So what now?
R.I.P. ....? :hmm:
Looks like the CIA plot to give him cancer has come to fruition.
on the 60th anniversary of Stalin's death? Classy.
Just saw this on Twitter on my way here.
It will be interesting to see how this develops.
Was just reading this. Seems they are blaming the US for infecting him with cancer.
Quote from: Iormlund on March 05, 2013, 05:04:50 PM
So what now?
VP has already been annointed, so he takes over. He'll be insecure, so even more repression of the urban opposition.
Economy will continue it's swan dive.
R.I.P.
:punk:
Fox News wastes no time to go :nelson: at Cuban doctors. http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2013/02/28/cuban-medicine-killed-hugo-chavez/ Classy.
Eh one corrupt populist goes down, plenty of others waiting to take his place.
Finally.
:shutup:
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2013, 05:06:26 PM
on the 60th anniversary of Stalin's death? Classy.
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2013, 05:30:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 05, 2013, 05:29:04 PM
:shutup:
:rolleyes:
What? :unsure:
I was just going for a "if you can't say anything nice..." kind of vibe, but in smilie form.
What will Evito Morales do now? :cry:
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2013, 05:35:19 PM
What will Evito Morales do now? :cry:
Look astoundingly handsome as always.
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2013, 05:36:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 05, 2013, 05:35:19 PM
What will Evito Morales do now? :cry:
Look astoundingly handsome as always.
He has awesome Erik Estrada hair.
Euro nations flying flags at half mast?
Quote from: Berkut on March 05, 2013, 05:55:25 PM
Euro nations flying flags at half mast?
I do feel sorta bad for Martim.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2013, 05:09:49 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on March 05, 2013, 05:04:50 PM
So what now?
VP has already been annointed, so he takes over. He'll be insecure, so even more repression of the urban opposition.
Economy will continue it's swan dive.
:hmm:
Yahoo News says this:
QuoteHis death sets up a snap presidential election after his illness prevented him from taking the oath of office when he was re-elected last year.
Under the constitution, the head of Congress, Diosdado Cabello, would assume the interim presidency
So, do I smell...
(a) Potential civil war, assuming you have a source for VP takes over?
or
(b) the normal low standards of journalistic accuracy that seem to apply these days.
I suppose poor people will freeze this winter after all. :(
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2013, 05:23:53 PM
Fox News wastes no time to go :nelson: at Cuban doctors. http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2013/02/28/cuban-medicine-killed-hugo-chavez/ Classy.
Well, that guy quotes a Venezuelan doctor specialized in sleep disorders that works in Florida and claims to have had access to Chávez and his medical record, and takes it even further with his own axe to grind. Something in there really calls for pinches of salt to be taken but the FOX guy is more than happy to take it at face value. Great journalism.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2013, 06:10:21 PM
I suppose poor people will freeze this winter after all. :(
No more Chavez PR stunts. :(
Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2013, 05:05:25 PM
R.I.P. ....? :hmm:
no, the only thing worse than a live chavez is an immortal zombie chavez, just look what is happening in cuba with their zombie fidel.
ding dong the caudillo's dead, as with all of his ilk he was one functioning economy and weak neighbor away from being a threat to anybody other than his own people.
I await to see how they handle the succession. Will they choose the Lenin or Franco model?
Quote from: citizen k on March 05, 2013, 06:29:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2013, 06:10:21 PM
I suppose poor people will freeze this winter after all. :(
No more Chavez PR stunts. :(
You know, the other oil companies could've used the PR stunt help themselves, what with record-breaking profits....but no...
Quote from: Viking on March 05, 2013, 06:30:34 PM
I await to see how they handle the succession. Will they choose the Lenin or Franco model?
Hopefully the Washington-Jefferson-Hamilton model they used to have.
But it sounds like after today's comments from the Veep that's not happening anytime soon. :lol:
Goodbye Camarade :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2013, 06:32:43 PM
Quote from: citizen k on March 05, 2013, 06:29:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2013, 06:10:21 PM
I suppose poor people will freeze this winter after all. :(
No more Chavez PR stunts. :(
You know, the other oil companies could've used the PR stunt help themselves, what with record-breaking profits....but no...
Gas is for closers.
Fuck you and the DJIA.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 05, 2013, 06:32:43 PM
You know, the other oil companies could've used the PR stunt help themselves, what with record-breaking profits....but no...
Handouts don't add shareholder value. (https://languish.org/forums/Smileys/langsmiley/sad.gif)
http://www.theonion.com/articles/cancer-topples-chavez-in-bloodless-coup,31540/
:lol:
I dreamed a dream in times gone by
When gas was high
And life worth living
I dreamed Chavez would never die
I dreamed Lenin would be forgiving
Then I was young and unafraid
And taunts were made and used and wasted
There was no gas tax to be paid
No song unsung, no wine untasted
I admit that I will be sadder when Julio César Chávez dies. :blush:
I guess some of the more 'enthusiastic' contributors to this thread will demanding the utmost respect is shown in the future Thatcher RIP thread ?
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2013, 07:17:05 PM
I guess some of the more 'enthusiastic' contributors to this thread will demanding the utmost respect is shown in the future Thatcher RIP thread ?
:bleeding:
Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2013, 07:22:00 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2013, 07:17:05 PM
I guess some of the more 'enthusiastic' contributors to this thread will demanding the utmost respect is shown in the future Thatcher RIP thread ?
:bleeding:
Why they're both broadly idealogical political leaders, both elected and neither of whom might have been to the long term benefit of their respective countries. ;)
I mean, comparing Chavez to Thatcher? :wacko:
I'm going to just assume that you're joking. :)
Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2013, 07:28:23 PM
I mean, comparing Chavez to Thatcher? :wacko:
I'm going to just assume that you're joking. :)
Same evil on their country.
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2013, 07:17:05 PM
I guess some of the more 'enthusiastic' contributors to this thread will demanding the utmost respect is shown in the future Thatcher RIP thread ?
I certainly will be. Comparing Thatcher to some random South American strongman is just foolish.
I think the standard has been, except for a few people who can always get away with it, you don't shit in a "dead thread" unless it is "Haha person X died"
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 05, 2013, 07:33:29 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2013, 07:28:23 PM
I mean, comparing Chavez to Thatcher? :wacko:
I'm going to just assume that you're joking. :)
Same evil on their country.
Don't be stupid, Gay Fox. Britain after Thatcher was a modern, prosperous country.
Goldman Sachs is in mourning.
I think the protocol has been to not shit in specifically eulogy (eulogic?) threads.
So for example if Mongers started a "RIP Kim Jong-un" thread, or if if Marty started a "RIP Wiktor Kzlkswki, Most Famous Polish Gay Activist" thread, it would be bad form to shit in those.
But this was started as a breaking news thread (I assume).
Correct.
:(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 05, 2013, 07:54:11 PM
"RIP Wiktor Kzlkswki, Most Famous Polish Gay Activist"
LOL, "Wiktor"
I find I've no opinion in the burgeoning 'I'm more progressive' fans v haters competition on the left over this. He always seemed to me like a leftist Latin American variation on Putin.
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2013, 07:17:05 PM
I guess some of the more 'enthusiastic' contributors to this thread will demanding the utmost respect is shown in the future Thatcher RIP thread ?
I think people have been very restrained in this thread. :unsure:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2013, 08:43:19 PM
I find I've no opinion in the burgeoning 'I'm more progressive' fans v haters competition on the left over this. He always seemed to me like a leftist Latin American variation on Putin.
But you say that as an avowed blairite, so your disdain for the left and centre is inherent in your post. ;)
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2013, 08:59:47 PM
But you say that as an avowed blairite, so your disdain for the left and centre is inherent in your post. ;)
Blairism's beyond left or right. It's forward! :wub:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2013, 08:43:19 PM
I find I've no opinion in the burgeoning 'I'm more progressive' fans v haters competition on the left over this. He always seemed to me like a leftist Latin American variation on Putin.
Well Chavez took a fairly prosperous S. American country and managed to wrecked the economy. Mostly he seems to be a blowhard who said incendiary things that pleased some of the anti-American kooks and warmed many a right wing heart with the idea there might still be dangerous leftists hiding in the jungles of South America planning the destruction of the US.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-htLycmgUFyQ%2FUPYd0Qud3II%2FAAAAAAAAADs%2F16hI5_TfCHw%2Fs1600%2FWeekend%2Bat%2BChavez.jpg&hash=eca7c247ceb7abfa18eef1c0bf9a9e6c1df9d675)
Too soon? :unsure:
:lol: Too late.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2013, 09:04:15 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2013, 08:43:19 PM
I find I've no opinion in the burgeoning 'I'm more progressive' fans v haters competition on the left over this. He always seemed to me like a leftist Latin American variation on Putin.
Well Chavez took a fairly prosperous S. American country and managed to wrecked the economy. Mostly he seems to be a blowhard who said incendiary things that pleased some of the anti-American kooks and warmed many a right wing heart with the idea there might still be dangerous leftists hiding in the jungles of South America planning the destruction of the US.
Depends how you define prosperous, if you mean a country with massive income and wealth inequalities, even by US standards, then perhaps. Previously a hell of a lot of the Venezuelan people didn't get much if anything out of their state.
Now you can bang on about the relative decline of the oil industry/economy, but some of his social policies have made some real impacts with the some of the country's poor. Aren't governments supposed to do stuff like that or do you favour a Darwinian struggle for survival as a model for political structures ?
Of course, GDP has declined, supposedly corrupt has got worse, from an already bad position, but he was after all the democratic choice of their system, let them do what they want and accept the consequences.
But do carry on, as I find the more idealogical driven North American commentators in this thread rather amusing. :cool:
Oh, we find you equally as amusing. :)
Well, a falling tide lowers all boats. Now I'll admit that a lot of American right wingers had a weird fascination with the man, but let's not pretend he did a lot of good.
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2013, 07:44:54 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2013, 07:17:05 PM
I guess some of the more 'enthusiastic' contributors to this thread will demanding the utmost respect is shown in the future Thatcher RIP thread ?
I certainly will be. Comparing Thatcher to some random South American strongman is just foolish.
Yeah, no comparison, Thatcher had aircraft carriers :contract:
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2013, 07:47:48 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 05, 2013, 07:33:29 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2013, 07:28:23 PM
I mean, comparing Chavez to Thatcher? :wacko:
I'm going to just assume that you're joking. :)
Same evil on their country.
Don't be stupid, Gay Fox. Britain after Thatcher was a modern, prosperous country.
Yes, Evil.
I also ain't gonna revel in his death. Death by cancer is nasty and painful. We should have couped his ass, shot him in the head and dumped him in a cornfield like Joe Pesci in Casino.
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2013, 07:26:20 PM
Why they're both broadly idealogical political leaders, both elected and neither of whom might have been to the long term benefit of their respective countries. ;)
THE COAL MINES!!!1111
Worst tragedy ever. All Britons should be underground breathing toxic fumes like God intended.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2013, 08:43:19 PM
I find I've no opinion in the burgeoning 'I'm more progressive' fans v haters competition on the left over this. He always seemed to me like a leftist Latin American variation on Putin.
He seemed like a Latin American variation of...wait no he was the classic Latin American dictator populist who have ruined South America for centuries. Anybody sad to see him go shouldn't worry. Plenty of more just like him.
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2013, 09:31:08 PM
But do carry on, as I find the more idealogical driven North American commentators in this thread rather amusing. :cool:
I find the ignorant out of touch Euros who see shit and call it gold pretty amusing.
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2013, 10:19:27 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2013, 07:26:20 PM
Why they're both broadly idealogical political leaders, both elected and neither of whom might have been to the long term benefit of their respective countries. ;)
THE COAL MINES!!!1111
Worst tragedy ever. All Britons should be underground breathing toxic fumes like God intended.
I'm also glad the britons on the surface aren't breathing toxic fumes either.
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2013, 10:21:35 PM
He seemed like a Latin American variation of...wait no he was the classic Latin American dictator populist who have ruined South America for centuries.
Only in America would the image of a classic Latin American dictator be a left-wing populist rather than a Colonel in sinister sunglasses dropping left-wing populists out of helicopters :P
Had his coup in the 90s succeeded, I'd agree. But he was democratically elected and won repeated elections which were free if nowhere near fair. He ruled autocratically moulding and remoulding the constitution to suit his needs. All of which is a part of that new autocratic style that Putin has sort-of perfected. But he was an autocrat not a dictator. Putin, not Castro.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2013, 10:28:40 PM
Only in America would the image of a classic Latin American dictator be a left-wing populist rather than a Colonel in sinister sunglasses dropping left-wing populists out of helicopters :P
There are varieties :P
Well I guess you have a point on the Putin comparison there.
An autocrat and a dictator are the same thing. Both rule by force and nothing else.
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2013, 10:41:50 PM
An autocrat and a dictator are the same thing. Both rule by force and nothing else.
Untrue. An autocrat is simply a person who rules by themselves.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2013, 10:28:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2013, 10:21:35 PM
He seemed like a Latin American variation of...wait no he was the classic Latin American dictator populist who have ruined South America for centuries.
Only in America would the image of a classic Latin American dictator be a left-wing populist rather than a Colonel in sinister sunglasses dropping left-wing populists out of helicopters :P
Had his coup in the 90s succeeded, I'd agree. But he was democratically elected and won repeated elections which were free if nowhere near fair. He ruled autocratically moulding and remoulding the constitution to suit his needs. All of which is a part of that new autocratic style that Putin has sort-of perfected. But he was an autocrat not a dictator. Putin, not Castro.
Well, one takes control over the government and distributes the countries resources to his friends and backers dropping his enemies out of helicopters and the other does precisely the same thing.
Chavez corrupted the entire political structure of Venezuela from the courts to PDVSA to stay in power bankrupting the country in the process. Being left wing doesn't excuse that in any way. The thing is that he was a dictator and he did steal an election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_recall_referendum,_2004
Edit: When I use the word dictator here I use it in the colloquial sense of non-democratic ruler rather than the technical dictator of policy and actions the word originally means. You can have democratic dictators, most european parliamentary democracies are dictatorships with the parliament itself being the dictator.
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2013, 10:41:50 PM
An autocrat and a dictator are the same thing. Both rule by force and nothing else.
As I say I think there's a difference between Putin or Chavez and Castro or Hu.
QuoteChavez corrupted the entire political structure of Venezuela from the courts to PDVSA to stay in power bankrupting the country in the process. Being left wing doesn't excuse that in any way.
I don't think I've said anything that goes against this :mellow:
QuoteThe thing is that he was a dictator and he did steal an election.
Interesting though it is an election and I think he won 4-5 Presidential races. I didn't know that but I don't think that makes him a dictator. My understanding, as I say, was that he won free and unfair elections.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2013, 10:55:59 PM
Interesting though it is an election and I think he won 4-5 Presidential races. I didn't know that but I don't think that makes him a dictator. My understanding, as I say, was that he won free and unfair elections.
Elections can be stolen in many ways. The easiest and most common is to make them unfair. Viz Erdogan's threshold, Chavez' dangerous atmosphere to be an opposition politician and Putin's corruption when dealing with a completely cynical electorate. If your defense of Chavez is that he wasn't as bad as Castro then I suggest you need to look at your moral compass.
Is Sheilbh really defending Chavez? Comparisons to Putin are not exactly meant to be compliments.
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2013, 11:06:25 PM
Is Sheilbh really defending Chavez? Comparisons to Putin are not exactly meant to be compliments.
Close enough.
Shelf is queer.
Quote from: Viking on March 05, 2013, 11:04:56 PM
Elections can be stolen in many ways. The easiest and most common is to make them unfair. Viz Erdogan's threshold, Chavez' dangerous atmosphere to be an opposition politician and Putin's corruption when dealing with a completely cynical electorate. If your defense of Chavez is that he wasn't as bad as Castro then I suggest you need to look at your moral compass.
I'm not defending him. I'm saying he wasn't a dictator. If this forum was teeming with Bolivarian revolutionaries I'd be pointing out that he trashed the great democratic legacy of Betancourt, undermined his left-wing goals by tolerating corruption and often catastrophic economic policies and that he won elections through media abuse and intimidation.
