Mandela's birthday message: Rich should help poor

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Overnight? Mugabe had 20 years in power long after a civil war in Rhodesia and another 8 years to correct his disasterous economic policies? Every dictator's bootlicker claims things would be worse without the strong arm tactics of the despot. Mugabe is destroying his country on a scale that's bad even by African standards.

Yes I know.

He could done ANYTHING and did NOTHING. What would a public service announcement cost? How about spending for a few million condoms for country swimming in gold and diamonds? Oh, and 10 years ago was the time to confront the AIDS problem, it's a little late now that 30% of the population is HIV positive.

Yep he made mistakes (imagine that) which I believe he has publicly recognised. I think he's also been involved with a lot of work on the issue after he left office. He had a son who died of HIV/AIDS I believe - so I wouldn't presume to pour scorn on the man's conscience on the AIDS issue..

If he wants the wealthy to donate more that's ok. On the other hand, let's say I go on TV and advocate the government seize the wealth of rich New Yorkers, like yourself, 6. How does that cost me anything except some time? If he gave away his assets and lived a barn I would have more respect for the man. Ghandi, for example, lived in a humble ashram and expected his wealthy followers to live the simple life while at his place. I looked up a website on Mandela's charity work. website. http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/543-nelson-mandela. Didn't see how much he gave out of his own pocket. So, 6, I'm asking you to give more of your millions to the truly needy because I'm sort of like Mandela on a smaller scale.

There's more to charity work than just making personal donations, as I'm sure you know. And your lack of ability to find information on the internet of personal charitable contributions doesn't really mean a whole lot. In any case the information on Mandela's charity work isn't exactly secret - and there's a lot of information in the public domain for those who are inclined to seek it out.

As I said - this is simply cynicism for the sake of cynicism. Either the issue Mandela is highlighting is a real issue for his country or it isn't. If it is - the focus should be on the message and not the spokesman - even if it is in the nature of some jaded American conservatives to spit on someone who has done more for the good of others than they will ever do in their own lives.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Some people need to validate their own stinginess by proclaiming that only by being dirt poor can you ask people do donate to the dirt poor. That's pretty nuts logic - but, whatever...

So it would seem. And when the arguments amount presented in such topics amount to a choice between "rich hypocrite" or "poor money-grubbing entitlement enabler" the obvious objective of such sleight of hand is to take attention off the highlighted issue and onto the character and audacity of the speaker. Whether that's intentional or not I don't know - though I do believe that there are people who have been well-trained by the media to such an extent that they become their own double-talk spokesman.

[Cassie 8]

Yeah, Mandela doesn't deserve to talk about South Africa's problems. That deserves a big

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Some people need to validate their own stinginess by proclaiming that only by being dirt poor can you ask people do donate to the dirt poor. That's pretty nuts logic - but, whatever...

No kidding. It's like saying you can't be in favor of protecting the environment unless you live a grass hut. Turn off the talk radio, alienchild.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[alienlovechild 75]

And when the arguments amount presented in such topics amount to a choice between "rich hypocrite" or "poor money-grubbing entitlement enabler" the obvious objective of such sleight of hand is to take attention off the highlighted issue and onto the character and audacity of the speaker. Whether that's intentional or not I don't know - though I do believe that there are people who have been well-trained by the media to such an extent that they become their own double-talk spokesman.

So talking about a guy who was somewhat responsible for the crappy conditions in his own country is taking attention away from the issues of AIDS, poverty and crime? It's makes more sense to ###### about somebody on the Internet pointing out that emperor has no clothes? How am I more responsible for conditions in South Africa than Mandela? Absurd. Did you know even friggin Mother Theresa was criticized?

I guess we won't be hearing any more criticism about Bush from now on. Not likely. More hypocrisy.

No kidding. It's like saying you can't be in favor of protecting the environment unless you live a grass hut. Turn off the talk radio, alienchild.

How dare anyone question Gore about his mansion! He has more of right to poison the planet any mere mortal! The level of hypocrisy is rising faster the sea's level and poor 6 is headed for the Catskills.

When I hear Jabba's logic, it makes me want to buy a heavily depreciated but huge SUV and yell out the window, "Screw you commoners, I bought carbon credits."

