Bolivia is one of the world’s poorest countries. They simply are not that important to Mexicans, Brazilians, Americans, Canadians, Argentines and Chileans. All of us just ignore them. That is wrong and unacceptable . . . they are human beings too.
I wish someone were paying attention to them for any reason, but that is not how the world works.
People who create programs like this demonstrate just how deluded and out of touch they are.
With Mexico, Brazil and Chile more free market and pro-business than America, we Americans are becoming increasingly less relevant in our own hemisphere. So I hope that at least these other great imperialist powers take and imperial interest in Bolivia.
Now that I am started on this topic . . . I think it is outrageous that Congress didn’t pass illegal immigration reform. Maybe it is because Mexico is more conservative than America. The dumb congress people are blocking a free trade agreement with Chile and Columbia. How did Graval, Anne Coulter, Michael Moore, Lou Dobbs, Gore Vidal, O’Reilly, Nader, John Edwards, Jackson, Pat Buchanan and their pro sanctions nonsense take over this country? This beautiful country. They want America to hide from the rest of the world and gracefully accept our decline to a country that isn’t at the forefront of learning (good universities), technological innovation, and affluence. They are afraid of the rest of the world and they are making ordinary Americans afraid too.
Bolivia, do not look to America. We have lost our imperialistic spirit. We now insult and fear the smartest and most successful among us. Pray that Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Columbia, Spain, Portugal and other much more imperialist pro corporate countries launch an imperialistic assault on your country. For your sake, I hope they do.
Residents of Santa Cruz, Bolivia voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution authorizing the provincial government to act with greater autonomy from the federal government. According to Ipsos Apoyo Opinión y Mercado , the resolution passed with 86% of the vote. The referendum on autonomy amounts to an act of secession, allowing the province to create a police force, negotiate their own agreements with energy companies operating in the region and enter into international agreements.
President Evo Morales appeared on national television to denounce the referendum, which he views as unconstitutional. Additionally the military warned the province against holding the vote and the federal government stated that it will ignore the results of the poll.
Santa Cruz is the wealthiest province in Bolivia, rich in natural resources with the second largest natural gas deposit in South America. The Morales administration has enacted several changes to land holdings and ownership of the gas reserves. The disputed policies effectively take profits generated in Santa Cruz and redistribute them to the poverty stricken indigenous regions. This has led to social unrest in Santa Cruz and Sunday’s referendum demanding autonomy and control over the land.
The voting took place amidst clashes in the streets Morales supporters and pro-autonomy voters. At least 30 people have been admitted to hospitals with injuries and an elderly man died from inhalation of tear gas. Morales supporters also burned ballot boxes and blocked access to polling locations in many towns. Additionally, the government closed two major routes linking towns within Santa Cruz and there were clashes in the streets between Morales supporters and pro-autonomy groups.
Officials in Santa Cruz made appeals to the citizens throughout the day to not participate in the violence or respond to government instigation.
“These are acts that were predictable… The important thing is not to respond to the provocations, do not go to violence, which is what they are looking for.” – Ruben Costas, prefect of Santa Cruz
Morales is now faced with a difficult situation, with Bolivia’s largest and wealthiest province working to separate from the country. Three other provinces announced they intend to hold similar votes. If those resolutions pass the country would be effectively split ethnic lines, with the eastern provinces seceding from the indigenous western states.
Anand, who the hell are you kidding but yourself? You don’t fool anyone here for even a second. You would be first in line to serve the powerful, rich elites in Bolivia over the dirt poor majority. They,(The family oligarchies), are the ones that would be “pro globalization” whereas Morales is the type to nationalize the country’s resources to give money back to the poor majority. You are no populist by any means. You serve/worship oligarchy and corporate plutocracy.You hate actual democracy or rule by the people. Plundering the resources of a country and taking the profits and putting them in some foreign, offshore account is the MO of your type of “globalization”. Give us a break. Join the military and move to Iraq. Quit TALKING about destroying the dreaded Takfiri and GO DO IT you cowardly poser!