But it's not. It's full of people saying he was a dictator. And he wasn't.
He might not have met the textbook definition of dictator, but he was just about as bad as one.
He's almost as bad as Obama!
Quote from: derspiess on March 05, 2013, 11:19:58 PM
He might not have met the textbook definition of dictator, but he was just about as bad as one.
Surely the biggest difference is that you're freer in a 'new autocracy' like Russia or Venezuela or Singapore than in one of the world's dictatorships? I think that is a significant difference.
Think of Saddam v Maliki.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2013, 11:31:39 PM
He's almost as bad as Obama!
Well lets not go crazy here Raz.
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2013, 11:48:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2013, 11:31:39 PM
He's almost as bad as Obama!
Well lets not go crazy here Raz.
Yeah, I suppose you are right. I mean, Obama is communist AND a Muslim, and Chavez is really on a extreme socialist.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2013, 10:28:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2013, 10:21:35 PM
He seemed like a Latin American variation of...wait no he was the classic Latin American dictator populist who have ruined South America for centuries.
Only in America would the image of a classic Latin American dictator be a left-wing populist rather than a Colonel in sinister sunglasses dropping left-wing populists out of helicopters :P
Had his coup in the 90s succeeded, I'd agree. But he was democratically elected and won repeated elections which were free if nowhere near fair. He ruled autocratically moulding and remoulding the constitution to suit his needs. All of which is a part of that new autocratic style that Putin has sort-of perfected. But he was an autocrat not a dictator. Putin, not Castro.
For goodness sakes - Hitler won a "free but not fair" election. So did Mugabe. Hell does Saddam Hussein's 99% re-election count?
You're putting too much emphasis on elections.
Quote from: Barrister on March 05, 2013, 11:54:17 PMYou're putting too much emphasis on elections.
:lol:
You sound like the Communist Party of China.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2013, 11:50:50 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 05, 2013, 11:48:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 05, 2013, 11:31:39 PM
He's almost as bad as Obama!
Well lets not go crazy here Raz.
Yeah, I suppose you are right. I mean, Obama is communist AND a Muslim, and Chavez is really on a extreme socialist.
Obama bin Stalin
Quote from: Iormlund on March 05, 2013, 05:04:50 PM
So what now?
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/625458_267656403369299_1536592875_n.jpg)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F2%2F28%2FXi_Jinping_Sept._19%252C_2012.jpg%2F220px-Xi_Jinping_Sept._19%252C_2012.jpg&hash=34f7e881ed8662fffe3ab20fb2695eba218544d2)
This guy smiles at your "enemies of democracy list".
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 05, 2013, 07:33:29 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2013, 07:28:23 PM
I mean, comparing Chavez to Thatcher? :wacko:
I'm going to just assume that you're joking. :)
Same evil on their country.
ain't that the truth? The UK is a dump, its economy a laughing stock of the whole world.
:rolleyes:
You are joking, but the UK economy actually is in a pretty bad shape.
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2013, 04:45:03 AM
You are joking, but the UK economy actually is in a pretty bad shape.
clearly the fault of Thatcher.
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2013, 04:48:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2013, 04:45:03 AM
You are joking, but the UK economy actually is in a pretty bad shape.
clearly the fault of Thatcher.
Well, in a sense, yes. She was the first one who destroyed heavy industry in Britain and put all the eggs in one basket called the City - and in the current crisis this is what hurt the most.
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2013, 05:11:39 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2013, 04:48:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2013, 04:45:03 AM
You are joking, but the UK economy actually is in a pretty bad shape.
clearly the fault of Thatcher.
Well, in a sense, yes. She was the first one who destroyed heavy industry in Britain and put all the eggs in one basket called the City - and in the current crisis this is what hurt the most.
true. low skill industrial jobs are what keeping the first world alive at the moment.
How about high skill industrial jobs?
I work in a manufacturing company white collar job. If the blue collar jobs weren't here anymore, the white collar jobs wouldn't be here either.
Quote from: Zanza on March 06, 2013, 06:49:07 AM
I work in a manufacturing company white collar job. If the blue collar jobs weren't here anymore, the white collar jobs wouldn't be here either.
Get yourself ready for that one, then.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 06:51:10 AM
Quote from: Zanza on March 06, 2013, 06:49:07 AM
I work in a manufacturing company white collar job. If the blue collar jobs weren't here anymore, the white collar jobs wouldn't be here either.
Get yourself ready for that one, then.
Actually in my area of work, we have already outsourced most of the actual work to India, Belarus, Romania and other places. I guess we do less than 10% ourselves, so I am not sure if there is much more we can outsource. Our main work is to coordinate the various consultants and developers from different suppliers and do some project management.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2013, 11:11:52 PM
Quote from: Viking on March 05, 2013, 11:04:56 PM
Elections can be stolen in many ways. The easiest and most common is to make them unfair. Viz Erdogan's threshold, Chavez' dangerous atmosphere to be an opposition politician and Putin's corruption when dealing with a completely cynical electorate. If your defense of Chavez is that he wasn't as bad as Castro then I suggest you need to look at your moral compass.
I'm not defending him. I'm saying he wasn't a dictator. If this forum was teeming with Bolivarian revolutionaries I'd be pointing out that he trashed the great democratic legacy of Betancourt, undermined his left-wing goals by tolerating corruption and often catastrophic economic policies and that he won elections through media abuse and intimidation.
But it's not. It's full of people saying he was a dictator. And he wasn't.
He was in the colloquial sense that he was a non-democratic ruler. You are setting the standard for dictatorship at mass murdering head of state. I suggest that you are trying to avoid the dissonance you would have to deal with since you see chavez as being on your side emotionally.
Quote from: Zanza on March 06, 2013, 07:30:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 06:51:10 AM
Quote from: Zanza on March 06, 2013, 06:49:07 AM
I work in a manufacturing company white collar job. If the blue collar jobs weren't here anymore, the white collar jobs wouldn't be here either.
Get yourself ready for that one, then.
Actually in my area of work, we have already outsourced most of the actual work to India, Belarus, Romania and other places. I guess we do less than 10% ourselves, so I am not sure if there is much more we can outsource. Our main work is to coordinate the various consultants and developers from different suppliers and do some project management.
So then a strange statement from you given that your manufacturing company has few white collar jobs where you are. :hmm:
In light of this discussion, I wonder what languish thinks of wiki's list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator#List_of_dictators_in_modern_times
Quote from: Zanza on March 06, 2013, 07:30:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 06:51:10 AM
Quote from: Zanza on March 06, 2013, 06:49:07 AM
I work in a manufacturing company white collar job. If the blue collar jobs weren't here anymore, the white collar jobs wouldn't be here either.
Get yourself ready for that one, then.
Actually in my area of work, we have already outsourced most of the actual work to India, Belarus, Romania and other places. I guess we do less than 10% ourselves, so I am not sure if there is much more we can outsource. Our main work is to coordinate the various consultants and developers from different suppliers and do some project management.
Only a matter of time before they figure out how to outsource you. :)
Quote from: Barrister on March 05, 2013, 11:54:17 PM
For goodness sakes - Hitler won a "free but not fair" election. So did Mugabe. Hell does Saddam Hussein's 99% re-election count?
You're putting too much emphasis on elections.
Not really. There's all the organisation and campaigning of the opposition that goes with those free and unfair elections. I mean of those examples and Caracas, where would you rather be an opposition activist? Or for that matter someone who simply disagrees with the regime?
QuoteHe was in the colloquial sense that he was a non-democratic ruler. You are setting the standard for dictatorship at mass murdering head of state.
Not really. I mean Castro and Hu, comparatively, weren't mass-murderers. I think dictatorships don't tolerate dissent very easily outside of occasional controlled expressions. They normally have secret polices and spy on their people (though I think Chavez got some Cuban intelligence help after 2005). They routinely and institutionally abuse human rights. They don't allow organised opposition.
QuoteI suggest that you are trying to avoid the dissonance you would have to deal with since you see chavez as being on your side emotionally.
No. I've no problem calling a left-wing dictator - Chavez or Mugabe - precisely that. I don't really have any attachment or emotion towards Chavez. He always struck me as a preposterous sideshow - both for American right-wingers and the soft left. He wasn't a threat or a hero but an autocrat who, like Putin, ended up screwing his country and leaving a mess.
I'd suggest it's your habit of not being able to oppose something without also getting morally outraged and the general internet trend to hyperbole that's behind it.
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2013, 05:11:39 AM
Well, in a sense, yes. She was the first one who destroyed heavy industry in Britain and put all the eggs in one basket called the City - and in the current crisis this is what hurt the most.
I have a hard time believing subsidizing out of date and uncompetitive government owned industries is the best way to weather a financial crisis but perhaps not. Even if they were still doing this wouldn't the City be the main source of tax funds needed?
Quote from: Zanza on March 06, 2013, 02:55:36 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F2%2F28%2FXi_Jinping_Sept._19%252C_2012.jpg%2F220px-Xi_Jinping_Sept._19%252C_2012.jpg&hash=34f7e881ed8662fffe3ab20fb2695eba218544d2)
This guy smiles at your "enemies of democracy list".
He should be. He has invested so much money in making democracy work.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2013, 08:36:23 AM
No. I've no problem calling a left-wing dictator - Chavez or Mugabe - precisely that. I don't really have any attachment or emotion towards Chavez. He always struck me as a preposterous sideshow - both for American right-wingers and the soft left. He wasn't a threat or a hero but an autocrat who, like Putin, ended up screwing his country and leaving a mess.
Yep. He only attracted attention because he barked alot. Well and he funded those groups in Columbia that was shitty.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2013, 08:44:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2013, 05:11:39 AM
Well, in a sense, yes. She was the first one who destroyed heavy industry in Britain and put all the eggs in one basket called the City - and in the current crisis this is what hurt the most.
I have a hard time believing subsidizing out of date and uncompetitive government owned industries is the best way to weather a financial crisis but perhaps not. Even if they were still doing this wouldn't the City be the main source of tax funds needed?
Apparently, Martinus thinks he would be of better use for society and economy in a coal mine than in a lawyer's office. And frankly, he is right :P
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2013, 10:41:50 PM
An autocrat and a dictator are the same thing. Both rule by force and nothing else.
And the will of the people. He was elected several times, don't forget.
Quote from: Josephus on March 06, 2013, 09:57:29 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2013, 10:41:50 PM
An autocrat and a dictator are the same thing. Both rule by force and nothing else.
And the will of the people. He was elected several times, don't forget.
Yeah that is why I eventually found the Putin comparison pretty convincing. It is the new way of doing things.
I think a quote from Baroness Margaret Thatcher, Protector of Western Civilization, Savior of the British Realm, is very appropriate for this thread: "Socialism is a great system until you run out of other people's money."
Venezuela could be reaching that point.
That's not a direct quotation. :P
You're a homo.
:lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.reuters.com%2Freuters-dealzone%2Ffiles%2F2008%2F04%2Fchevy-chase-pic.jpg&hash=d815c208f9ce9aeea6daa4ca4c4c7b1a8e52be19)
This breaking news just in-- Generalissimo Hugo Chavez is still dead!
Meanwhile, Castro continues on. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 06, 2013, 12:44:22 PM
Meanwhile, Castro continues on. :P
Thanks to some recently harvested organs. :whistle:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 06, 2013, 12:44:22 PM
Meanwhile, Castro continues on. :P
The Revolution will never die. Or shave.
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2013, 05:11:39 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 06, 2013, 04:48:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 06, 2013, 04:45:03 AM
You are joking, but the UK economy actually is in a pretty bad shape.
clearly the fault of Thatcher.
Well, in a sense, yes. She was the first one who destroyed heavy industry in Britain and put all the eggs in one basket called the City - and in the current crisis this is what hurt the most.
Thatcher destroyed heavy industry in Britain? I suggest you educate yourself a bit. Read up on the shipbuilding industry, for example. Heavy industry in Britain had been decimated long before Thatcher came around.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 01:20:58 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 06, 2013, 12:44:22 PM
Meanwhile, Castro continues on. :P
The Revolution will never die. Or shave.
Unfortunately it stopped smoking cigars. The one redeeming quality Castro had :(
Quote from: Josephus on March 06, 2013, 09:57:29 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2013, 10:41:50 PM
An autocrat and a dictator are the same thing. Both rule by force and nothing else.
And the will of the people. He was elected several times, don't forget.
Yeah, just like Saddam.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 11:03:33 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.reuters.com%2Freuters-dealzone%2Ffiles%2F2008%2F04%2Fchevy-chase-pic.jpg&hash=d815c208f9ce9aeea6daa4ca4c4c7b1a8e52be19)
This breaking news just in-- Generalissimo Hugo Chavez is still dead!
:thumbsup:
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 01:50:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 01:20:58 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 06, 2013, 12:44:22 PM
Meanwhile, Castro continues on. :P
The Revolution will never die. Or shave.
Unfortunately it stopped smoking cigars. The one redeeming quality Castro had :(
When the CIA tries to smuggle one full of explosives in with your name on it, it tends to put you off your tobacco.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 02:11:34 PM
When the CIA tries to smuggle one full of explosives in with your name on it, it tends to put you off your tobacco.
:D
Quote from: Neil on March 06, 2013, 01:52:32 PM
Quote from: Josephus on March 06, 2013, 09:57:29 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 05, 2013, 10:41:50 PM
An autocrat and a dictator are the same thing. Both rule by force and nothing else.
And the will of the people. He was elected several times, don't forget.
Yeah, just like Saddam.
Actually, no. Nothing like Saddam. Venezuela's elections were free and multi-party. In Iraq I think it was "Saddam for President OR SHOOT ME"
Anyways,here's a good article on his legacy:
http://www.thenation.com/article/173212/legacy-hugo-chavez#
Quote from: Josephus on March 06, 2013, 02:39:02 PM
Anyways,here's a good article on his legacy:
http://www.thenation.com/article/173212/legacy-hugo-chavez#
Wow you have a hard on for this guy eh? As I said, don't worry plenty more like him.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2013, 02:48:38 PM
Quote from: Josephus on March 06, 2013, 02:39:02 PM
Anyways,here's a good article on his legacy:
http://www.thenation.com/article/173212/legacy-hugo-chavez#
Wow you have a hard on for this guy eh? As I said, don't worry plenty more like him.
I suspect we're being trolled. Or at least I hope we are.
Pointing out that Hugo's elections were more free than Saddam's is not trolling.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 03:32:51 PM
Pointing out that Hugo's elections were more free than Saddam's is not trolling.
One can speak the truth and still be trolling.
Quote from: Barrister on March 06, 2013, 03:37:52 PM
One can speak the truth and still be trolling.
Certainly.
How does that relate to the Malt's post?
Yi, you've lost me.
Quote from: Barrister on March 06, 2013, 03:37:52 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 03:32:51 PM
Pointing out that Hugo's elections were more free than Saddam's is not trolling.
One can speak the truth and still be trolling.
:yes: Beeb is stupid.
Chavez was a big anti-American, antisemitic dickhead who went out of his way to be a right real pisshead to Washington and whose bullshit foreign policy won't be missed, but that doesn't negate the reforms he made in attempting to return some equality to Venezuela's rich-poor imbalance. I know that's a foreign concept here in the United States of Wall Street, but he actually improved a lot of impoverished lives.
Americans just can't stand Latin American leaders that don't march lockstep with the US and look the anti-Communist part straight out of early 1980's Central Casting. Pretty funny for a hemisphere we've pretty much ignored since Roosevelt, unless it's to topple a government or ignore right-wing death squads whacking herds of Jesuits and nuns.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 03:52:47 PM
Chavez was a big anti-American, antisemitic dickhead who went out of his way to be a right real pisshead to Washington and whose bullshit foreign policy won't be missed, but that doesn't negate the reforms he made in attempting to return some equality to Venezuela's rich-poor imbalance. I know that's a foreign concept here in the United States of Wall Street, but he actually improved a lot of impoverished lives.