Edited July 18, 2008 by alienlovechild

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

When I hear Jabba's logic, it makes me want to buy a heavily depreciated but huge SUV and yell out the window, "Screw you commoners, I bought carbon credits."

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No kidding. It's like saying you can't be in favor of protecting the environment unless you live a grass hut. Turn off the talk radio, alienchild.

How dare anyone question Gore about his mansion! He has more of right to poison the planet any mere mortal! The level of hypocrisy is rising faster the sea's level and poor 6 is headed for the Catskills.

When I hear Jabba's logic, it makes me want to buy a heavily depreciated but huge SUV and yell out the window, "Screw you commoners, I bought carbon credits."

I didn't say that. You can question a person's hypocrisy without it taking away from the validity of their argument, particularly when you could nitpick your way to find hypocrisy in just about everything these days.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So talking about a guy who was somewhat responsible for the crappy conditions in his own country is taking attention away from the issues of AIDS, poverty and crime? It's makes more sense to ###### about somebody on the Internet pointing out that emperor has no clothes? How am I more responsible for conditions in South Africa than Mandela? Absurd. Did you know even friggin Mother Theresa was criticized?

I guess we won't be hearing any more criticism about Bush from now on. Not likely. More hypocrisy.

Lets make it real simple.

If Mandela were going around making statements about the need for the rich to help the poor, all the while doing absolutely nothing himself and blowing vast sums of money on gambling, expensive cars and hookers - then yes he would be a hypocrite. The fact that he owns a "big house" and hasn't sold or donated it to make (what is in the speech) a very general point doesn't matter here or there. The man is involved in a hell of a lot of charitable foundations to raise awareness of important issues in his country and improve the conditions thereof.

He's not in denial about his mistakes - as Mugabe is for instance (insisting that he has the love of the people despite massive public opposition and criticism), he has admitted his governments failures on the issue of HIV/AIDS and has demonstrated conscience enough to attempt redress this by using his celebrity to raise awareness and by working with charitable institutions.

So no you aren't responsible for the conditions in South Africa (I don't even see where I remotely implied that to be the case) but arguments like the one you are presenting don't exactly facilitate a positive debate on the subject over here. In fact they seem designed purposefully to avoid such a discussion. Its not the first time I have heard such reasoning either.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

heh...interesting what you can find on the internet.

Check this out...

Gandhi's hypocrisy; anyone is easily as moral as their heroes

Gandhi is often ranked, directly or subtly, alongside Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King, Jr. as one of the greatest peacemakers - indeed, one of the greatest human beings - of all time. The mythology that surrounds him - which he built, leaving his followers, admirers and hagiographers to reinforce and embellish - has almost completely smothered the many unflattering facts about him.

Space doesn't permit a full exploration of Gandhi's numerous, consequential skeletons- his racism, his betrayal of the Untouchables, his acquiescence toward the Nazis. Instead, let's focus on something more personal and, in some ways, more upsetting.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/333053.shtml

......

I found this same rhetoric when a MLK holiday was being proposed...'MLK was a skirtchaser...yada, yada, yada.'

We could play this 'who's the hypocrite' game all day....which is what I was saying earlier..you can nitpick your way to hypocrisy with just about everything.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[alienlovechild 75]

If Mandela were going around making statements about the need for the rich to help the poor, all the while doing absolutely nothing himself and blowing vast sums of money on gambling, expensive cars and hookers -

Not a likely lifestyle for most 90 year-olds unless they're Hugh Hefner.

He's not in denial about his mistakes - as Mugabe is for instance (insisting that he has the love of the people despite massive public opposition and criticism), he has admitted his governments failures on the issue of HIV/AIDS and has demonstrated conscience enough to attempt redress this by using his celebrity to raise awareness and by working with charitable institutions.

Or he could just have a guilty conscience. At his age I doubt he can do much for South Africa.

So no you aren't responsible for the conditions in South Africa (I don't even see where I remotely implied that to be the case) but arguments like the one you are presenting don't exactly facilitate a positive debate on the subject over here. In fact they seem designed purposefully to avoid such a discussion. Its not the first time I have heard such reasoning either.

I guess this reference wasn't a comparison between myself (or like minded-people) and Mandela. Silly me.

even if it is in the nature of some jaded American conservatives to spit on someone who has done more for the good of others than they will ever do in their own lives.