Please stop posting nonsense on my blog. You are just pissing people off with all your silly appeals and, frankly, you are starting to really annoy me too. I have been more than patient with you, but my patience is wearing thin. Why don’t you just limit yourself to doing only two things on this blog: 1) reading 2) thinking about what you read. ok?
I was expecting this scenario for some time. All those liberals who supported the attack on Yugoslavia’s sovereignty in the name of humanitarian intervention have helped to set a precedent that can be used against any democratic Southern government daring to put the interests of the poor majority against corporate rule.
I predict that the rebels will set up paramilitary groups if they havn’t already and start a terrorist campaign, hoping that La Paz will overreact. If and when civlians get caught in the crossfire the corporate media will present a carefully selected picture of what is happening and demand that the Empire intervene on behalf of the freedom loving “liberal” rebels. The only consolation is that the Empire is too bogged down in the Middle East to intervene directly but that will not prevent it from supplying the separatist rebels with money, arms and mercenaries. It will make no difference whether Billary, Obama or the McCaniac is president by then. All believe in Washington’s “civilising mission”
Vineyard, I think poverty alleviation has to be a large global priority.
Look at how over a billion poor Chinese and Indians have worked their way out of extreme poverty since 1979. I regard this as a very good thing, and hope the rest of the world follows. Lula is doing the same thing in Brazil . . . Mexico and Chile are as well. I hope Morales follows this same path. I still hope he might.
I celebrate the rise of the “other” or developing world. I would also celebrate if the developed countries (such as America, South Korea, Taiwan, Dubai, Ireland, Malaysia, Germany, increasingly Chile) gave more grants to poor countries. But that will be a much more difficult sell, and have a smaller affect on absolute poverty in the world.
Seeing rich (and usually privileged) Americans pontificate and call for sanctions against poor countries (blocking imports, investment and collaboration across countries, companies, industries, and verticals to improve process and technological innovation) doesn’t impress me very much. Quite frankly, I don’t care if they call themselves conservatives, leftists, or anything else.
Having seen the extreme poverty of many other countries, I think you understand where I am coming from.
When the Morales of the world do the right thing . . . market reforms that empower the poor . . . I praise them. When they don’t, I don’t praise them. I want Morales to succeed because it is good for Bolivians. I would be the biggest cheerleader if Bolivia became richer and more prosperous than America. I hope they succeed!
Many of the words that are used here confuse me. What is “imperialism?” If it means what the Brits did in India, that is wrong. The Brits empowered a bunch of nosy bureaucrats (IAS officers) and imposed “license raj.” They prevented free trade, free investment and capitalism in India by design. They were wrong! They also didn’t allow meritocratic promotion within the IAS and British Indian Army for Indians. They didn’t allow freedom before the law and 1 person, 1 vote.
I strongly oppose that, if that is what you mean by imperialism. But, no one here has clarified what imperialism means.
“Please stop posting nonsense on my blog.” How can arguing for reducing global poverty be nonsense.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/5/autonomy_vote_threatens_to_pull_apart Autonomy Vote Threatens to Pull Bolivia Apart. In Bolivia, President Evo Morales has rejected an autonomy vote by the country’s richest region of Santa Cruz, calling the poll “illegal and unconstitutional.” The proposals voted on Sunday include giving Santa Cruz more control over land distribution and rich oil and gas reserves.
But, no one here has clarified what imperialism means.
Anand you are ridiculous. I knew you would play dumb just as I predicted. I posted these to you the other day.(On the Free Gilad Shalit post) Anand likes to play dumb and act like he doesn’t understand completely obvious things when they go against his way of “thinking”. New Imperialism refers to the colonial expansion adopted by Europe’s powers and, later, Japan and the United States, during the 19th and early 20th centuries; approximately from the Franco-Prussian War to World War I (c. 1871–1914). The period is distinguished by an unprecedented pursuit of what has been termed “empire for empire’s sake,” aggressive competition for overseas territorial acquisitions and the emergence in colonizing countries of doctrines of racial superiority which denied the fitness of subjugated peoples for self-government. The New Imperialism gave rise to new social views of colonialism. Rudyard Kipling, for instance, urged the United States to “Take up the White Man’s burden” of bringing the European version of civilization to the other peoples of the world, regardless of whether they wanted this form of civilization. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-459es.html Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, several commentators have advanced the idea of security through empire. They claim that the best way to protect the United States in the 21st century is to emulate the British, Roman, and other empires of the past. The logic behind the idea is that if the United States can consolidate the international system under its enlightened hegemony, America will be both safer and more prosperous. Although the word “empire” is not used, the Bush administration’s ambitious new National Security Strategy seems to embrace the notion of neoimperialism.
