing bogeyman, but is increasingly becoming a despot. In fact, no one has disagreed with that assertion but you.
I chose Mussolini because I'm Italian American and because I find him less offensive to readers than Hitler. And, I was proud when we were able to stop a sale of old planes to Chavez--no reason to make them stronger.
And, don't try and determine where my thoughts on international relations derive from, but I do not like dictatorial regimes whatever wing they may fall on, unless you have a special gift to read my mind.
I've been honest on here, you criticize because you do not agree--rather than actually talk about the subject.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
"In fact, no one has disagreed with that assertion but you."
Oh, and all those pesky Venezuelans who didn't know better than to vote against him. Boy do they have egg on their face!
I work for Damon K. Roberts in his run for City Council. Unless otherwise stated this and every comment by myself is the opinion of myself, and not of Damon or any other candidate, organization, committee, etc.
Come on, Alex. I'm not an
Come on, Alex. I'm not an idiot and don't treat me like one. He uses oil revenue to pump massive amounts of dollars into social infrastructure, which in and of itself is not a bad thing. But, then uses his power to destroy terms limits.
I'm sorry, but that isn't democracy--it's despotism. If he were a right wing dictator you would be furious. If Bush did it, the same. But, Chavez has more executive power by the day at the expense of the Venezualan legislature.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
You know what, I'll just
You know what, I'll just apologize for putting a true opinion, which I have defended on the board. Honestly, I didn't know that Chavez was so popular among "progressives." Well, how progressive is it to destroy property rights, have authoritiarian power through an enabling act, prevent the legislature from meeting, eliminate term limits for yourself . . . Jesus Christ, what makes this guy so popular among progressive, I simply do not know. Perhaps it is the arbitrary use of power--the same thing we would criticize Bush for doing (and, to some extent, have).
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
no longer agreeing to disagree
If he were a right-wing dictator, he wouldn't be pumping massive amounts of oil revenue into social infrastructure.
I'm not defending Chavez per se. But I think that you're comments on the issue are pretty strange.
Chavez presents no real threat to the US, he is far from being the worst supplier of oil to our country, most of his problems with the US are rooted in indefensible US foreign policy, he has very legitimate gripes about the history of US foreign policy in South America and more specifically, about the fact that the US government was involved in trying to overthrow him, an elected leader, because he threatening to use oil revenues for the citizens in his country as opposed to allowing them to be controlled by global oil.
There is a difference between defending the highly questionable aspects of Chavez's administration and questioning you on some of your views.
Okay, they are strange. You
Okay, they are strange. You can question my views all you want, but they are based on his highly questionable, and seemingly despotic tendencies. In short, watching a nation fall backwards from Democracy is not a pretty thing for me to do.
And, again, Chavez's gripes are inconsequential to the view in the above paragraph.
Look--I have explained this before, I diverge in areas of national security and the protection of Americans. I know Chavez is a weakling compared to our might--and I think we need to do everything we can to keep it that way. This does not mean I believe in irrational and indefensible wars (like Iraq), but that I place Chavez in such low regard because no matter how loud his threats are but weak his military, they are still the same, threats.
Though, I almost got a chuckle yesterday when I heard that Al-Qaida was going to target suppliers of American oil, including Venezuala--Chavez was left saying "but we stand up to American imperialism." Of course, it would be absolutely terrible if it did happen, but it goes to show how provocative he actually wants to be related to us--but still is a moron in terms of foreign affairs.
You and I will likely never agree on this point. I have tried to shake my national defense interests and beliefs before, but they are what they are.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Different orders of magnitude
Gaetano, Chavez's military strength poses no threat whatsoever to the US. Further, (to my knowledge at least) he has never indicated an interest in military agression towards the US - only in having defensive capabilities. The US refusal to see the legitimacy of such a position on the part of any country that doesn't conform to it's economic interests is the biggest threat to our security going. And that is particularly true when you're talking like contries in South American, and yes, Iran, which have a history of bearing the brunt of American hegemonic policies.
There is a difference between feeling that we need to defend ourselves against real threats, and telling other countries that they have no right to protect themselves against our (or anyone eles's) aggression. And blurring those differences is precisely what puts empowers our administration to further jeapordize our security at the behest of the MIC and neocon zealots.
Please notice that the recent negotiations with North Korea have us back in almost exactly the same position as we were some six years ago - with all the bloviating about the "axis of evil" getting us absolutely nowhere. Trying to tell other countries that they don't have a right to build their own military capabilities will have no benefits, and exaggerating the dangers they pose (as has been done with regard to Venezuela) only moves us backwards.
(to my knowledge) Chavez has been pretty clear that his beef isn't with Americans, but it is with the (in my mind indefensible) policies of the US government.
Again, that isn't a defense of his despotic tendencies, but a direct reaction to your comments.
I understand your point.
I understand your point. But, understand my own, if his beef is with US policies, it is, by implication, a beef with Americans in general. Unfortunately, we are all in this together. There is nothing I would like to do more than exile Bush to Elba--but, I can't. Until then, I dissent, but hang tough.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
The last word on Chavez goes to... Steven Colbert
http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=360...
And maybe you should save your royal indignation/misplaced outrage for the people of the city who can't afford heating oil. I'd guess that the cold is a MUCH bigger threat to the lives and health of Philadelphians than any boogie/straw man you can put before us.
I work for Damon K. Roberts in his run for City Council. Unless otherwise stated this and every comment by myself is the opinion of myself, and not of Damon or any other candidate, organization, committee, etc.
Last word--Hardly
I won't give you last word if it's a cheap shot.
I thought I was stubborn, but, Jesus Christ, Alex, no one here is saying low income people should stop getting oil. I'd save your criticism and read the entire conversation. Your brother asked the question yesterday, and I answered it--energy policy sucks and creates a situation where a despot is providing oil to our poor at a discounted price. It's odd, but it is a result of some pretty crappy policy work. I don't fault any individual who needs to heat their home--they aren't committing a crime here.
I took the opportunity to swipe at Chavez--big deal. I can't have a point of view?
Oh, yeah, again, my apologies for having a problem with backsliding democracy and overt threats to the security of the nation I live (regardless of the level of threat).
Next time, I'll try and hold my criticisms to things a bit less confusing for you. Otherwise, you may call the "progressive police." Also, related to "royal indignation" please, spare me the guilt, I spent much of my childhood living below the poverty line and am pretty familiar with what that feels like and can recall very easily doing without amenities many (including myself at this time) take for granted.
As far as I'm concerned, this ridiculous conversation is over. I'll be sure to let everyone else sanctify Chavez--you included. Have a great time and don't invite me to that party. Now forgive me, it's time to get back to work.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Hardly, Hardly The Last Word
I just want to throw out a big thank you to all involved for demonstrating why we don't generally do foreign policy here.
Comments for the post are off.
And, by the way, no one on
And, by the way, no one on YPP has disagreed, which was my point.
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Damn
I got suckered. Maybe I'm the only one who would be that gullible, but you might want to make it clear in the original post that it was satire?
So you rather buy higher priced oil from a king you don't like?
Why is it that anyone would have a bigger problem having low income people buy low cost oil from a democratically electric president whose politics you don’t like than you have seeing low income people buying higher priced oil from a kingdom whose politics you don’t like?
Lance Haver