Americans just can't stand Latin American leaders that don't march lockstep with the US and look the anti-Communist part straight out of early 1980's Central Casting. Pretty funny for a hemisphere we've pretty much ignored since Roosevelt, unless it's to topple a government or ignore right-wing death squads whacking herds of Jesuits and nuns.
My interpretation was that he was giving the poor lots of stuff because they were his support for his regime and ultimately his policies were unsustainable and would do nothing for the poor in the long term. He was blowing his countriy's resources to pay off his peeps for his own personal power. If I am wrong and things in Venezuela are better than good for Chavez. I doubt it though nothing he did had not been tried before and shown to be a failure.
I make an attempt to pay pretty close attention to Latin America, being in Texas I think it is a basic civic responsibility. I think it is just fine for Latin American countries to piss on the US if they ultimately are doing good things for their people, I mean most of the time the US doesn't notice and what is good for Latin America is ultimately good for Texas. I think Chavez got the attention because of the fact it was a major oil producing country, he was involved in the Columbian crap, and he had a natural ability for attention grabbing buffoonery.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 03:46:18 PM
Yi, you've lost me.
How so. You seemed to be calling Josephus a troll. I don't see how his post makes him a troll.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 03:59:03 PM
How so. You seemed to be calling Josephus a troll. I don't see how his post makes him a troll.
It was because of the article he linked, not anything he posted.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 03:52:47 PM
Americans just can't stand Latin American leaders that don't march lockstep with the US and look the anti-Communist part straight out of early 1980's Central Casting.
This is utter, undiluted bullshit.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2013, 03:58:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 03:52:47 PM
Chavez was a big anti-American, antisemitic dickhead who went out of his way to be a right real pisshead to Washington and whose bullshit foreign policy won't be missed, but that doesn't negate the reforms he made in attempting to return some equality to Venezuela's rich-poor imbalance. I know that's a foreign concept here in the United States of Wall Street, but he actually improved a lot of impoverished lives.
Americans just can't stand Latin American leaders that don't march lockstep with the US and look the anti-Communist part straight out of early 1980's Central Casting. Pretty funny for a hemisphere we've pretty much ignored since Roosevelt, unless it's to topple a government or ignore right-wing death squads whacking herds of Jesuits and nuns.
My interpretation was that he was giving the poor lots of stuff because they were his support for his regime and ultimately his policies were unsustainable and would do nothing for the poor in the long term. He was blowing his countriy's resources to pay off his peeps for his own personal power. If I am wrong and things in Venezuela are better than good for Chavez. I doubt it though nothing he did had not been tried before and shown to be a failure.
I make an attempt to pay pretty close attention to Latin America, being in Texas I think it is a basic civic responsibility. I think it is just fine for Latin American countries to piss on the US if they ultimately are doing good things for their people, I mean most of the time the US doesn't notice and what is good for Latin America is ultimately good for Texas. I think Chavez got the attention because of the fact it was a major oil producing country, he was involved in the Columbian crap, and he had a natural ability for attention grabbing buffoonery.
Same here.
The Oliver Stone/Sean Penn crowd mourn their hero....
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hugo-chavez-dead-sean-penn-426205
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 03:59:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 03:52:47 PM
Americans just can't stand Latin American leaders that don't march lockstep with the US and look the anti-Communist part straight out of early 1980's Central Casting.
This is utter, undiluted bullshit.
Find a left-leaning Latin American head of state since 1945 we didn't try to assassinate, topple or support insurgents troops against covertly or overtly. We like our Latin American despots right-wing, not left-wing.
C'mon, the School of the Americas wasn't just for narco-trafficking training.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 04:07:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 03:59:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 03:52:47 PM
Americans just can't stand Latin American leaders that don't march lockstep with the US and look the anti-Communist part straight out of early 1980's Central Casting.
This is utter, undiluted bullshit.
Find a left-leaning Latin American head of state since 1945 we didn't try to assassinate, topple or support insurgents troops against covertly or overtly. We like our Latin American despots right-wing, not left-wing.
C'mon, the School of the Americas wasn't just for narco-trafficking training.
Lula / Dilma in Brazil.
Now give me something harder to answer.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2013, 03:58:06 PM
My interpretation was that he was giving the poor lots of stuff because they were his support for his regime and ultimately his policies were unsustainable and would do nothing for the poor in the long term. He was blowing his countriy's resources to pay off his peeps for his own personal power. If I am wrong and things in Venezuela are better than good for Chavez. I doubt it though nothing he did had not been tried before and shown to be a failure.
Yes, socialist reforms and nationalization are always just a PR ruse just to appease the groundlings.
QuoteI make an attempt to pay pretty close attention to Latin America, being in Texas I think it is a basic civic responsibility. I think it is just fine for Latin American countries to piss on the US if they ultimately are doing good things for their people, I mean most of the time the US doesn't notice and what is good for Latin America is ultimately good for Texas. I think Chavez got the attention because of the fact it was a major oil producing country, he was involved in the Columbian crap, and he had a natural ability for attention grabbing buffoonery.
The only thing Texans are interested in are dead Mexicans.
Quote from: Barrister on March 06, 2013, 04:11:35 PM
Now give me something harder to answer.
I wasn't fucking talking to you.
I'm surprised. I wouldn't have pegged DMoney for a Chavez supporter.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 04:07:57 PM
Find a left-leaning Latin American head of state since 1945 we didn't try to assassinate, topple or support insurgents troops against covertly or overtly. We like our Latin American despots right-wing, not left-wing.
C'mon, the School of the Americas wasn't just for narco-trafficking training.
The Kircheners, de Lula, that broad Beeb mentioned, that schmuck in Ecuador, that loser in Bolivia, Chavez.
Pure bullshit. Pat Robertson is not "Americans."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 04:12:21 PM
Yes, socialist reforms and nationalization are always just a PR ruse just to appease the groundlings.
Not always just in this case....probably.
QuoteThe only thing Texans are interested in are dead Mexicans.
Hey I am pro-Mexican...except on Cinco de Mayo. What a horrible holiday. At least real Mexicans do not celebrate it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 04:13:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 06, 2013, 04:11:35 PM
Now give me something harder to answer.
I wasn't fucking talking to you.
Raffael Correa has been left alone as well, despite being close buddies with Chavez. Same with Evo Morales.
Socialists governed in Chile for about 20 years, from 1990 till 2010.
And I'm probably forgetting some of the smaller countries.
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2013, 04:14:28 PM
I'm surprised. I wouldn't have pegged DMoney for a Chavez supporter.
I'm not. Glad he's dead. But I'm not going to blithely ignore or not acknowledge some of his reformations simply because I didn't like him, either.
For a bunch of snot-nosed, over-educated fuckdicks that think they're up on current affairs, Languishites have a habit of doing just that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 04:16:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 04:07:57 PM
Find a left-leaning Latin American head of state since 1945 we didn't try to assassinate, topple or support insurgents troops against covertly or overtly. We like our Latin American despots right-wing, not left-wing.
C'mon, the School of the Americas wasn't just for narco-trafficking training.
The Kircheners, de Lula, that broad Beeb mentioned, that schmuck in Ecuador, that loser in Bolivia, Chavez.
Pure bullshit. Pat Robertson is not "Americans."
You should use google before answering, it makes you look like you know what you're talking about, and not stuck asking 'who is that schmuck in Ecuador..." :ph34r:
Quote from: Barrister on March 06, 2013, 04:19:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 04:13:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 06, 2013, 04:11:35 PM
Now give me something harder to answer.
I wasn't fucking talking to you.
Raffael Correa has been left alone as well, despite being close buddies with Chavez. Same with Evo Morales.
Socialists governed in Chile for about 20 years, from 1990 till 2010.
And I'm probably forgetting some of the smaller countries.
I still wasn't fucking talking to you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 04:20:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2013, 04:14:28 PM
I'm surprised. I wouldn't have pegged DMoney for a Chavez supporter.
I'm not. Glad he's dead. But I'm not going to blithely ignore or not acknowledge some of his reformations simply because I didn't like him, either.
For a bunch of snot-nosed, over-educated fuckdicks that think they're up on current affairs, Languishites have a habit of doing just that.
Oh so profound. Glad we have you here to point out that it is a nuanced situation. :thumbsup:
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2013, 04:14:28 PM
I'm surprised. I wouldn't have pegged DMoney for a Chavez supporter.
It follows his supposed love for Fidel.
I hope all of you die slowly in a Citgo gas station explosion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 04:16:54 PM
The Kircheners,
Googly-eyed Nestor's dead, but it's not too late to go after the bitch.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 04:24:51 PM
Googly-eyed Nestor's dead, but it's not too late to go after the bitch.
No point.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 04:25:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 04:24:51 PM
Googly-eyed Nestor's dead, but it's not too late to go after the bitch.
No point.
Disagree. Would please a great many people.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 04:23:21 PM
I hope all of you die slowly in a Citgo gas station explosion.
Here's what left-leaning Slate had to say about the "reforms" of Chavez:
QuoteWhat has Chávez bequeathed his fellow Venezuelans? The hard facts are unmistakable: The oil-rich South American country is in shambles. It has one of the world's highest rates of inflation, largest fiscal deficits, and fastest growing debts. Despite a boom in oil prices, the country's infrastructure is in disrepair—power outages and rolling blackouts are common—and it is more dependent on crude exports than when Chávez arrived. Venezuela is the only member of OPEC that suffers from shortages of staples such as flour, milk, and sugar. Crime and violence skyrocketed during Chávez's years. On an average weekend, more people are killed in Caracas than in Baghdad and Kabul combined. (In 2009, there were 19,133 murders in Venezuela, more than four times the number of a decade earlier.) When the grisly statistics failed to improve, the Venezuelan government simply stopped publishing the figures.
Amuses me a bit that he gave large sums of cash and other goodies to the poor but crime skyrocketed during his reign. I thought I had been told that poverty was supposed to cause crime and that giving things to poor people will reduce the crime rate :D
Quote from: Barrister on March 06, 2013, 04:30:49 PM
Here's what left-leaning Slate had to say about the "reforms" of Chavez:
Still wasn't fucking talking to you.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 03:59:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 03:46:18 PM
Yi, you've lost me.
How so. You seemed to be calling Josephus a troll. I don't see how his post makes him a troll.
Thanks. ;)
I didn't see how either. I was being truthful. Chavez is not quite Saddam. [now saying he was is certainly trolling]. Five years ago I would have argued this here, but I'm getting older and have no energy left to deal with people who only see everything in black and white, and refuse to accept that their way of thinking is often not the only accepted viewpoint. I just laugh and move on.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2012%2F10%2F4%2F1349347635293%2FVenezuela-key-indicators--009.jpg&hash=789105672a97205f000b13ed26a23b94282fdbd4)
Quote from: Josephus on March 06, 2013, 05:11:14 PM
Five years ago I would have argued this here, but I'm getting older and have no energy left to deal with people who only see everything in black and white, and refuse to accept that their way of thinking is often not the only accepted viewpoint. I just laugh and move on.
This is ridiculous and untrue. Plenty of us do not feel he is equal to Saddam. But congrats on feeling superior.
Quote from: Josephus on March 06, 2013, 05:11:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 03:59:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 03:46:18 PM
Yi, you've lost me.
How so. You seemed to be calling Josephus a troll. I don't see how his post makes him a troll.
Thanks. ;)
I didn't see how either. I was being truthful. Chavez is not quite Saddam. [now saying he was is certainly trolling]. Five years ago I would have argued this here, but I'm getting older and have no energy left to deal with people who only see everything in black and white, and refuse to accept that their way of thinking is often not the only accepted viewpoint. I just laugh and move on.
If you'll go back and check, you'll notice that Valmy only responded to the retarded link you posted, and I responded to Valmy with my troll remark. Valmy then clarified for Yi that we were referring to the link.
I will agree that Chavez was not quite as bad as Saddam. There-- happy?
Just out of curiosity, why did Chavez become the subject of such hate? It's not like he's unique, even in Latin America. And there have been worse and may still be worse out there.
I read most of the Malt's link, and while it is for the most part a fairly predictable pinko apologia of Chavez (liberal use of the change the subject strategy) I didn't find it particularly trollsome.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 05:30:33 PM
Just out of curiosity, why did Chavez become the subject of such hate? It's not like he's unique, even in Latin America. And there have been worse and may still be worse out there.
I gave the reasons I suspect. The fact it occured in an oil country, he screwed with Columbia, and he had a talent of drawing attention to himself saying things that ticked certain people off.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 05:31:41 PM
I read most of the Malt's link, and while it is for the most part a fairly predictable pinko apologia of Chavez (liberal use of the change the subject strategy) I didn't find it particularly trollsome.
I think Spicey was thinking he posted it just to piss people off and he did not actually believe it.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 05:30:33 PM
Just out of curiosity, why did Chavez become the subject of such hate? It's not like he's unique, even in Latin America. And there have been worse and may still be worse out there.
Too many reasons to list. But he's been on my shit list since his coup attempt in 1992. Had they only summarily executed him back then...
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2013, 05:33:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 05:31:41 PM
I read most of the Malt's link, and while it is for the most part a fairly predictable pinko apologia of Chavez (liberal use of the change the subject strategy) I didn't find it particularly trollsome.
I think Spicey was thinking he posted it just to piss people off and he did not actually believe it.
Hoping.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 05:35:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 05:30:33 PM
Just out of curiosity, why did Chavez become the subject of such hate? It's not like he's unique, even in Latin America. And there have been worse and may still be worse out there.
Too many reasons to list. But he's been on my shit list since his coup attempt in 1992. Had they only summarily executed him back then...
Okay, list five.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 05:37:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 05:35:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 05:30:33 PM
Just out of curiosity, why did Chavez become the subject of such hate? It's not like he's unique, even in Latin America. And there have been worse and may still be worse out there.
Too many reasons to list. But he's been on my shit list since his coup attempt in 1992. Had they only summarily executed him back then...
Okay, list five.
Okay. In no particular order: the 1992 coup & the fact that it established him as a violent leftist, he was a heavily anti-American quasi-communist and close friends with Fidel Castro and others I despise, he nationalized whatever he could get his hands on, he was a kleptocrat, and he effectively expelled the educated middle class (some of whom are friends & acquaintances of mine). He took a wonderful nation like Venezuela and turned it into a crime-ridden shithole.
There, I think that's more than five.
It was a wonderful nation for very few people.
:lol: Like spicy has friends.
As others have noted, I don't think there's any contradiction in saying that his policies lessened poverty/inequality for a huge number of Venezuelans (although it appears those policies are unsustainable and one of Chavez's successors is eventually going to have to deal with the backlash when the economy tanks completely) and in saying he was a power-abusing shithead.
You don't have to be an enemy of the poor to realize that Chavez was not a very forward-thinking leader, and you don't have to be a socialist to note that poor Venezuelans are better off (for the moment) than they were before he took power.
What I'd give to have Pirate Scum's take on his figure and legacy...
Quote from: fahdiz on March 06, 2013, 05:56:06 PM
As others have noted, I don't think there's any contradiction in saying that his policies lessened poverty/inequality for a huge number of Venezuelans (although it appears those policies are unsustainable and one of Chavez's successors is eventually going to have to deal with the backlash when the economy tanks completely) and in saying he was a power-abusing shithead.
You don't have to be an enemy of the poor to realize that Chavez was not a very forward-thinking leader, and you don't have to be a socialist to note that poor Venezuelans are better off (for the moment) than they were before he took power.
Yes, which is why I don't get some of the throthing in this thread, it's like they regard him as a idealogical enemy.
Venezuelans voted for him and his policies; their choice to reap the benefits and the downsides.
Surely people aren't objecting to him because he did things in the non-approved way ? If so then it's the echo of a doctrine, Monroe or otherwise, that's had it's day, you can't tell a whole continent of different countries, how they should organise themselves. Besides Washington is no longer the pre-eminent power in the region.
Quote from: mongers on March 06, 2013, 06:13:32 PM
Yes, which is why I don't get some of the throthing in this thread, it's like they regard him as a idealogical enemy.