“I strongly oppose that, if that is what you mean by imperialism. But, no one here has clarified what imperialism means.” From the same post. Imperialism 101
I’m sure you’ll continue to ignore this simple and obvious principle Anand. “http://www.michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html Imperialism 101
Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world history over the last four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while oppressing indigenous peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is seldom accorded any serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and political leaders. When not ignored outright, the subject of imperialism has been sanitized, so that empires become “commonwealths,” and colonies become “territories” or “dominions” (or, as in the case of Puerto Rico, “commonwealths” too). Imperialist military interventions become matters of “national defense,” “national security,” and maintaining “stability” in one or another region. In this book I want to look at imperialism for what it really is.
Across the Entire Globe By “imperialism” I mean the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people. Because of low wages, low taxes, nonexistent work benefits, weak labor unions, and nonexistent occupational and environmental protections, U.S. corporate profit rates in the Third World are 50 percent greater than in developed countries. Citibank, one of the largest U.S. firms, earns about 75 percent of its profits from overseas operations. While profit margins at home sometimes have had a sluggish growth, earnings abroad have continued to rise dramatically, fostering the development of what has become known as the multinational or transnational corporation. Today some four hundred transnational companies control about 80 percent of the capital assets of the global free market and are extending their grasp into the ex-communist countries of Eastern Europe.”
Anand, get some help. I knew you would play dumb and act like imperialism is some vague, obscure, indecipherable concept. What a sick joke. By “imperialism” I mean the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people. By the twentieth century, the industrial nations were exporting not only goods but capital, in the form of machinery, technology, investments, and loans. To say that we have entered the stage of capital export and investment is not to imply that the plunder of natural resources has ceased. If anything, the despoliation has accelerated. In fact, the lands of Asia, Africa, and Latin America have long produced great treasures of foods, minerals and other natural resources. That is why the Europeans went through all the trouble to steal and plunder them. One does not go to poor places for self-enrichment. The Third World is rich. Only its people are poor—and it is because of the pillage they have endured. Historically U.S. capitalist interests have been less interested in acquiring more colonies than in acquiring more wealth, preferring to make off with the treasure of other nations without bothering to own and administer the nations themselves. Under neoimperialism, the flag stays home, while the dollar goes everywhere—frequently assisted by the sword.”
Why does the guy with the least to say (Anand) always have the longest posts. Reminds of a saying my father used to repeat…”those who know don’t say, and those who say don’t know.”
This might be true for alot of us, but Anand takes the cake.
Reading his posts, I am reminded of the only half-articulate writing style of other very recent Indian immigrants. The self-satisfied smirking at Americans who fear their country is being sold out to the lowest bidder by an unscrupulous elite loyal to Israel, and their culture is being slowly, inexorably extinguished by masses of third world immigrants with tenuous loyalty to the nation also characterizes many of them as well.
no, nothing xenophobic here. take that from the ‘legal alien’ which I am. Anand really is a rather extreme case of the recent immigrant who is more Papist than the Pope, if you see what I mean. And no matter how hard he tries to be ‘red white n blue” he abjectly fails each time and only looks even *more* like the immigrant that he is.
He would be much happier to accept this (most honorable) status as an Indian immigrant than waste his time cheering for Israel and the USA…
Bolivia is one of the world’s poorest countries. They simply are not that important to Mexicans, Brazilians, Americans, Canadians, Argentines and Chileans. All of us just ignore them. That is wrong and unacceptable . . . they are human beings too.
I wish someone were paying attention to them for any reason, but that is not how the world works.
People who create programs like this demonstrate just how deluded and out of touch they are.
With Mexico, Brazil and Chile more free market and pro-business than America, we Americans are becoming increasingly less relevant in our own hemisphere. So I hope that at least these other great imperialist powers take and imperial interest in Bolivia.