Again, how do my comments make things worse in South Africa? Not recognizing any flaws (until I raised them) of Mandela's impact on South Africa is another way to avoid a discussion that strays from hero-worship. Silencing dissenting political beliefs on American campuses and outside the "accepted" media channels is something I'm all too familar with.

Edited July 18, 2008 by alienlovechild

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Again, how do my comments make things worse in South Africa? Not recognizing any flaws (until I raised them) of Mandela's impact on South Africa is another way to avoid a discussion that strays from hero-worship. Silencing dissenting political beliefs on American campuses and outside the "accepted" media channels is something I'm all too familar with.

You were silenced in college?

Edited July 18, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If Mandela were going around making statements about the need for the rich to help the poor, all the while doing absolutely nothing himself and blowing vast sums of money on gambling, expensive cars and hookers -

Not a likely lifestyle for most 90 year-olds unless they're Hugh Hefner.

Which doesn't add anything to the argument. You've demonstrated blatant ignorance about the man's public work, focussing instead on the fact that he owns a house as reason to call him a hypocrite. You honestly think that's entirely fair?

He's not in denial about his mistakes - as Mugabe is for instance (insisting that he has the love of the people despite massive public opposition and criticism), he has admitted his governments failures on the issue of HIV/AIDS and has demonstrated conscience enough to attempt redress this by using his celebrity to raise awareness and by working with charitable institutions.

Or he could just have a guilty conscience. At his age I doubt he can do much for South Africa.

He may well feel a resposibility of guilt, but whether or not he can do much for the country isn't really irrelevant here is it. He's trying to do something (which is more than many people do) - and spending his twilight years doing it, when other people of his age would be expected to have retired from public life altogether.

So no you aren't responsible for the conditions in South Africa (I don't even see where I remotely implied that to be the case) but arguments like the one you are presenting don't exactly facilitate a positive debate on the subject over here. In fact they seem designed purposefully to avoid such a discussion. Its not the first time I have heard such reasoning either.

I guess this reference wasn't a comparison between myself (or like minded-people) and Mandela. Silly me.

even if it is in the nature of some jaded American conservatives to spit on someone who has done more for the good of others than they will ever do in their own lives.

Again, how do my comments make things worse in South Africa? Not recognizing any flaws (until I raised them) of Mandela's impact on South Africa is another way to avoid a discussion that strays from hero-worship. Silencing dissenting political beliefs on American campuses and outside the "accepted" media channels is something I'm all too familar with.

Silly you indeed. I will repeat - I neither said nor implied any such thing. What I am saying (and will say again so that there is no confusion) is that you are deliberately avoiding addressing (dismissing to be sure) Mandela's argument by fixating on the spokesman and not the merits of his argument.

You may view that as "dissent" I view it as dishonest evasion.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Number 6

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Silly you indeed. I will repeat - I neither said nor implied any such thing. What I am saying (and will say again so that there is no confusion) is that you are deliberately avoiding addressing (dismissing to be sure) Mandela's argument by fixating on the spokesman and not the merits of his argument.

You may view that as "dissent" I view it as dishonest evasion.

Exactly.

[jundp 191]

Besides if anyone's earned the right to live in a big house its Nelson Mandela. I guess only those experiencing crushing poverty can say that the rich owe them something - of course anyone poor who said that in the US would be accused of "entitlement mentality", while a rich person must automatically be labeled a hypocrite.

I'm just gonna say that a man who was a victim of the horror of Apartheid, who spent 24 years in prison, won the Nobel Peace Prize and became the first Black president of South Africa, can certainly make a comment (IMHO) about the need for the rich to give to the poor.

It's not as though he sits in his glass house throwing stones. Mandela made a great number of mistakes in his tenure as president of SA, but he also has done and continues to do, quite a lot of good.

[alienlovechild 75]

You were silenced in college?

Sure. I even got detention in high school for questioning an economics teacher on how GNP is calculated. You actually believe professors want to hear things that challenge their long-long assumptions? I saw and heard about attempts to disrupt conservative speakers on campus. They usually split up and starting screaming periodically during the speech. I've seen that happen numerous times on TV news coverage as well.

Ever politically disagreed with a teacher in your life and told him or her so?