Venezuelans voted for him and his policies; their choice to reap the benefits and the downsides.
Well, you could make a fairly convincing argument that his largest base of support does not understand that the policies which have caused their lives to become better are funded in an unsustainable way and that in voting for him they were not aware that an economic crash could send them back into poverty, and maybe worse off than they were before. Still - the argument goes, "so? Isn't that Venezuela's problem and not North America's?" In some ways it is and in some ways it isn't. Globalization has made everyone's problems everyone *else's* problems too, at least indirectly.
QuoteSurely people aren't objecting to him because he did things in the non-approved way ? If so then it's the echo of a doctrine, Monroe or otherwise, that's had it's day, you can't tell a whole continent of different countries, how they should organise themselves. Besides Washington is no longer the pre-eminent power in the region.
I think people are quite right to criticize Chavez for shutting down opposition and creating an almost entirely cronyist government to support those efforts.
Personally, I have a low opinion of Chavez and I don't think he was any good for Venezuela; but I wouldn't call him a dictator.
Quote from: mongers on March 06, 2013, 06:13:32 PM
Yes, which is why I don't get some of the throthing in this thread, it's like they regard him as a idealogical enemy.
What exactly in this thread qualifies as frothing? :huh:
The only thing that comes close is some of Seedy's posts, and I assume that's not what you meant.
It's odd but few people here seem to complain about attempted Coup against Chavez, when the Chavez's failed coup should apperantly be used against him. Also nobody mentions the 2009 Honduras Coup.
And I haven't heard jack shit about the Coupe de Ville.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 06, 2013, 06:38:56 PM
And I haven't heard jack shit about the Coupe de Ville.
Stop counting coup.
Viva la revolution!
Raz, what is the failed coup against Chavez supposed to tell us about Chavez's character?
Quote from: fahdiz on March 06, 2013, 06:20:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 06, 2013, 06:13:32 PM
Yes, which is why I don't get some of the throthing in this thread, it's like they regard him as a idealogical enemy.
Venezuelans voted for him and his policies; their choice to reap the benefits and the downsides.
Well, you could make a fairly convincing argument that his largest base of support does not understand that the policies which have caused their lives to become better are funded in an unsustainable way and that in voting for him they were not aware that an economic crash could send them back into poverty, and maybe worse off than they were before. Still - the argument goes, "so? Isn't that Venezuela's problem and not North America's?" In some ways it is and in some ways it isn't. Globalization has made everyone's problems everyone *else's* problems too, at least indirectly.
QuoteSurely people aren't objecting to him because he did things in the non-approved way ? If so then it's the echo of a doctrine, Monroe or otherwise, that's had it's day, you can't tell a whole continent of different countries, how they should organise themselves. Besides Washington is no longer the pre-eminent power in the region.
I think people are quite right to criticize Chavez for shutting down opposition and creating an almost entirely cronyist government to support those efforts.
Couldn't you make the exact same criticism of the large parts of the American electorate and political establishment for the last 15 or so years ?
And for that matter, UK for the same time period. <_<
Jesus Christ mongers. For a person who accuses others of frothing, you sure say some weird-ass shit.
Quote from: mongers on March 06, 2013, 07:04:44 PM
Couldn't you make the exact same criticism of the large parts of the American electorate and political establishment for the last 15 or so years ?
No, because our policies haven't helped the poor live better. :D
In all seriousness, I think the electorate here has more *access* to information than Chavez's electoral base does and has more freedom to pursue such information. Whether we actually choose to do so or not is a different topic, but that's about us as individuals rather than about our elected officials.
Interesting that criticism of Chavez seems to provoke a reaction from Raz :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2013, 03:58:06 PM
My interpretation was that he was giving the poor lots of stuff because they were his support for his regime and ultimately his policies were unsustainable and would do nothing for the poor in the long term. He was blowing his countriy's resources to pay off his peeps for his own personal power. If I am wrong and things in Venezuela are better than good for Chavez. I doubt it though nothing he did had not been tried before and shown to be a failure.
I disagree. I think he was a genuine, believing radical. I think he thought his policies were right for his country and the world and would help the poor. But that he needed to be there to deliver it so he had to stay in power. One striking thing is how little, from what I've read, he personally benefited. Those around him did but from everything I've seen there's very little suggestion that he was in it for corrupt reasons.
QuoteFind a left-leaning Latin American head of state since 1945 we didn't try to assassinate, topple or support insurgents troops against covertly or overtly. We like our Latin American despots right-wing, not left-wing.
Romulo Betancourt springs to mind. Though he was no despot.
QuoteAs others have noted, I don't think there's any contradiction in saying that his policies lessened poverty/inequality for a huge number of Venezuelans (although it appears those policies are unsustainable and one of Chavez's successors is eventually going to have to deal with the backlash when the economy tanks completely) and in saying he was a power-abusing shithead.
However Latin America's had a good decade. Poverty's significantly declined in most Latin American countries and the continent in general. Frankly given that Venezuela had the oil revenue that she had, in my view it's a failure that it didn't fall more. In addition I don't really rate that as successful if it's not durable. I think there's good reasons to say that this could be a long-term improvement in most of the rest of the continent while I think Venezuela's going to struggle a lot more.
From the Economist, admittedly:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2F290-width%2Fimages%2F2013%2F03%2Fblogs%2Famericas-view%2F20130309_woc177_0.png&hash=7c56ccaa8c370f58f300aa7a2e30584663187bd1)
QuoteI think people are quite right to criticize Chavez for shutting down opposition and creating an almost entirely cronyist government to support those efforts.
He didn't shut down the opposition and, frankly, they bear some of the blame for what happened. Time after time they fell apart in arguments and made the mind-numbingly stupid and ineffective decision to boycott elections. I think the last Presidential election was the first that the opposition decided to prevent a united front, with a centrist candidate. If they could put aside their internal squabbles earlier then I think they would've been a far more effective force.
QuoteWhat I'd give to have Pirate Scum's take on his figure and legacy...
On many topics but yeah, especially on this.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 07:10:14 PM
Interesting that criticism of Chavez seems to provoke a reaction from Raz :hmm:
No it isn't; he views you as a right-wing ideologue and thus reacts negatively to whatever criticism you're making. It's not about Chavez. It's about you. :D
Quote from: fahdiz on March 06, 2013, 07:08:22 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 06, 2013, 07:04:44 PM
Couldn't you make the exact same criticism of the large parts of the American electorate and political establishment for the last 15 or so years ?
No, because our policies haven't helped the poor live better. :D
In all seriousness, I think the electorate here has more *access* to information than Chavez's electoral base does and has more freedom to pursue such information. Whether we actually choose to do so or not is a different topic, but that's about us as individuals rather than about our elected officials.
:D
Well yes there is that.
As to the substance of you post, I think we should wait another 7-8, to the president after next, to see if things has materially changed in Washington, the size of the deficit and what 'policies' the electorate have just voted for.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2013, 07:11:08 PM
He didn't shut down the opposition
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15358834
http://en.rsf.org/venezuela-fine-against-opposition-daily-tal-15-02-2007,21026.html
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/03/08/venezuela-judge-afiuni-united-nations-human-rights-council
There's a lot more where those came from. Dissident media organizations have, one by one, been ousted. Dissidents have been imprisoned without trial *in accordance with* Venezuelan law, not in spite of it.
Yeah. He didn't shut them down - incidentally the use of fines against the media is something that's happening a lot recently in Turkey. They continued to organise and campaign against him and the independent media existed. As I said before he biased the media and intimidated the opposition - but they continued to exist in a meaningful way.
I think this piece by the Guardian correspondent (interestingly in the NYT) is the best I've read:
QuoteIn the End, an Awful Manager
By RORY CARROLL
Published: March 5, 2013
IN Caracas, Venezuela, you could tell a summit meeting mattered to Hugo Chávez when government workers touched up the city's rubble. Before dignitaries arrived, teams with buckets and brushes would paint bright yellow lines along the route from the airport into the capital, trying to compensate for the roads' dilapidation with flashes of color.
For really big events — say, a visit by Russia's president — workers would make an extra effort, by also painting the rocks and debris that filled potholes.
Seated in their armor-plated cars with tinted windows, the Russians might not have noticed the glistening golden nuggets, but they would surely have recognized the idea of the Potemkin village.
After oil wealth, theatrical flair was the greatest asset of Mr. Chávez, the president of Venezuela since 1999, who died Tuesday from cancer. His dramatic sense of his own significance helped bring him to power as the reincarnation of the liberator Simón Bolívar — he even renamed the country the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
That same dramatic flair deeply divided Venezuelans as he postured on the world stage and talked of restoring equilibrium between the rich countries and the rest of the world. It now obscures his real legacy, which is far less dramatic than he would have hoped. In fact, it's mundane. Mr. Chávez, in the final analysis, was an awful manager.
The legacy of his 14-year "socialist revolution" is apparent across Venezuela: the decay, dysfunction and blight that afflict the economy and every state institution.
The endless debate about whether Mr. Chávez was a dictator or democrat — he was in fact a hybrid, an elected autocrat — distracted attention, at home and abroad, from the more prosaic issue of competence. Mr. Chávez was a brilliant politician and a disastrous ruler. He leaves Venezuela a ruin, and his death plunges its roughly 30 million citizens into profound uncertainty.
Mr. Chávez's failures did more damage than ideology, which was never as extremist as he or his detractors made out, something all too evident in the Venezuela he bequeaths.
The once mighty factories of Ciudad Guayana, an industrial hub by the Orinoco River that M.I.T. and Harvard architects planned in the 1960s, are rusting and wheezing, some shut, others at half-capacity. "The world economic crisis hit us," Rada Gamluch, the director of the aluminum plant Venalum, and a loyal chavista, told me on his balcony overlooking the decay. He corrected himself. "The capitalist crisis hit us."
Actually, it was bungling by Chávez-appointed business directors who tried to impose pseudo-Marxist principles, only to be later replaced by opportunists and crooks, that hit Ciudad Guayana.
Underinvestment and ineptitude hit hydropower stations and the electricity grid, causing weekly blackouts that continue to darken cities, fry electrical equipment, silence machinery and require de facto rationing. The government has no shortage of scapegoats: its own workers, the C.I.A. and even cable-gnawing possums.
Reckless money printing and fiscal policies triggered soaring inflation, so much so that the currency, the bolívar, lost 90 percent of its value since Mr. Chávez took office, and was devalued five times over a decade. In another delusion, the currency had been renamed "el bolívar fuerte," the strong bolívar — an Orwellian touch.
Harassment of privately owned farms and chaotic administration of state-backed agricultural cooperatives hit food production, compelling extensive imports, which stacked up so fast thousands of tons rotted at the ports. Mr. Chávez called it "food sovereignty."
Politicization and neglect crippled the state-run oil company PDVSA's core task — drilling — so that production slumped. "It's a pity no one took 20 minutes to explain macroeconomics to him with a pen and paper," Baldo Sanso, a senior executive told me. "Chávez doesn't know how to manage."
Populist subsidies reduced the cost of gasoline to $1 a tank, perhaps the world's lowest price of petrol, but cost the state untold billions in revenue while worsening traffic congestion and air pollution.
Bureaucratic malaise and corruption were so severe that murders tripled to nearly 20,000 a year, while gangs brazenly kidnapped victims from bus stops and highways.
A new elite with government connections, the "boligarchs," manipulated government contracts and the web of price and currency controls to finance their lavish lifestyles. "It's a big deal here when a girl turns 15," a Caracas designer, Giovanni Scutaro, told me. "If the father is with the revolution, he doesn't care about the fabric as long as it's in red. Something simple, $3,000 — more elaborate, $250,000."
Mr. Chávez summoned journalists to Miraflores, the presidential palace, to extol his achievements. But even the building betrayed the nation's anomie, with its cracked facade, missing tiles, a whiff of urine from the gardens. The president's private elevator, a minister confided, leaked when it rained.
Mr. Chávez's political genius was to turn this record into a stage from which to mount four more election victories. An unprecedented oil bounty — $1 trillion — made him chief patron amid withering nongovernment alternatives.
He spent extravagantly on health clinics, schools, subsidies and giveaways, including entirely new houses. Those employed in multiplying bureaucracies — officials lost track of fleeting ministries — voted for him to secure their jobs.
His elections were not fair — Mr. Chávez rigged rules in his favor, hijacked state resources, disqualified some opponents, emasculated others — but they were free.
As Venezuela atrophied, he found some refuge in blaming others, notably the "squealing pigs" and "vampires" of the private sector whom he accused of hoarding and speculating. Soldiers arrested butchers for overpricing.
His own supporters increasingly blamed those around him: by 2011 you could see graffiti with the slogan "bajo el gobierno, viva Chávez" — "down with the government, long live Chávez."
The comandante, as he was known to loyalists, used his extraordinary energy and charisma to dominate airwaves with marathon speeches (four hours was short). He might blow kisses, mobilize troops, denounce the United States, ride a bike, a tank, a helicopter — anything to keep attention focused on him, not his performance.
Distraction came in numerous forms: denouncing assassination plots; a farcical nuclear deal with Russia (eventually abandoned); exhuming Bolívar's remains to see if he was murdered; praising or assailing guests.
I experienced the power of his performance firsthand in 2007 when, as The Guardian's Latin America correspondent, I appeared on his weekly show, "Alo Presidente," in an episode held on a beach. Invited to ask a question, I asked whether abolishing term limits risked authoritarianism.
The host paused and glowered before casting the impertinence out to sea and making it a pretext to lambaste European hypocrisy, media, monarchy, the Royal Navy, slavery, genocide and colonialism.
"In the name of the Latin American people I demand that the British government return the Malvinas Islands to the Argentine people," he exclaimed. Then, after another riff on colonialism: "It is better to die fighting than to be a slave!"
On and on it went. Christopher Columbus. Queen Elizabeth. George Bush. In vain I responded that I was Irish and republican, and that European monarchy was irrelevant to my question, which he had dodged. This provoked another tirade.
It was theater. As the cameras were packed away, and we all prepared to return to Caracas, the president shook my hand, shrugged and smiled. I had been a useful fall guy. No hard feelings. It was just a show.
Rory Carroll, a correspondent for The Guardian, is the author of "Comandante: Hugo Chávez's Venezuela."
Yes, that's a good article.
I think it's very instructive to compare Venezuela to Brazil, which has a handout program similar to Venezuela's.
And yes, good article.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 06, 2013, 06:56:44 PM
Raz, what is the failed coup against Chavez supposed to tell us about Chavez's character?
I never said anything of the sort. :huh: Chavez is bad because he attempted to launch a coup. Someone one launches a coup against
him nobody seems to be that paticularly concerned.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 06, 2013, 06:56:44 PM
Raz, what is the failed coup against Chavez supposed to tell us about Chavez's character?
I never said anything of the sort. :huh: Chavez is bad because he attempted to launch a coup. Someone one launches a coup against him nobody seems to be that paticularly concerned.
The thread's about Chavez :mellow:
Also, in the interest of fairness, that was only one of the "Chavez was bad because" points.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 07:10:14 PM
Interesting that criticism of Chavez seems to provoke a reaction from Raz :hmm:
What is interesting is that some nobody from South America has captured the imagination of the American right wing for a decade.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 07:49:28 PM
What is interesting is that some nobody from South America has captured the imagination of the American right wing for a decade.
I wouldn't say a person presiding over the country with the 13th-largest oil production in the world is a "nobody", regardless of how goofy he is.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 07:49:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 07:10:14 PM
Interesting that criticism of Chavez seems to provoke a reaction from Raz :hmm:
What is interesting is that some nobody from South America has captured the imagination of the American right wing for a decade.
He was far from a nobody. He ruled a significant South American country whose interests intersected quite a bit with US interests. He aligned himself with our biggest opponent in the hemisphere (not to mention our opponents in other parts of the world) and did his part to undermine regional security in his part of the world.
But maybe that requires too much thought for you. Much easier to just see that he pisses off the Right and assume he must be a non-issue.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 06, 2013, 07:47:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 06, 2013, 06:56:44 PM
Raz, what is the failed coup against Chavez supposed to tell us about Chavez's character?