Now that I am started on this topic . . . I think it is outrageous that Congress didn’t pass illegal immigration reform. Maybe it is because Mexico is more conservative than America. The dumb congress people are blocking a free trade agreement with Chile and Columbia. How did Graval, Anne Coulter, Michael Moore, Lou Dobbs, Gore Vidal, O’Reilly, Nader, John Edwards, Jackson, Pat Buchanan and their pro sanctions nonsense take over this country? This beautiful country. They want America to hide from the rest of the world and gracefully accept our decline to a country that isn’t at the forefront of learning (good universities), technological innovation, and affluence. They are afraid of the rest of the world and they are making ordinary Americans afraid too.
Bolivia, do not look to America. We have lost our imperialistic spirit. We now insult and fear the smartest and most successful among us. Pray that Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Columbia, Spain, Portugal and other much more imperialist pro corporate countries launch an imperialistic assault on your country. For your sake, I hope they do.
More empty rhetoric from Anand. Why do you bother?
Incidentes en Bolivia – Video of violent clashes between political groups.
Residents of Santa Cruz, Bolivia voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution authorizing the provincial government to act with greater autonomy from the federal government. According to Ipsos Apoyo Opinión y Mercado , the resolution passed with 86% of the vote. The referendum on autonomy amounts to an act of secession, allowing the province to create a police force, negotiate their own agreements with energy companies operating in the region and enter into international agreements.
President Evo Morales appeared on national television to denounce the referendum, which he views as unconstitutional. Additionally the military warned the province against holding the vote and the federal government stated that it will ignore the results of the poll.
Santa Cruz is the wealthiest province in Bolivia, rich in natural resources with the second largest natural gas deposit in South America. The Morales administration has enacted several changes to land holdings and ownership of the gas reserves. The disputed policies effectively take profits generated in Santa Cruz and redistribute them to the poverty stricken indigenous regions. This has led to social unrest in Santa Cruz and Sunday’s referendum demanding autonomy and control over the land.
The voting took place amidst clashes in the streets Morales supporters and pro-autonomy voters. At least 30 people have been admitted to hospitals with injuries and an elderly man died from inhalation of tear gas. Morales supporters also burned ballot boxes and blocked access to polling locations in many towns. Additionally, the government closed two major routes linking towns within Santa Cruz and there were clashes in the streets between Morales supporters and pro-autonomy groups.
Officials in Santa Cruz made appeals to the citizens throughout the day to not participate in the violence or respond to government instigation.
“These are acts that were predictable… The important thing is not to respond to the provocations, do not go to violence, which is what they are looking for.” – Ruben Costas, prefect of Santa Cruz
Morales is now faced with a difficult situation, with Bolivia’s largest and wealthiest province working to separate from the country. Three other provinces announced they intend to hold similar votes. If those resolutions pass the country would be effectively split ethnic lines, with the eastern provinces seceding from the indigenous western states.
-AA
Thanks AA. Most people do not like leftist policies (that is why there is huge blowback against the borderline socialist President Bush.)
Pro business, pro corporate, pro-free trade, pro globalization is populist.
For the people!
For the record, I hope that the Bolivians make it big time. Who knows, they might become more successful than us Americans! :-)
Anand, who the hell are you kidding but yourself? You don’t fool anyone here for even a second. You would be first in line to serve the powerful, rich elites in Bolivia over the dirt poor majority. They,(The family oligarchies), are the ones that would be “pro globalization” whereas Morales is the type to nationalize the country’s resources to give money back to the poor majority.
You are no populist by any means. You serve/worship oligarchy
and corporate plutocracy.You hate actual democracy or rule by the people. Plundering the resources of a country and taking the profits and putting them in some foreign, offshore account is the MO of your type of “globalization”.
Give us a break. Join the military and move to Iraq.
Quit TALKING about destroying the dreaded Takfiri and GO DO IT you cowardly poser!
Anand,
Please stop posting nonsense on my blog. You are just pissing people off with all your silly appeals and, frankly, you are starting to really annoy me too. I have been more than patient with you, but my patience is wearing thin. Why don’t you just limit yourself to doing only two things on this blog: 1) reading 2) thinking about what you read. ok?
