Former beauty queen and 3rd-rate actress Maria Conchita Alonso is a real mess

On April 18, 2009, at the OAS summit at Port of Spain in Trinidad & Tobago, Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez shook hands.

VHeadline commentarist Arthur Shaw writes:

A month later (in May) Maria Conchita Alonso ... a decidedly former beauty queen and third-rate actress with a insatiable appetite for reactionary and lunatic politics, blasted "President Obama over his friendly handshake with Hugo Chavez." Alonso doesn't like Obama treating Chavez like a "good guy."

Maria Conchita Alonso, 52, is a 1985 Grammy Award-nominated Cuban-born Venezuelan singer and actress. She took her first steps in show business when she was crowned Miss Teenager Of The World in 1971 and was 1st runner-up of the Miss Venezuela pageant in 1975; she was also a finalist at the 1975 Miss World pageant won by the more beautiful, Puerto Rico's Wilnelia Merced. After her beauty faded rather early, she became a fairly well known actress in Venezuela. She appeared in about a half dozen Hollywood films which mostly flopped at the box office. She regularly hams on TV in the USA. Politically, Alonso is a critic of Hugo Chavez, whom she describes as "dictator" or "Hitler." She denounces Venezuelan citizens as "terrorists" when they vote for Chavez. She is a familiar face or voice on reactionary US talk shows (TV and radio), including the snake pit better known as the "The O'Reilly Factor." In 2008, she endorsed and campaigned for John McCain; but she may have damaged, with her abrasive personality, his race for the White House. In short, Maria Conchita Alonso is a mess.

So often with the reactionary segment of bourgeois society in the USA, everything is turned upside down. This is precisely the case with the reactionary meaning of the term "good guy."

In the reactionary sector of US politics, the good guy is the guy who kidnaps people , in the twisted morality of reactionaries in the USA and elsewhere. The good guy is the guy who murders people .

So, the scum of bourgeois society sees the "good guy" as the guy who renders, detains, enhances his interrogations, and punishes people extra-judicially.

We can't expect the scum to come flat-out and confess that this is his definition of "good guy." But, that this is indeed the definition of "good guy" favored most by the scum appears clearly from the context in which the scum uses the term "good guy." We of course assume, in this analysis, that only scum kidnaps, concentrates, tortures, and murders.

Perhaps, it will be useful if we give an example of this "context" we mentioned. Alonso endorsed and campaigned for John McCain. So, McCain is one of her "good guys." McCain is the father of the "surge" in Iraq, that is to say, the increase of the monthly genocide rate from about 30,000 Iraqi fatalities a month to about 50,000 fatalities a month. Therefore, Alonso's "good guy" is conceptually a highly skilled and savage killer.

Is it Obama or is it Chavez who kidnaps, throws people into concentration camps, tortures, and murders them?

Clearly, Obama, following the example of his predecessor in office, commits the atrocities, we documented above in the 5th paragraph of this piece. As for kidnapping, Obama himself openly confesses that he will keep doing it. As for the worldwide network of 70 concentration camps with over 500,000 political prisoners and prisoners of war, he says he will keep them open, except for one camp Obama operates on stolen property in Cuba. As for torture, he says enhanced interrogation isn't always torture, as if not calling torture what it is makes a difference. He says those who tortured during the Bush regime have impunity, handing an "equal protection" defense to those who torture during Obama's regime. He says photographs and other evidence of torture cannot be released, spurring his people to torture without fear of disclosure. As for murder, he has stepped up murder in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere by US Special Forces trained as assassins.

Chavez, on the other hand, doesn't commit any of these atrocities. Consequently, the scum don't consider Chavez to be a "good guy" or a "good ole boy."

Let's restate or layout Alonso's argument in somewhat syllogistic form to get more conceptual clarity about her point or line of thought. The universal premise seems to be -- the leader of world capitalism shakes hands with "good guys" The particular premise of the argument is -- Chavez isn't a "good guy." So, guess what?

The conclusion is -- the leader of world capitalism should not shake Chavez' hand.

Maria Conchita Alonso's trick is that she smuggles into the argument a concealed or insane definition of "good guy," for clearly Obama is her "good guy" not despite his atrocities, but because of his atrocities. So, Maria Conchita Alonso is right to criticize Obama for treating Chavez like a "good guy" when Chavez doesn't even kidnap, concentrate, torture, and murder people. Chavez is not entitled to be treated like a "good guy" under the perverse and pathological ethics that prevails among the reactionary scum of bourgeois society. Representing the views and values of reactionary scum, Alonso expresses the bitter disappointment of the scum in Obama.

But we on the revolutionary side in bourgeois society and elsewhere are also obliged to criticize Hugo Chavez for the handshake with Obama, because, by the handshake, Chavez treats Obama as if Obama were a good guy, under the ethics that prevail among clean and decent people who struggle for peace and justice. We on the revolutionary side can't be sanctimonious. The ethics that prevail among clean and decent people makes them recoil in horror before the utterly foul principles and persons that adopt kidnapping, concentration camps, torture, and murder as government policies, because when the state becomes a psychopath it is a million times more dangerous than an individual psychopath.

How could Chavez shake hands with a monster like Obama who apes or mimics the animalistic policies and the bestiality of George W. Bush every opportunity Obama gets?

We hope Chavez thoroughly washed the blood off of his hand and applied disinfectant after the handshake with the murderous Obama.

When we concede that Maria Conchita Alonso draws a valid conclusion after she applies her principles to the handshaking incident between Obama and Chavez, we do not embrace the filthy principles to which Maria Conchita Alonso subscribes. Our concession is limited. We are only saying that given the rising, spreading, and thickening rottenness of her moral principles, the conclusion Maria Conchita Alonso reaches is consistent with her principles. It is important that others don't twist our concession to Maria Conchita Alonso into something that it is not.

Specifically, we don't urge others to follow the example of Maria Conchita Alonso and define a "good guy" as somebody who kidnaps, concentrates, tortures, and murders. Nor do we impute the particularly rotten principles of the reactionary segment of bourgeois society to the whole of bourgeois society.

Evidently, Maria Conchita Alonso sees herself as a "good gal" ... or a good ole gal. She certainly talks and acts like one. In most of her performances, she detained and tortured her audiences.

CONCLUSION

Maria Conchita Alonso is a product of the genetic engineering experiments conducted at Jurassic Park. It is too bad that so far she hasn't been offered a role on stage or screen to play a reptile. In such a role, she will .. for sure ... crawl or run or fly away with an Oscar for best performer.

For how can someone who believes and lives in accordance with the principle that the serpent is the good guy, fail to outshine all rivals.