I never said anything of the sort. :huh: Chavez is bad because he attempted to launch a coup. Someone one launches a coup against him nobody seems to be that paticularly concerned.
The thread's about Chavez :mellow:
Also, in the interest of fairness, that was only one of the "Chavez was bad because" points.
The real "Chavez is bad points is that he was a leftist and that he said mean things about GWB." The Coup thing is bullshit. Like I pointed out, Latin America had a coup in 2009, nobody gives a flying fuck. So lets not all pretend we are principled about S. American Democracy. Shelf points out the man isn't actually a dictator and he's accused of defending him!
Let's face it, the right wing has been told that this is an evil man who endangers America for last decade, so when the guy dies who do we see cheering? Why it's the our right wing usual suspects all cheering. Amazing. So yeah, I'm suggesting there is a partisan aspect of this. Our more conservative friends were quite a bit more subdued when Pinochet died, and he was a dictator who launched a successful coup.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 07:56:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 07:49:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 07:10:14 PM
Interesting that criticism of Chavez seems to provoke a reaction from Raz :hmm:
What is interesting is that some nobody from South America has captured the imagination of the American right wing for a decade.
He was far from a nobody. He ruled a significant South American country whose interests intersected quite a bit with US interests. He aligned himself with our biggest opponent in the hemisphere (not to mention our opponents in other parts of the world) and did his part to undermine regional security in his part of the world.
But maybe that requires too much thought for you. Much easier to just see that he pisses off the Right and assume he must be a non-issue.
Our biggest opponent in the hemisphere? A backward island with same population as Ohio? Did he actually attack US soldiers, kill American civilians? What?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 07:58:26 PM
The real "Chavez is bad points is that he was a leftist and that he said mean things about GWB."
:huh:
I'm pretty sure people in this thread have offered up points about why Chavez was Not A Good Guy which were not those particular points.
You definitely have a point about partisanship affecting the vigor and tenor of one's argument, though. I have noticed you do the same thing.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 06, 2013, 07:56:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 07:49:28 PM
What is interesting is that some nobody from South America has captured the imagination of the American right wing for a decade.
I wouldn't say a person presiding over the country with the 13th-largest oil production in the world is a "nobody", regardless of how goofy he is.
Can you tell me which guy is number 12 without looking on Google?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 08:03:09 PM
Can you tell me which guy is number 12 without looking on Google?
Nope. But just because I don't know #12 doesn't make him a nobody either.
[EDIT: wow, are there a lot of negatives in that sentence. :D ]
Quote from: fahdiz on March 06, 2013, 08:01:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 07:58:26 PM
The real "Chavez is bad points is that he was a leftist and that he said mean things about GWB."
:huh:
I'm pretty sure people in this thread have offered up points about why Chavez was Not A Good Guy which were not those particular points.
You definitely have a point about partisanship affecting the vigor and tenor of one's argument, though. I have noticed you do the same thing.
Yeah, shelf. But he's not the one cheering this on and calling the man a dictator. Riddle me this, why is that the right wing are the ones so concerned about Chavez? Most of the world really isn't.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 06, 2013, 08:04:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 08:03:09 PM
Can you tell me which guy is number 12 without looking on Google?
Nope. But just because I don't know #12 doesn't make him a nobody either.
[EDIT: wow, are there a lot of negatives in that sentence. :D ]
Yet number 13 is worth remembering.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 06, 2013, 06:56:44 PM
Raz, what is the failed coup against Chavez supposed to tell us about Chavez's character?
About roughly the same thing as the failed coup Chavez instigated in '92 tells us about Chavez's character, maybe?
What a strange discussion. Raz, mongers, and The Nation all seem to have adopted the same party line when it comes to discussing Chavez and his legacy: right-wingers were irrationally obsessed with him.
It has the advantage of distracting attention from his abundant failings, but it has the disadvantage of not being supported by the evidence. Chavez had a brief blip of notoriety when it came to light he was supporting FARC, and rightly so. Supporting an narco-insurgency against a democratic ally is no laughing matter. He had another 10 seconds of fame when he called Bushitler the Devilhitler at the UN. Then another two day news cycle when it appeared he was cultivating ties with Iran. Other than that he has been a nonentity.
As a side note, I was amused by The Nation's temerity in citing Carter's original approval of Chavez' 2nd election, as he has gone on record since as saying though he observed irregularities, he decided not to mention them because he was concerned doing so might lead to disorder or somesuch.
spocoli sucked his dick.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 08:00:46 PM
Our biggest opponent in the hemisphere?
Yes.
QuoteA backward island with same population as Ohio? Did he actually attack US soldiers, kill American civilians? What?
Your standards for "opponent" seem a bit strict. Fidel Castro and the Cuban government oppose us. They've said as much themselves.
Raz is in the same type of anti-Right mood that once caused him to defend Al Sharpton :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 08:06:06 PM
Yeah, shelf. But he's not the one cheering this on and calling the man a dictator. Riddle me this, why is that the right wing are the ones so concerned about Chavez? Most of the world really isn't.
You know what part of the world Chavez became one of the leading figures? Latin America, which is basically our hemisphere less ourselves and Canada. He was the leader of the anti US left wing there. And in Latin America he is generally not well regarded (though of course he has his fans). Perhaps the biggest downside to his death is so long as he hung around, he significantly discredited a movement that has some support within Latin America.
Perhaps if the United States played a more proactive and constructive role of positive ngagement in Central and South American countries over the last 50 years instead of just noticing whenever the color red flared up, there'd be less noodleheads like Hugo Chavez to worry about. We've got no problem being the shining city on the hill for everybody else except our own fucking hemisphere.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 07:58:26 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 06, 2013, 07:47:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 06, 2013, 06:56:44 PM
Raz, what is the failed coup against Chavez supposed to tell us about Chavez's character?
I never said anything of the sort. :huh: Chavez is bad because he attempted to launch a coup. Someone one launches a coup against him nobody seems to be that paticularly concerned.
The thread's about Chavez :mellow:
Also, in the interest of fairness, that was only one of the "Chavez was bad because" points.
The real "Chavez is bad points is that he was a leftist and that he said mean things about GWB." The Coup thing is bullshit. Like I pointed out, Latin America had a coup in 2009, nobody gives a flying fuck. So lets not all pretend we are principled about S. American Democracy. Shelf points out the man isn't actually a dictator and he's accused of defending him!
Let's face it, the right wing has been told that this is an evil man who endangers America for last decade, so when the guy dies who do we see cheering? Why it's the our right wing usual suspects all cheering. Amazing. So yeah, I'm suggesting there is a partisan aspect of this. Our more conservative friends were quite a bit more subdued when Pinochet died, and he was a dictator who launched a successful coup.
Who had a coup in 2009?
Quote from: katmai on March 06, 2013, 05:55:59 PM
:lol: Like spicy has friends.
Yes. I even have Mexican friends. *Real* Mexicans :contract:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 07:58:26 PM
Our more conservative friends were quite a bit more subdued when Pinochet died, and he was a dictator who launched a successful coup.
A couple of important differences--Pinochet never tried to make himself a threat to American interests, and had been out of power for a good while at the time of his death.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 08:39:10 PM
Perhaps if the United States played a more proactive and constructive role of positive ngagement in Central and South American countries over the last 50 years instead of just noticing whenever the color red flared up, there'd be less noodleheads like Hugo Chavez to worry about. We've got no problem being the shining city on the hill for everybody else except our own fucking hemisphere.
That's gotta be it. No way Latin Americans can be stupid enough to keep electing the buffoons they do, it must be because we're not proactivating and constructing them enough.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 08:39:56 PM
Quote from: katmai on March 06, 2013, 05:55:59 PM
:lol: Like spicy has friends.
Yes. I even have Mexican friends. *Real* Mexicans :contract:
The people holding your targets at firing range don't count as friends. :rolleyes:
Quote from: katmai on March 06, 2013, 08:43:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 08:39:56 PM
Quote from: katmai on March 06, 2013, 05:55:59 PM
:lol: Like spicy has friends.
Yes. I even have Mexican friends. *Real* Mexicans :contract:
The people holding your targets at firing range don't count as friends. :rolleyes:
:lol: Yes they do. I tip them generously, pronounce their names correctly, and they love me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 08:42:19 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 08:39:10 PM
Perhaps if the United States played a more proactive and constructive role of positive ngagement in Central and South American countries over the last 50 years instead of just noticing whenever the color red flared up, there'd be less noodleheads like Hugo Chavez to worry about. We've got no problem being the shining city on the hill for everybody else except our own fucking hemisphere.
That's gotta be it. No way Latin Americans can be stupid enough to keep electing the buffoons they do, it must be because we're not proactivating and constructing them enough.
If only we'd modeled better behavior Latin America would have shaped up. :yes:
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 08:46:01 PM
Quote from: katmai on March 06, 2013, 08:43:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 08:39:56 PM
Quote from: katmai on March 06, 2013, 05:55:59 PM
:lol: Like spicy has friends.
Yes. I even have Mexican friends. *Real* Mexicans :contract:
The people holding your targets at firing range don't count as friends. :rolleyes:
:lol: Yes they do. I tip them generously, pronounce their names correctly, and they love me.
Give 'em some Lemon Pledge and they'll worship you.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 08:27:30 PM
What a strange discussion. Raz, mongers, and The Nation all seem to have adopted the same party line when it comes to discussing Chavez and his legacy: right-wingers were irrationally obsessed with him.
I think there's a lot of truth to it. And many left-wingers were irrationally obsessed with him - I mentioned earlier the progressive pissing contest between those who were more progressive because they supported the Bolivarian revolution and those who were more progressive because he was a quasi-dictator.
The truth, I suspect, is because it's what he wanted and he was a skilful political actor.
QuotePerhaps if the United States played a more proactive and constructive role of positive ngagement in Central and South American countries over the last 50 years instead of just noticing whenever the color red flared up, there'd be less noodleheads like Hugo Chavez to worry about. We've got no problem being the shining city on the hill for everybody else except our own fucking hemisphere.
I agree entirely. I hoped for a new start in the relationship after the end of the Cold War and the general democratisation of Latin America. It hasn't happened, I think drift was the best word that could describe W's policies there and even that's probably too kind to describe Obama's. It's a shame.
At this point I think you can probably say Britain's got a clearer idea of what she wants in the region than the US :bleeding:
QuoteA couple of important differences--Pinochet never tried to make himself a threat to American interests, and had been out of power for a good while at the time of his death.
I think Raz is right about the partisan differences. Pinochet was a mirror-image of Chavez in that sense - though I would note he was a real, classic Latin American dictator.
QuoteWho had a coup in 2009?
Honduras.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2013, 08:51:18 PM
I think there's a lot of truth to it.Quote
How has this obsession manifested itself? Cuz I sure haven't seen it.
QuoteHonduras.
The dude that got impeached? You guys are calling that a coup? :blink:
The Honduras coup is ridiculous to bring up as an example of no one caring.
It was strongly condemned at the time by the administration and elections have since been held. It was extensively debated on Languish as well.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2013, 08:51:18 PM
QuotePerhaps if the United States played a more proactive and constructive role of positive ngagement in Central and South American countries over the last 50 years instead of just noticing whenever the color red flared up, there'd be less noodleheads like Hugo Chavez to worry about. We've got no problem being the shining city on the hill for everybody else except our own fucking hemisphere.
I agree entirely. I hoped for a new start in the relationship after the end of the Cold War and the general democratisation of Latin America. It hasn't happened, I think drift was the best word that could describe W's policies there and even that's probably too kind to describe Obama's. It's a shame.
Well, Admiral Yi and garbon think you should go fuck yourself.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 08:57:01 PM
The dude that got impeached? You guys are calling that a coup? :blink:
:blink: You're not calling that a coup?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 08:57:01 PM
The dude that got impeached? You guys are calling that a coup? :blink:
That was the spin at the time, although I mainly remember it being Hans. The military took over from a civilian democratically elected government. They argued that it was constitutionally acceptable. And the Congress agreed unanimously, admittedly there were troops on the street. Personally I think that would just make it a constitutional coup.
The Honduran Supreme Court set up a Truth and Reconciliation who ruled that it was a coup:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14072148
Everything I've read about it refers to it as a coup not an impeachment. Even in articles about the papabili the major count against the Honduran Cardinal was that he seemed initially supportive of the coup (as the National Catholic Reporter calls it). Which is an indicator all of its own.
It was pretty weak as far as coups go.
The Honduran Supreme Court ruled the sitting president's action illegal. He continued. The Honduran voted him out of office and chose an interim president.
If that's a coup the word has lost all its meaning.
Shelf, how shall I interpret your ducking of my other question?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 09:00:09 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2013, 08:51:18 PM
QuotePerhaps if the United States played a more proactive and constructive role of positive ngagement in Central and South American countries over the last 50 years instead of just noticing whenever the color red flared up, there'd be less noodleheads like Hugo Chavez to worry about. We've got no problem being the shining city on the hill for everybody else except our own fucking hemisphere.
I agree entirely. I hoped for a new start in the relationship after the end of the Cold War and the general democratisation of Latin America. It hasn't happened, I think drift was the best word that could describe W's policies there and even that's probably too kind to describe Obama's. It's a shame.
Well, Admiral Yi and garbon think you should go fuck yourself.
Whereas you appear to think Latin Americans are children that we need to teach how to behave.
The Honduran case is a very bizarre one from wiki. It has one large article about it being a constitutional crisis and another long article about it being a coup.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 09:13:43 PM
The Honduran Supreme Court ruled the sitting president's action illegal. He continued. The Honduran voted him out of office and chose an interim president.
The Supreme Court authorised the military to remove him - which they did and to expel him from the country without trial, which they did. Later that day Congress voted him out of office, accepting a forged resignation letter and appointed an interim government. In this whole situation the Supreme Court, President, military and Congress went beyond their constitutional limits.
If the military storming a Presidential palace, shipping the democratically elected incumbent off to a third country and declaring a temporary state of emergency isn't a coup, then I don't know what is.
QuoteShelf, how shall I interpret your ducking of my other question?
Which other question?
Back in 2009, Der was happy about the coup.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,1367.0.html
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2013, 09:19:39 PM
The Honduran case is a very bizarre one from wiki. It has one large article about it being a constitutional crisis and another long article about it being a coup.
It was both. There was a constitutional crisis broadly between the Supreme Court and Congress against the President. In the middle of that the Supreme Court authorised the military to arrest him and they removed him and sent him to Costa Rica.
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2013, 09:17:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 09:00:09 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2013, 08:51:18 PM
QuotePerhaps if the United States played a more proactive and constructive role of positive ngagement in Central and South American countries over the last 50 years instead of just noticing whenever the color red flared up, there'd be less noodleheads like Hugo Chavez to worry about. We've got no problem being the shining city on the hill for everybody else except our own fucking hemisphere.
I agree entirely. I hoped for a new start in the relationship after the end of the Cold War and the general democratisation of Latin America. It hasn't happened, I think drift was the best word that could describe W's policies there and even that's probably too kind to describe Obama's. It's a shame.
Well, Admiral Yi and garbon think you should go fuck yourself.
Whereas you appear to think Latin Americans are children that we need to teach how to behave.
And how is that any different from any other aspect of our foreign policy?
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2013, 09:17:12 PM
Whereas you appear to think Latin Americans are children that we need to teach how to behave.
That would at least have the advantage of being a concrete proposal. Hey, if Latin Americans were to write the US a letter and say, hey, we're retards, please teach us how to choose better governments, I would be more than happy to put a little presentation together.
But with words like "proactive," and "constructive," and "engagement" (Seedy's preferred term a couple years back) all you get are a mechanism for assigning the blame for other people's shitty choices to the US. If the president visited three countries a year would they elect fewer morons? If we threw a couple billion in aid at them would they elect fewer morons? What is being proactive in actual practice?
Meanwhile Languish opinion seemed to have been against Obama's stance and Raz/Sheilbh didn't care two wits to say anything about Honduras while the coup was happening (/its aftermath).