The Saker
I was expecting this scenario for some time. All those liberals who supported the attack on Yugoslavia’s sovereignty in the name of humanitarian intervention have helped to set a precedent that can be used against any democratic Southern government daring to put the interests of the poor majority against corporate rule.
I predict that the rebels will set up paramilitary groups if they havn’t already and start a terrorist campaign, hoping that La Paz will overreact. If and when civlians get caught in the crossfire the corporate media will present a carefully selected picture of what is happening and demand that the Empire intervene on behalf of the freedom loving “liberal” rebels. The only consolation is that the Empire is too bogged down in the Middle East to intervene directly but that will not prevent it from supplying the separatist rebels with money, arms and mercenaries. It will make no difference whether Billary, Obama or the McCaniac is president by then. All believe in Washington’s “civilising mission”
Vineyard, I think poverty alleviation has to be a large global priority.
Look at how over a billion poor Chinese and Indians have worked their way out of extreme poverty since 1979. I regard this as a very good thing, and hope the rest of the world follows. Lula is doing the same thing in Brazil . . . Mexico and Chile are as well. I hope Morales follows this same path. I still hope he might.
I celebrate the rise of the “other” or developing world. I would also celebrate if the developed countries (such as America, South Korea, Taiwan, Dubai, Ireland, Malaysia, Germany, increasingly Chile) gave more grants to poor countries. But that will be a much more difficult sell, and have a smaller affect on absolute poverty in the world.
Seeing rich (and usually privileged) Americans pontificate and call for sanctions against poor countries (blocking imports, investment and collaboration across countries, companies, industries, and verticals to improve process and technological innovation) doesn’t impress me very much. Quite frankly, I don’t care if they call themselves conservatives, leftists, or anything else.
Having seen the extreme poverty of many other countries, I think you understand where I am coming from.
When the Morales of the world do the right thing . . . market reforms that empower the poor . . . I praise them. When they don’t, I don’t praise them. I want Morales to succeed because it is good for Bolivians. I would be the biggest cheerleader if Bolivia became richer and more prosperous than America. I hope they succeed!
Many of the words that are used here confuse me. What is “imperialism?” If it means what the Brits did in India, that is wrong. The Brits empowered a bunch of nosy bureaucrats (IAS officers) and imposed “license raj.” They prevented free trade, free investment and capitalism in India by design. They were wrong! They also didn’t allow meritocratic promotion within the IAS and British Indian Army for Indians. They didn’t allow freedom before the law and 1 person, 1 vote.
I strongly oppose that, if that is what you mean by imperialism. But, no one here has clarified what imperialism means.
“Please stop posting nonsense on my blog.” How can arguing for reducing global poverty be nonsense.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/5/autonomy_vote_threatens_to_pull_apart
Autonomy Vote Threatens to Pull Bolivia Apart.
In Bolivia, President Evo Morales has rejected an autonomy vote by the country’s richest region of Santa Cruz, calling the poll “illegal and unconstitutional.” The proposals voted on Sunday include giving Santa Cruz more control over land distribution and rich oil and gas reserves.
But, no one here has clarified what imperialism means.
Anand you are ridiculous. I knew you would play dumb just as I predicted. I posted these to you the other day.(On the Free Gilad Shalit post)
Anand likes to play dumb and act like he doesn’t understand completely obvious things when they go against his way of “thinking”.
New Imperialism refers to the colonial expansion adopted by Europe’s powers and, later, Japan and the United States, during the 19th and early 20th centuries; approximately from the Franco-Prussian War to World War I (c. 1871–1914). The period is distinguished by an unprecedented pursuit of what has been termed “empire for empire’s sake,” aggressive competition for overseas territorial acquisitions and the emergence in colonizing countries of doctrines of racial superiority which denied the fitness of subjugated peoples for self-government.