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2013, 09:21:19 PM
Back in 2009, Der was happy about the coup.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,1367.0.html
And?
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2013, 09:26:28 PM
Meanwhile Languish opinion seemed to have been against Obama's stance and Raz/Sheilbh didn't care two wits to say anything about Honduras while the coup was happening (/its aftermath).
Even now my main interest is on its effect on the Conclave :P
Alf asked what 2009 coup, I answered and then explained why I think it qualifies as a coup - not least because that's what the Honduran state now considers it - but looking back the story I've read is the same as Minsky read at the time and I think in that thread he was right. But I was skimming.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 09:27:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2013, 09:21:19 PM
Back in 2009, Der was happy about the coup.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,1367.0.html
And?
Just leading credence to the idea that we did considered it a coup.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2013, 09:20:17 PM
The Supreme Court authorised the military to remove him - which they did and to expel him from the country without trial, which they did. Later that day Congress voted him out of office, accepting a forged resignation letter and appointed an interim government. In this whole situation the Supreme Court, President, military and Congress went beyond their constitutional limits.
If the military storming a Presidential palace, shipping the democratically elected incumbent off to a third country and declaring a temporary state of emergency isn't a coup, then I don't know what is.
Well that part about Congress voting him out of office after he was already out of office was something I was unaware of (or had subconsciously suppressed) and could cause me re-evaluate my opinion.
You say it was done unconstitutionally. Do you happen to know what it would have taken to make it constitutional, or are you taking someone else's word for it?
QuoteWhich other question?
How the right wing's obsession with Chavez manifested itself.
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2013, 09:29:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 09:27:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2013, 09:21:19 PM
Back in 2009, Der was happy about the coup.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,1367.0.html
And?
Just leading credence to the idea that we did considered it a coup.
In fairness, I think I changed my mind a couple times on that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 09:29:59 PM
You say it was done unconstitutionally. Do you happen to know what it would have taken to make it constitutional, or are you taking someone else's word for it?
No idea. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission report says that Congress acted beyond its powers in removing him and appointing the speaker as interim President.
QuoteHow the right wing's obsession with Chavez manifested itself.
Read some of the conservative blogs. Redstate alone brings up 4 pages of results, since 2010. A search of Limbaugh brings up over 180 mentions, including many full mini-discussions, since 2007. Look at how many articles about him there are on Fox (you can search). It all seems a tad disproportionate for a sideshow.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2013, 09:39:27 PM
No idea. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission report says that Congress acted beyond its powers in removing him and appointing the speaker as interim President.
Yeah, the problem with the commission is that it was appointed by the OAS, which jumped all over itself at the time branding the action illegal.
QuoteRead some of the conservative blogs. Redstate alone brings up 4 pages of results, since 2010. A search of Limbaugh brings up over 180 mentions, including many full mini-discussions, since 2007. Look at how many articles about him there are on Fox (you can search). It all seems a tad disproportionate for a sideshow.
Kay.
Carry on Raz. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 09:42:23 PM
Yeah, the problem with the commission is that it was appointed by the OAS, which jumped all over itself at the time branding the action illegal.
It was appointed by the OAS and the Honduran Supreme Court, reported to the Supreme Court and was made up of respected Honduran figures.
Edit: And incidentally of course the OAS would be jumping about it illegal. Latin America democratised at great cost in the past 20-30 years so I can see how they'd want to be very demanding in preserving that and wanting to see troops remain in the bases.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2013, 08:51:18 PM
I agree entirely. I hoped for a new start in the relationship after the end of the Cold War and the general democratisation of Latin America. It hasn't happened, I think drift was the best word that could describe W's policies there and even that's probably too kind to describe Obama's. It's a shame.
Yet another way W was a huge failure. He made a real effort to work with Mexico when he was Governor and Mexico thought it was a really good thing for them when he was elected. Then...nothing.
This is certainly not the only way the Feds failed after the Cold War. So many missed opportunities squandered.
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2013, 09:21:19 PM
Back in 2009, Der was happy about the coup.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,1367.0.html
I miss Hans. He would have provided some fun in this thread.
I can't believe that Chavez dies and the next day the thread is hijacked into the legal particulars of the Honduran coup/not coup.
At least I think we can agree that Raz was wrong that people didn't give a fuck about the coup.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2013, 10:03:44 PM
I miss Hans. He would have provided some fun in this thread.
Not really, no.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2013, 10:03:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2013, 09:21:19 PM
Back in 2009, Der was happy about the coup.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,1367.0.html
I miss Hans. He would have provided some fun in this thread.
Hans has gone all rightwing gangsta now. He just does driveby drudge now.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2013, 09:59:47 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2013, 08:51:18 PM
I agree entirely. I hoped for a new start in the relationship after the end of the Cold War and the general democratisation of Latin America. It hasn't happened, I think drift was the best word that could describe W's policies there and even that's probably too kind to describe Obama's. It's a shame.
Yet another way W was a huge failure. He made a real effort to work with Mexico when he was Governor and Mexico thought it was a really good thing for them when he was elected. Then...nothing.
This is certainly not the only way the Feds failed after the Cold War. So many missed opportunities squandered.
I think that we squandered more after the end of WWII. Oh well.
QuoteI think there's a lot of truth to it. And many left-wingers were irrationally obsessed with him - I mentioned earlier the progressive pissing contest between those who were more progressive because they supported the Bolivarian revolution and those who were more progressive because he was a quasi-dictator.
I think Chavez got more traction out of America's dislike of him than was ever warranted by the depth of the dislike, or the actions we undertook against his regime.
Quote from: dps on March 06, 2013, 10:51:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2013, 09:59:47 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2013, 08:51:18 PM
I agree entirely. I hoped for a new start in the relationship after the end of the Cold War and the general democratisation of Latin America. It hasn't happened, I think drift was the best word that could describe W's policies there and even that's probably too kind to describe Obama's. It's a shame.
Yet another way W was a huge failure. He made a real effort to work with Mexico when he was Governor and Mexico thought it was a really good thing for them when he was elected. Then...nothing.
This is certainly not the only way the Feds failed after the Cold War. So many missed opportunities squandered.
I think that we squandered more after the end of WWII. Oh well.
What are these opportunities you guys are talking about? And would they actually have advanced our own national interest?
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 01:33:34 AM
What are these opportunities you guys are talking about? And would they actually have advanced our own national interest?
What are "our" national interest here? What I consider to be of national interest, well of course, and since I have only been talking about this for ten years I assume you have some grasp of what I am talking about here. But "our" national interest may be different.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 08:27:30 PM
What a strange discussion. Raz, mongers, and The Nation all seem to have adopted the same party line when it comes to discussing Chavez and his legacy: right-wingers were irrationally obsessed with him.
It has the advantage of distracting attention from his abundant failings, but it has the disadvantage of not being supported by the evidence. Chavez had a brief blip of notoriety when it came to light he was supporting FARC, and rightly so. Supporting an narco-insurgency against a democratic ally is no laughing matter. He had another 10 seconds of fame when he called Bushitler the Devilhitler at the UN. Then another two day news cycle when it appeared he was cultivating ties with Iran. Other than that he has been a nonentity.
As a side note, I was amused by The Nation's temerity in citing Carter's original approval of Chavez' 2nd election, as he has gone on record since as saying though he observed irregularities, he decided not to mention them because he was concerned doing so might lead to disorder or somesuch.
It also has the benefit of being true. How come the rest of the world lacks this obsession with Chavez?
Quote from: alfred russel on March 06, 2013, 10:16:08 PM
I can't believe that Chavez dies and the next day the thread is hijacked into the legal particulars of the Honduran coup/not coup.
At least I think we can agree that Raz was wrong that people didn't give a fuck about the coup.
Am I? Most of the board wasn't aware it happened.
Quote from: dps on March 06, 2013, 08:41:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 07:58:26 PM
Our more conservative friends were quite a bit more subdued when Pinochet died, and he was a dictator who launched a successful coup.
A couple of important differences--Pinochet never tried to make himself a threat to American interests, and had been out of power for a good while at the time of his death.
Well unless you consider setting off a bomb in Washington and the killing of an American citizen.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 06, 2013, 03:52:47 PM
Chavez was a big anti-American, antisemitic dickhead who went out of his way to be a right real pisshead to Washington and whose bullshit foreign policy won't be missed, but that doesn't negate the reforms he made in attempting to return some equality to Venezuela's rich-poor imbalance. I know that's a foreign concept here in the United States of Wall Street, but he actually improved a lot of impoverished lives.
Americans just can't stand Latin American leaders that don't march lockstep with the US and look the anti-Communist part straight out of early 1980's Central Casting. Pretty funny for a hemisphere we've pretty much ignored since Roosevelt, unless it's to topple a government or ignore right-wing death squads whacking herds of Jesuits and nuns.
Yeah, Bush really really hated Lula didn't he?
Quote from: Viking on March 07, 2013, 04:21:07 AM
Yeah, Bush really really hated Lula didn't he?
Can it, shitbird; nobody ever counts Brazil in US-Latin American relations anyway. They don't even speak Spanish. They're just...there.
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2013, 09:21:19 PM
Back in 2009, Der was happy about the coup.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,1367.0.html
Damn was that messy. I remember speaking with Minsky about it when I visited NY in 2010.
I see that spicy still hasn't answered my question on how Zelaya was "going left wing" and that justified having the military kicking him out of the country. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2013, 04:00:47 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 06, 2013, 10:16:08 PM
I can't believe that Chavez dies and the next day the thread is hijacked into the legal particulars of the Honduran coup/not coup.
At least I think we can agree that Raz was wrong that people didn't give a fuck about the coup.
Am I? Most of the board wasn't aware it happened.
Most of the board? As I showed, we spent several months on that topic. You might have some of us not remembering it - but what does that prove? How many threads we've had about Chavez vs. 2009 Honduras? That the former got more media coverage than the latter in the intervening years?
Quote from: The Larch on March 07, 2013, 07:22:35 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2013, 09:21:19 PM
Back in 2009, Der was happy about the coup.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,1367.0.html
Damn was that messy. I remember speaking with Minsky about it when I visited NY in 2010.
I see that spicy still hasn't answered my question on how Zelaya was "going left wing" and that justified having the military kicking him out of the country. :P
What a hoot! :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2013, 09:45:00 PM
It was appointed by the OAS and the Honduran Supreme Court, reported to the Supreme Court and was made up of respected Honduran figures.
That's not what your BBC link says.
QuoteEdit: And incidentally of course the OAS would be jumping about it illegal. Latin America democratised at great cost in the past 20-30 years so I can see how they'd want to be very demanding in preserving that and wanting to see troops remain in the bases.
Which assumes that their decision at the time was obviously the correct one, yet they felt the need to appoint a commission to investigate the correctness of the decision.
Quote from: The Larch on March 07, 2013, 07:22:35 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 06, 2013, 09:21:19 PM
Back in 2009, Der was happy about the coup.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,1367.0.html
Damn was that messy. I remember speaking with Minsky about it when I visited NY in 2010.
I see that spicy still hasn't answered my question on how Zelaya was "going left wing" and that justified having the military kicking him out of the country. :P
Yeah well get in line, Spaniard. You're not the only person affected by my ADD-induced thread abandonment.
So, is Chavez still dead?
Quote from: Syt on March 07, 2013, 11:29:33 AM
So, is Chavez still dead?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-gB-t1oVo9Sk%2FTsog7OnWr0I%2FAAAAAAAACTg%2FJPt8rxbIhf4%2Fs1600%2Farias-navarro.jpg&hash=31251285ebf39cbbaebfecac3ad3daf3fec9ad64)
Chávez ha muerto.
I'm really glad that this time we've managed to resolve all the arguments :)
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 07:56:42 PM
He ... did his part to undermine regional security in his part of the world.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2013, 08:27:30 PM
It has the advantage of distracting attention from his abundant failings, but it has the disadvantage of not being supported by the evidence. Chavez had a brief blip of notoriety when it came to light he was supporting FARC, and rightly so. Supporting an narco-insurgency against a democratic ally is no laughing matter.
It's hard not to laugh at these statements when the main narco supporter is the US government with its disastrous drug policies.
Quote from: Iormlund on March 07, 2013, 04:04:50 PM
It's hard not to laugh at these statements when the main narco supporter is the US government with its disastrous drug policies.
Please elaborate. I'm particularly interested to learn how the US, with its active anti-drug efforts, is a greater supporter of narcotics than Europe, with its lax laws, is.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2013, 04:08:46 PM
Please elaborate. I'm particularly interested to learn how the US, with its active anti-drug efforts, is a greater supporter of narcotics than Europe, with its lax laws, is.
Really? Haven't these arguments been repeated a billion times?
The US leads the world in illegal drug use...which is an enormous market that fuels organized crime...which leads to them having the muscle to fuck with governments like Mexico.
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2013, 04:13:02 PM
Really? Haven't these arguments been repeated a billion times?
The US leads the world in illegal drug use...which is an enormous market that fuels organized crime...which leads to them having the muscle to fuck with governments like Mexico.
The argument that I believe has been repeated a billion times is that criminalization of drugs creates more criminal activity *within* the US.
The fact that drugs are decriminalized in Europe doesn't mean that they get their product from Mother Theresa.
Also a little skeptical about the US leading the world in illegal drug use.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2013, 04:20:08 PM
Also a little skeptical about the US leading the world in illegal drug use.
Well then use google and educate yourself.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2013, 08:57:40 AM
That's not what your BBC link says.
The Honduran government asked the OAS to set up a Truth Commission as part of the sort-of new settlement that emerged after elections. Probably because none of the normal people you'd get to investigate it could because they were implicated.
Also to correct my earlier post Congress didn't vote for his removal. They unanimously accepted his resignation, the letter subsequently turned out to be a forgery. Then they replaced him.
QuoteWhich assumes that their decision at the time was obviously the correct one, yet they felt the need to appoint a commission to investigate the correctness of the decision.
They were asked to appoint a Truth Commission and that's sort of their purpose. I'm fairly sure the ANC weren't in doubt about the crimes of apartheid South Africa. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission model is to establish the historical record, draw a line under it and, normally, includes either procedures for granting amnesty or amnesty in exchange for complete, honest testimony.
In the case of Honduras the larger political settlement allowed Zelaya to return (and when he did he gave a speech calling for conciliation and democracy - and now serves as a Representative of Honduras to some Central American confab), the Truth Commission to establish what happened and an amnesty for all involved on all sides.
QuoteWell then use google and educate yourself.
While you're there educate yourself on European drug laws too. The only country that I know of with general decriminalisation is Portugal, aside from that almost all the same drugs are almost always illegal.
Still dead.
Shelf:
Honduras didn't ask the OAS to set up the Truth Commission so they could get to the bottom of that pesky question about the constitutionality of Zeleya's removal, they accepted it as part of a quid pro quo for reinstatement in the OAS.
The South African analogy is a bad one. Theirs was not set up to determine whether apartheid actually existed or not, but rather to document individual cases of mistreatment.
And finally decriminalization is not the same as legalization.
Awesomeness on multiple levels: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/08/us-iran-ahmadinejad-chavez-idUSBRE9270TP20130308
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 01:36:02 PM
Awesomeness on multiple levels: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/08/us-iran-ahmadinejad-chavez-idUSBRE9270TP20130308
Is today the Third Day? :unsure:
I heard Chavez is starting to feel better.
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2013, 08:37:37 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 07, 2013, 04:00:47 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 06, 2013, 10:16:08 PM
I can't believe that Chavez dies and the next day the thread is hijacked into the legal particulars of the Honduran coup/not coup.
At least I think we can agree that Raz was wrong that people didn't give a fuck about the coup.
Am I? Most of the board wasn't aware it happened.
Most of the board? As I showed, we spent several months on that topic. You might have some of us not remembering it - but what does that prove? How many threads we've had about Chavez vs. 2009 Honduras? That the former got more media coverage than the latter in the intervening years?
35 posters? What did what have back 2009, like 200? And shit, Conservative crowd didn't think it was a coup. Just a normal military kicking an elected officers out of the country thing. No comparison.
What a fucking stupid argument this is.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 08, 2013, 02:14:57 PM
What a fucking stupid argument this is.
WELCOME TO LANGUISH
Quote from: fahdiz on March 08, 2013, 02:14:57 PM
What a fucking stupid argument this is.
When could you or anyone else, not post this in any Languish thread since 2006ish and be wrong ?
:P
Sounds like Chavez is to be embalmed and put on display like Lenin, Mao, etc. He's in good company!
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 04:30:20 PM
Sounds like Chavez is to be embalmed and put on display like Lenin, Mao, etc. He's in good company!
10 quatloos say his corpse turns into chipped beef inside 5 years from the crap job they do.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2013, 04:31:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 04:30:20 PM
Sounds like Chavez is to be embalmed and put on display like Lenin, Mao, etc. He's in good company!
10 quatloos say his corpse turns into chipped beef inside 5 years from the crap job they do.
And it will be blamed on imperialist sabotage.
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 04:30:20 PM
Sounds like Chavez is to be embalmed and put on display like Lenin, Mao, etc. He's in good company!
Shame he's not in company with Cromwell.
Quote from: Viking on March 08, 2013, 05:07:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 04:30:20 PM
Sounds like Chavez is to be embalmed and put on display like Lenin, Mao, etc. He's in good company!
Shame he's not in company with Cromwell.
Or Il Duce.
Here is my Chavez op-ed and will be the final definitive opinion of Languish on this matter. It will cover the following key areas: Freedom and Democracy under Chávez, Domestic Policy under Chávez, Foreign Policy under Chávez.
Freedom and Democracy under Chávez
There is a question as to whether or not Chávez was a dictator, I think a meaningful definition of that term is as follows: "A ruler whose legitimacy stems from physical power and control over the portions of a government that exercise force, without accountability to any other element in a given state." A dictator does not derive legitimacy inherently from the people, nor do they derive legitimacy through pedigree as does a monarch. Instead they exercise personal control, typically over police and military forces and use this control to control the country. They typically establish institutions to prop up their power so they are not vulnerable to being displaced in a "palace coup" by different factions within the military and police. By and large Chávez does not meet this definition, he took power in elections and sustained power in elections. Saddam Hussein took power through force, held elections that had no impact on his rule and maintained power through controlling the organs of government that had a monopoly on the use of force.
However, the converse of "dictator" is not "democratic leader." Chávez fits a different sort of mold, he was more of a "Tribune of the People." This is a leader who is accountable to the people but not bound by democratic or legal institutions like a more ordinary democratic leader. In modern, fully established democracies as you see in the United States, Canada, and much of Europe leaders are accountable to more than just elections. There is a strong rule of law, and strong institutions that check the power of any leader no matter their electoral mandate. In the United States the Presidency is limited in several important ways regardless of how many elections a President wins, and altering the constitution to further empower the President is a long, difficult, and nearly impossible proposition. In the United Kingdom their Prime Minister has less formal checks on power, but must effectively share power with his Parliamentary majority, a reaching Prime Minister can be brought down by Parliament, and the United Kingdom has a strong history of common law not easily overridden by a Prime Minister.
Chávez doesn't fit these molds for two reasons. Firstly, once in power he used his power, which was legitimately earned, to alter the system to his benefit. Removal of term limits and seizure of national assets that gave him a large purse to use toward political ends. Secondly, he used "soft power" against his enemies in a way that would be politically objectionable in most democratic countries of the OECD. Chávez never crossed the line into being a true despot, but in most Western democracies a political leader is expected to use the powers of their office to govern and implement their policies. Actively using the powers of the office to explicitly further their political party and political power base is widely frowned upon and even structurally discouraged. Chávez danced a fine line in which he was able to use the powers of his office to intimidate, bully, and discourage the opposition while essentially bribing the electorate. Many of his specific actions, individually, don't seem inherently undemocratic but taken as a whole a picture is painted of a man accountable to the people but unaccountable to anything else. In some ways he is a personification of the fear of America's Founding Fathers of unrestrained mob rule.
According to Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, and Reporters Without Borders Chávez took actions to limit press freedom in his country. Chávez refusal to grand a license RCTVI made significant international press, but was defended by many. RCTVI actively supported a coup against Chávez and in truth even in truly democratic countries a media outlet supporting a coup would probably face severe sanctions and most likely be shut down with its operators punished under existing criminal statutes. However Chávez behavior towards the media doesn't start and end with RCTVI, Chávez has given significant benefits to his own state-controlled media outlets he created and even worked against international media outlets such as Globovision. Chávez is thus widely understood by independent outside organizations to have actively worked to stifle press freedom and the independent press in his country, independent of going after media outlets associated with the military coup against his rule.
So in total, Chávez was a democratically elected leader who did not respect the rule of law or democratic institutions. He was not unaccountable to the people as is a true dictator, but he is best thought of as a "Tribune of the People", a champion of the people chosen by them who wields the powers of an autocrat and is not subject to the limitations of democratic leaders in more established democracies.
Domestic Policy under Chávez
Most political leaders will be judged by both history and their own people based on how well they functioned as shepherds of the public interest. Hugo Chávez gave every indication of being deeply concerned with the wellbeing of the Venezuelan people, but he appears to have done very poorly in working for their interests and to the long term best interests of Venezuela.
Prior to Chávez, Venezuela had extreme wealth inequality and vast oil reserves. This created a situation in which Venezuela was growing economically but the benefits of this economic growth were disproportionately accruing to the upper class. Historically, such situations have created societal instability in the long term. While there are parallels to increasing wealth concentration in some Western countries, lower class Westerners live a very cosmopolitan high standard of living lifestyle which makes them far less likely to be angry and concerned with how the upper class lives. In Venezuela, where the lower classes live in abject poverty and squalor, such that they have food security issues, high infant mortality and other markers of poverty in poor developed countries it creates a simmering pot of anger and resentment that history suggests will almost always boil over into some society altering movement.
Chávez tapped into that anger, and by and large resolved the problem of wealth inequality without the extreme violence that is typical throughout most of history in the resolution of such situations. However in several key areas of reform Chávez failed to execute his management and oversight role effectively. In part this is because Chávez had two goals with everything he did for the Venezuelan people. One was his aforementioned genuine concern for their wellbeing. But the other was his opinion that only he was a fit shepherd of Venezuela's public interest, Chávez saw himself as being bigger than his country, and thus he felt he had to maintain control for the good of the people—and thus many of his actions were also heavily influenced by a strong desire to keep people voting for him and dependent on him. Unfortunately for Venezuela, this lead to decisions ultimately not in their best interests.
Several key areas: the management of Venezuela's petroleum resources and PDVSA, agriculture and land reform, and the Mercal network.
Venezuela has theoretically the largest petroleum reserves in the world, this should serve as a long term boon for its people. However, unique among OPEC nations over the past decade Venezuela has not been able to increase their production and in fact has fallen in production in terms of millions of barrels per day. This is primarily because Chávez has poorly managed PDVSA and its operations. State run oil companies are not immediately a bad idea, many countries use them effectively. However the best oil-producing companies that utilize state run operations tend to do so with heavy partnerships with private investors along with agreements that insure a good portion of oil revenues go to the state.
Venezuela is not an OECD first world country, and thus it is not always reasonable to believe that the more free market concepts that work well in the OECD are the most appropriate options for Venezuela. With his 2007 oil industry nationalization, and his previous diminishment of PDVSA's independence Chávez made the government directly responsible for managing essentially all aspects of the industry. This is a task the government has proven itself to be incapable of performing adequately. To foster ideological purity Chávez fired many thousands of PDVSA employees who were experts in their field. Safety declined rapidly as did major refinery accidents, this is a large part of the reason production by PDVSA has not increased to allow Venezuela to reap the benefits of recent increases in oil prices.
Other countries have shown much more reasonable operating standards in which you maintain public-private oil partnerships and insist on revenues going to the residents of those countries while still allowing for profit from outside entities. Chávez ideological opinions got in the way of pragmatism on this issue.
As a side note, many savvy oil rich nations try to use their oil revenues to build alternative industries in their countries. You see this with varying degrees of success throughout the Middle East. In Venezuela PDVSA accounts for 80% of the country's GDP, 50% of government revenue, 80% of Venezuela's export earnings. This is a dangerous scenario, as this leaves a country dangerously reliant on the extremely volatile price of a single commodity. While Chávez was generous in doling out revenue from PDVSA to social programs, he has not shown any meaningful interest in diversifying Venezuela's economy.
With agriculture and land reform, Chávez followed a familiar path to any observers of Latin America. Wealthy landowners were disposed and ownership was given to tenant farmers. Yields per acre fell as less efficient small farms ran by less educated and less talented members of the lower class failed to execute. Additionally, broad price controls across the agriculture industry have made many of the new small farmers given land by the Mision Zamora unable to profitably farm their new holdings. Agriculture in Venezuela was not rosy before Chávez, with many of the massive landowners holding large amounts of land that was idled. Chávez made such holdings effectively illegal and seized some of the largest landholdings and has held them under state ownership. However, much of this land under state ownership remained idle, doing little to alleviate the worst aspects of Venezuela's highly concentrated land ownership structure. Unproductive land owned by a small cabal of wealthy landowners is little different than unproductive land owned by the state. The price and production controls has also lead to draconian activity targeted at food processers, which has ultimately lead to the shortages and extreme inefficiencies seen the world over time and time again anytime a state seeks to institute broad price controls and production controls.
Finally with the MERCAL network Chávez created a nationally ran chain of supermarkets. These stores provide heavily subsidized food to Venezuela's poor, and employ over 8,000 Venezuelans directly. These stores operate at heavy losses and are massively subsidized by the government. The ultimate goal of the Mercados de Alimentos, C.A. (MERCAL) is to promote "non-capitalistic bottom up development." These means eventually operating without government subsidy by replacing large scale food processing and industrial agriculture with locally grown foods and products created by cooperatives. MERCAL outlets feature prominently pictures of Chávez and are one of the best examples of Chávez using the power of the State to personally empower his standing with the electorate. As a form of food welfare for the poor MERCAL is not a bad system. As a model for economic development it is an abject failure, and it suffers many of the queuing issues seen in similar operations in the Soviet Union.
Chávez's Bolivarian Revolution seeks to replace capitalism with idealistic operations like MERCAL but history has shown this does not work all that well. Additionally, many of Chávez other policies designed to stamp out the wealthy capitalists of Venezuela's past actually hinder the growth of larger and more efficient cooperatives and limit their ability to ever operate profitably. Even in capitalist havens such as the United States there are very large cooperative organizations that generate healthy profits. Chávez's policies would never allow such operations to truly flourish.
When Chávez ascended to power Venezuela had far too much wealth concentration to be healthy, and grave inefficiencies. Chávez mostly solved the wealth inequality problem but abjectly failed to provide a new prosperity. Chávez was right to direct oil resources to social welfare in a country so beset with poverty, but he should have tried to provide a means for small Venezuelan entrepreneurs to establish businesses for themselves and abandoned the foolish concept of cooperatives as a universally workable form of economic activity. He should have supported Venezuelan entrepreneurs with policies designed to nourish native, organically grown business. Unfortunately much of the largesse Chávez gave to his people was never going to make them better off in the long term. This may be because Chávez did not understand how to do that, but it may also have been because Chávez did not want to help people to self-sufficiency because that would mean they were no longer dependent on him for satisfying their wants and needs.
Foreign Policy under Chávez
Chávez foreign policy is one of his great failures and almost unambiguously so. It's probably the least interesting part of his Presidency for that reason, there is little nuance to his activities in this regard. Firstly, he funneled billions of dollars to countries like Cuba when his own people remained extremely needy for that money. This appears to have been done solely because Chávez personally respected the Castro brothers and wanted to do right by them. His snuggling up with Iran continued his policy of antagonizing the United States, a policy that made little sense domestically and did nothing to significantly help Venezuela or its people. The United States was the single largest purchaser of Venezuelan oil throughout Chávez's presidency, and there was little material benefit he ever attained with denormalizing his country's relationship with the world's lone super power. Unlike the North Korean Kims, Chávez power base did not require and was not meaningfully enhanced by his anti-American rants. His audience for those rants appear to have been other Latin American leaders, many who were receptive, but long term strategic and material benefit to Venezuela was sparse from Chávez getting other Latin American heads of state to nod in agreement. The whole approach of Chávez to the Western Hemisphere was strategically and politically flawed, he was able to get some degree of influence in other countries by exporting the rhetoric of his "Bolivarian Revolution" but by and large it is difficult to demonstrate any true strategic or economic benefit to have come from this rhetoric. On the converse it appears that he squandered billions in these efforts when his own country still need lots of money and attention. Venezuela is not the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and never will be, so it never made sense for them to try and funnel so much money to ideological fellow travelers to the detriment of their own people. The Soviet Union was a true superpower, something that will never be the case with Venezuela, and could make different geopolitical calculations and decisions.
Summation
Ultimately Chávez started from a core concept that was necessary in Venezuela: that wealth be shared more equitably. In a poor country you simply cannot sustain extreme wealth inequality when that country additionally has access to vast oil reserves. Impoverished people living in squalor will not tolerate such largesse with nothing in return. Different countries have approached this differently, many Middle Eastern oil states have maintained limited freedom but nice quality of life subsidies to their people to keep them happy, for example. Chávez approach of fighting to bring more oil revenue to ordinary Venezuelans was appropriate and also probably necessary for the long term good of Venezuela. However in several areas of execution Chávez failed to administer programs effectively and this has hurt Venezuela. The state oil company is in much worse shape now than it was before Chávez revoked its independence, and this hurts the entire country as it is so dependent on the fortunes of PDVSA. Chávez was a democratically elected leader who was above the rule of law and smashed legal and constitutional barriers to his power essentially at will, using his popular support as justification for all of his actions. This exposing Venezuela to a future in which a leader who is less concerned with democratic legitimacy could much more easily turn Venezuela into a true absolutist State now that Chávez has so substantially eroded the legal framework of a democratic society. What Venezuela needs right now is not another pandering leftist strongman or a reactionary from the upper class. Venezuela needs a more reform minded leader who accepts the premise that extreme wealth inequality is not sustainable in Venezuela but who wants to foster the rule of law and more reasonable economic policies. Venezuela would be much better off if it reverse much of its oil industry nationalization and brought in more outside investment, this would allow for a more professional run oil industry that could actually ramp up production at will as necessary, as other OPEC countries do to maximize revenue. Venezuela does not have to return to the extreme wealth inequality or go to a scenario in which most of the oil wealth ends up overseas, multinational oil firms will work with Venezuela in the right conditions, and a majority of the revenue can still flow to the Venezuelan economy. Venezuela needs to adopt some of the actions of other oil rich nations who have used oil revenues to establish permanent trust funds and sponsor alternative development, to try and free Venezuela from being solely dependent on the commodity prices of a single volatile commodity. Unfortunately for Venezuela it appears with Maduros they will be getting someone with Chávez anti-democratic tendencies and poor ability to administer the government but without Chávez deep personal appeal to the people. This will lead to an even less effective version of Chávez for the intermediate future.
The only thing I might add to Biscuit's otherwise very gay and effeminate essay is the effect Chavez' policies of expropriation had on the domestic food supply and the foreign investment climate, as demonstrated by the sky high interest rates charged on a country with something like a 20% debt/GDP ratio.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2013, 03:01:59 PM
Biscuit's otherwise very gay and effeminate essay
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2013, 03:01:59 PM
The only thing I might add to Biscuit's otherwise very gay and effeminate essay is the effect Chavez' policies of expropriation had on the domestic food supply and the foreign investment climate, as demonstrated by the sky high interest rates charged on a country with something like a 20% debt/GDP ratio.
What can I say, my life is moving in that direction. Going from DOD-->ICE has made me a lot more internationalist, and I even have some friends at State now that I discuss this stuff with all the time and that's probably coloring me as well.