The New Imperialism gave rise to new social views of colonialism. Rudyard Kipling, for instance, urged the United States to “Take up the White Man’s burden” of bringing the European version of civilization to the other peoples of the world, regardless of whether they wanted this form of civilization.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-459es.html
Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, several commentators have advanced the idea of security through empire. They claim that the best way to protect the United States in the 21st century is to emulate the British, Roman, and other empires of the past. The logic behind the idea is that if the United States can consolidate the international system under its enlightened hegemony, America will be both safer and more prosperous. Although the word “empire” is not used, the Bush administration’s ambitious new National Security Strategy seems to embrace the notion of neoimperialism.
“I strongly oppose that, if that is what you mean by imperialism. But, no one here has clarified what imperialism means.”
From the same post.
Imperialism 101
I’m sure you’ll continue to ignore this simple and obvious principle Anand.
“http://www.michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html
Imperialism 101
Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world history over the last four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while oppressing indigenous peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is seldom accorded any serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and political leaders. When not ignored outright, the subject of imperialism has been sanitized, so that empires become “commonwealths,” and colonies become “territories” or “dominions” (or, as in the case of Puerto Rico, “commonwealths” too). Imperialist military interventions become matters of “national defense,” “national security,” and maintaining “stability” in one or another region. In this book I want to look at imperialism for what it really is.
Across the Entire Globe
By “imperialism” I mean the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people.
Because of low wages, low taxes, nonexistent work benefits, weak labor unions, and nonexistent occupational and environmental protections, U.S. corporate profit rates in the Third World are 50 percent greater than in developed countries. Citibank, one of the largest U.S. firms, earns about 75 percent of its profits from overseas operations. While profit margins at home sometimes have had a sluggish growth, earnings abroad have continued to rise dramatically, fostering the development of what has become known as the multinational or transnational corporation. Today some four hundred transnational companies control about 80 percent of the capital assets of the global free market and are extending their grasp into the ex-communist countries of Eastern Europe.”
Anand, get some help.
I knew you would play dumb and act like imperialism is some vague, obscure, indecipherable concept. What a sick joke.
By “imperialism” I mean the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people.
By the twentieth century, the industrial nations were exporting not only goods but capital, in the form of machinery, technology, investments, and loans. To say that we have entered the stage of capital export and investment is not to imply that the plunder of natural resources has ceased. If anything, the despoliation has accelerated.
In fact, the lands of Asia, Africa, and Latin America have long produced great treasures of foods, minerals and other natural resources. That is why the Europeans went through all the trouble to steal and plunder them. One does not go to poor places for self-enrichment. The Third World is rich. Only its people are poor—and it is because of the pillage they have endured.
Historically U.S. capitalist interests have been less interested in acquiring more colonies than in acquiring more wealth, preferring to make off with the treasure of other nations without bothering to own and administer the nations themselves. Under neoimperialism, the flag stays home, while the dollar goes everywhere—frequently assisted by the sword.”
ANAND – YOU ARE NO LONGER WELCOME ON MY BLOG. STOP POSTING HERE. REPEAT STOP POSTING HERE
No, I don’t want to argue with you. No, I do not want to hear any explanations. I am just asking you to leave this blog alone.
Thanks in advance.
The Saker
Why does the guy with the least to say (Anand) always have the longest posts. Reminds of a saying my father used to repeat…”those who know don’t say, and those who say don’t know.”
This might be true for alot of us, but Anand takes the cake.
Reading his posts, I am reminded of the only half-articulate writing style of other very recent Indian immigrants. The self-satisfied smirking at Americans who fear their country is being sold out to the lowest bidder by an unscrupulous elite loyal to Israel, and their culture is being slowly, inexorably extinguished by masses of third world immigrants with tenuous loyalty to the nation also characterizes many of them as well.
Ok, I just read what I wrote. That was a little too xenophobic. More than I intended. Sorry, everyone.
no, nothing xenophobic here. take that from the ‘legal alien’ which I am. Anand really is a rather extreme case of the recent immigrant who is more Papist than the Pope, if you see what I mean. And no matter how hard he tries to be ‘red white n blue” he abjectly fails each time and only looks even *more* like the immigrant that he is.
He would be much happier to accept this (most honorable) status as an Indian immigrant than waste his time cheering for Israel and the USA…
More evidence of US support for the Santa Cruz mob
http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff05062008.html