On the operations of PDVSA. Like many third world state oil companies it doesn't, even in the best of times, maintain the core competencies for operating production and exploration activity. The best of these companies often move to an investor model where they subcontract out substantial parts of their operations to international companies. Not only in the traditional fields of service companies but also in running production and refining operations. Not only did Chavez purge the few educated venezuelans in PDVSA that did have this competence he also purged the foreign service companies as well as the foreign operators which operated fields on behalf of PDVSA.
In effect the only thing that PDVSA has been able to do for the past decade is to not turn off operating wells. This works for a while, much longer than one might think. In effect PDVSA is many years overdue for a tune up. When allowed to return foreign oilfield service companies will make a fortune.
Quote from: Viking on March 09, 2013, 04:32:04 PM
When allowed to return foreign oilfield service companies will make a fortune.
And then those shortsighted oil companies will get kicked out again. :XD:
I thought Otto did a fairly good job.
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2013, 04:43:07 PM
And then those shortsighted oil companies will get kicked out again. :XD:
The oilfield services companies don't have to worry as much as the integrated oil companies because they're not paying up front for exploration or drilling rights and putting a bunch of fixed equipment in place that can be stolen.
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2013, 04:43:07 PM
Quote from: Viking on March 09, 2013, 04:32:04 PM
When allowed to return foreign oilfield service companies will make a fortune.
And then those shortsighted oil companies will get kicked out again. :XD:
Yep. "Thanks, gringos. We'll take it from here."
RIP Augusto. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2013, 10:30:37 AM
Honduras didn't ask the OAS to set up the Truth Commission so they could get to the bottom of that pesky question about the constitutionality of Zeleya's removal, they accepted it as part of a quid pro quo for reinstatement in the OAS.
It was part of the deal negotiated by the two parties in Honduras (the negotiations, on the request of the OAS, were handled by Costa Rica's President), that they would ask the OAS to run a Truth Commission for them, another goal of the deal was to get readmitted to the OAS. Here's the relevant text from the agreement:
QuoteWe, Honduran citizens, men and women convinced of the necessity to strengthen the state of law, to aid our constitution and the laws of our Republic, deepen democracy and assure a climate of peace and tranquility for our people, have carried out a frank and intense process of political dialogue to seek a negotiated and peaceful exit to the crisis in which our country has been submerged in recent months.
As fruit of this dialogue in which has predominated the wisdom, tolerance, and patriotic spirit of all the participants, we have drafted a political accord that will permit the reestablishment of civic harmony and assure a proper climate for democratic governability in our country. This accord, we are sure, will define the road to peace, reconciliation, and democracy, urgent demands of Honduran society.
The agreement on this accord demonstrates yet again, that Honduran men and women are capable of successfully carrying out dialogue and thanks to that and by means of it, reach the high goals that society demands and the country requires.
In virtue of the forgoing, we have agreed on the following accords ... there will also be created a Truth Commission that will identify the acts that led to the present situation, and provide to the Honduran people elements to avoid that those deeds will be repeated in the future.
QuoteThe South African analogy is a bad one. Theirs was not set up to determine whether apartheid actually existed or not, but rather to document individual cases of mistreatment.
I'm not analogising. I'm saying the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission is the model of Truth Commissions in terms of their goals and their method. It's about establishing a historical record that enables the country to move without recriminations.
I'd note that that's what's happened in Honduras. They've returned to constitutional democracy, Zelaya's been allowed back and is now representing Honduras officially.
QuoteAnd finally decriminalization is not the same as legalization.
I know, but you said this:
QuoteThe fact that drugs are decriminalized in Europe doesn't mean that they get their product from Mother Theresa.
Very, very few countries have decriminalised drugs. I believe only the Portuguese and the Czechs. There's some element of decriminalisation in the Netherlands and, I think according to my colleagues, Spain - but that's about it.
QuoteSounds like Chavez is to be embalmed and put on display like Lenin, Mao, etc. He's in good company!
I think Santa Evita's a more likely fate.
Also on the original topic, I walked past the Venezuelan Embassy today. As well as a few bouquets, candles and pleasant messages ('you gave us a light...') there was one that said he should be burning in hell for what he's done. I wondered if a Languishite had made the trip :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 09, 2013, 10:09:24 PM
I'm not analogising. I'm saying the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission is the model of Truth Commissions in terms of their goals and their method. It's about establishing a historical record that enables the country to move without recriminations.
I'd note that that's what's happened in Honduras. They've returned to constitutional democracy, Zelaya's been allowed back and is now representing Honduras officially.
The purpose of the SA commission was to establish a historical record of
individual wrongdoings and sufferings. Nobody contested that blacks couldn't vote or were beaten up by cops.
The Honduran commission does nothing like that. It's a political excercise. The OAS says Zelaya was a little wrong, the opposition was a little wrong, now let's split the difference and move on.
QuoteI know, but you said this:
QuoteThe fact that drugs are decriminalized in Europe doesn't mean that they get their product from Mother Theresa.
Very, very few countries have decriminalised drugs. I believe only the Portuguese and the Czechs. There's some element of decriminalisation in the Netherlands and, I think according to my colleagues, Spain - but that's about it.
I thought Portugal was the rarity in fully legalizing possession, whereas the typical European model was decriminalization--a parking ticket if you smoke your ganja in the wrong place. I could be mistaken.
Regardless, the original point--that Europe, with its less draconian drug laws, does *not* contribute any less to organized crime in the source countries than the US does--still stand.
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2013, 04:43:07 PM
Quote from: Viking on March 09, 2013, 04:32:04 PM
When allowed to return foreign oilfield service companies will make a fortune.
And then those shortsighted oil companies will get kicked out again. :XD:
No, seriously, there will be 10 years of work to catch up on.
Oilfield Service Company =/= Oil Company
I think we resolved this in the "Is Shell In Saudi Arabia" semantic shitstorm?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2013, 10:21:33 PM
The purpose of the SA commission was to establish a historical record of individual wrongdoings and sufferings. Nobody contested that blacks couldn't vote or were beaten up by cops.
The Honduran commission does nothing like that. It's a political excercise. The OAS says Zelaya was a little wrong, the opposition was a little wrong, now let's split the difference and move on.
I disagree on the purpose. My view is that the South African purpose is in the title. To establish the truth beyond record to enable the country to move forward in the spirit of reconciliation - not of punishment and recrimination, but also to avoid Afrikaaners saying, years in the future, 'it wasn't all bad.'
I think that the Honduran Commission (as I say, made up of mostly Hondurans and administered by the OAS) was an attempt to do the same sort of thing. To establish, to use your phrase, institutional wrongdoings - who exceeded their constitutional powers and how. So it tells a 'national' narrative of what happened that everyone can agree to and it tries to enable the country to move beyond the crisis so that it doesn't define or unduly polarise their future politics.
QuoteI thought Portugal was the rarity in fully legalizing possession, whereas the typical European model was decriminalization--a parking ticket if you smoke your ganja in the wrong place. I could be mistaken.
Well there's a difference between legalisation, decriminalisation and different policing policies. Decriminalisation is a legal step that abolishes penalties for a crime, which is different from legalisation or letting the police play it by ear.
No-one has legalised drugs in Europe, I think probably the Netherlands are the closest. The Portuguese and Czechs have decriminalised (but not legalised drugs), but I believe in both of those cases dealers are still prosecuted and addicts are required to go to treatment - I think only the Czechs have gone for the parking fine approach. Lots of countries, including the UK, are generally tolerant of pot if it's in a small amount. You'll normally have it confiscated and get a fine but I think that depends on context and it can lead to charges and a record. I think in Germany and the UK about 60% of drugs arrests are for pot.
Aside from that I think they do arrest people over it. But I think most European countries (not the UK) place more emphasis on treatment than punishment.
QuoteRegardless, the original point--that Europe, with its less draconian drug laws, does *not* contribute any less to organized crime in the source countries than the US does--still stand.
Possibly. I don't know enough to comment. My understanding is that most European cocaine comes via West Africa and most pot from the Maghreb - which don't seem as unstable or dangerous because of drugs as Central America, though obviously there's other issues in both areas.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 09, 2013, 10:44:34 PM
So it tells a 'national' narrative of what happened that everyone can agree to and it tries to enable the country to move beyond the crisis so that it doesn't define or unduly polarise their future politics.
If it were a national narrative, the OAS wouldn't be involved, and readmission to the OAS would not be the quid pro quo.
It's a brokered deal. You know Shelf, just because a group of people call themselves the Truth Commission doesn't guarantee what they say is the truth.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2013, 01:03:17 AMIf it were a national narrative, the OAS wouldn't be involved, and readmission to the OAS would not be the quid pro quo.
Why wouldn't the OAS be involved? From a European perspective it doesn't seem bizarre that if you've got two polarised sides arguing about fundamental issues of legitimacy of state action that you'd ask a multi-lateral body, like the EU, to help mediate. The OAS mediated (via the Costa Rican President) and set up the Commission at the request of Honduras, according to the deal.
Readmission, incidentally, wasn't quid pro quo. The Hondurans signed the accord had to put it into place - which would be observed by the OAS - and would then hope the international community recognised their efforts (which was code for getting back in). I think it's because the OAS member states would have to vote on readmission.
QuoteIt's a brokered deal. You know Shelf, just because a group of people call themselves the Truth Commission doesn't guarantee what they say is the truth.
Of course it was a brokered deal, that's what negotiations normally result in.
Which bit of their version do you dispute?
I'm not necessarily disputing anything. I don't know what the constitutional procedure is in Honduras when a sitting president breeches the constitution. I'm just not willing to grant the OAS the final word.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2013, 10:04:01 PM
I'm not necessarily disputing anything. I don't know what the constitutional procedure is in Honduras when a sitting president breeches the constitution. I'm just not willing to grant the OAS the final word.
Again it wasn't the OAS but an agreement by the parties involved in the conflict. Consider it arbitration, if not the 'truth' - the recommendations of the Commission included clarifying the constitution, which is apparently rather vague on impeachment, resignations and conflicts between the branches of government. And you may not respect or care for the OAS but perhaps they're viewed in a different way in Latin America.
In terms of constitutional breech it's obviously bad when a sitting President ignores Supreme Court rulings. But, I think it's far worse and more corrosive to democracy and the rule of law if the military, on receiving an arrest warrant for the President, storm the palace, deport him, forge a resignation letter and declare a temporary state of siege.
Yi hates international bodies.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 10, 2013, 11:20:11 PM
Yi hates international bodies.
It's just that Yi doesn't know the rules in Honduras, so naturally he can't trust the OAS on this.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 10, 2013, 11:13:16 PM
Again it wasn't the OAS but an agreement by the parties involved in the conflict. Consider it arbitration, if not the 'truth' - the recommendations of the Commission included clarifying the constitution, which is apparently rather vague on impeachment, resignations and conflicts between the branches of government. And you may not respect or care for the OAS but perhaps they're viewed in a different way in Latin America.
I prefer to consider it a face-saving diplomatic gesture.
The OAS couldn't just readmit them as is. So they get a slap on the wrist, and readmission.
Quote from: Jacob on March 10, 2013, 11:39:17 PM
It's just that Yi doesn't know the rules in Honduras, so naturally he can't trust the OAS on this.
Don't Raz me dude.
I explained that they are not an impartial body because they were so quick to condemn the ousting of the president.
One also has to wonder about the ideological aspect after Paraguay was booted from Mercosur.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2013, 11:47:06 PM
The OAS couldn't just readmit them as is. So they get a slap on the wrist, and readmission.
But again there was no quid pro quo. From what I can gather the OAS was always explicit that they wouldn't readmit Honduras until there was full re-democratisation. This deal was about all sorts leading into and following the new elections and included the Truth Commission. So it was part of that process.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2013, 12:10:01 AM
But again there was no quid pro quo.
QuoteThis deal ... included the Truth Commission.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2013, 11:49:03 PMDon't Raz me dude.
I explained that they are not an impartial body because they were so quick to condemn the ousting of the president.
One also has to wonder about the ideological aspect after Paraguay was booted from Mercosur.
Shouldn't they condemn the ousting of a democratically elected president by the military quickly? Were there any bodies that you respect that did not condemn the ouster? I mean the EU, the UN, and the US all condemned the coup. Are they likewise not impartial?
Quote from: Jacob on March 11, 2013, 12:19:36 AM
Shouldn't they condemn the ousting of a democratically elected president by the military quickly? Were there any bodies that you respect that did not condemn the ouster? I mean the EU, the UN, and the US all condemned the coup. Are they likewise not impartial?
He wasn't ousted by the military. He was ousted by the Supreme Court.
I don't know what the EU or UN said so can't comment.
My recollection is that the US response was a little ambiguous at the time.
But if the facts are so cut and dried, there was hardly a need for a Truth Commission, was there?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2013, 12:18:37 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2013, 12:10:01 AM
But again there was no quid pro quo.
QuoteThis deal ... included the Truth Commission.
QuoteIt was part of the deal negotiated by the two parties in Honduras (the negotiations, on the request of the OAS, were handled by Costa Rica's President), that they would ask the OAS to run a Truth Commission for them, another goal of the deal was to get readmitted to the OAS. Here's the relevant text from the agreement:
:P
QuoteHe wasn't ousted by the military. He was ousted by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court issued a warrant for his arrest. The military arrested him and immediately deported him, without trial. Congress unanimously accepted his resignation, but the letter was a forgery, and appointed a new President.
QuoteMy recollection is that the US response was a little ambiguous at the time.
Not really. Obama said it was a coup. Joint military operations and some visas were suspended, non-humanitarian aid was cut. Apparently they didn't characterise it as a 'military coup' because in the US that cuts all aid. Republicans attacked Obama for it.
It's also worth noting the US entirely supported the agreement reached by the parties.
QuoteBut if the facts are so cut and dried, there was hardly a need for a Truth Commission, was there?
Of course there was. That's the point I've been making about what Truth Commissions are for.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2013, 11:49:03 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 10, 2013, 11:39:17 PM
It's just that Yi doesn't know the rules in Honduras, so naturally he can't trust the OAS on this.
I explained that they are not an impartial body because they were so quick to condemn the ousting of the president
Like every fucking body in the whole world except for a few weirdos in internet forums.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2013, 12:28:14 AM
Quote from: Jacob on March 11, 2013, 12:19:36 AM
Shouldn't they condemn the ousting of a democratically elected president by the military quickly? Were there any bodies that you respect that did not condemn the ouster? I mean the EU, the UN, and the US all condemned the coup. Are they likewise not impartial?
He wasn't ousted by the military. He was ousted by the Supreme Court.
Of course he was ousted by the military, initially they were only going to arrest him and while they were at it they decided to kick him out. Read the thread from back in the day that was linked a few posts ago if your recollections are so weak.
Has there been any update on Chavez's condition?
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2013, 08:35:11 AM
Has there been any update on Chavez's condition?
I did a quick check of my Latin American feed and it appears he is still deceased.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 09, 2013, 10:20:50 PM
Also on the original topic, I walked past the Venezuelan Embassy today. As well as a few bouquets, candles and pleasant messages ('you gave us a light...') there was one that said he should be burning in hell for what he's done. I wondered if a Languishite had made the trip :lol:
Probably just a Venezuelan exile :P
I mean I have very little good to say about Chavez but I didn't hate the guy. Just another South American politician who destroyed his country to satisfy his own ambitions.
Quote from: derspiess on March 11, 2013, 09:23:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2013, 08:35:11 AM
Has there been any update on Chavez's condition?
I did a quick check of my Latin American feed and it appears he is still deceased.
That's what I'm seeing reported as well.
Damn. Poor guy just cannot catch a break.
Quote from: The Larch on March 11, 2013, 06:38:19 AM
Of course he was ousted by the military, initially they were only going to arrest him and while they were at it they decided to kick him out. Read the thread from back in the day that was linked a few posts ago if your recollections are so weak.
What does it mean to have a military "only going to arrest" a president in Honduras? You say the words as though it was obvious what that means. It doesn't seem obvious to me, so why don't you explain the Honduran procedures for a military arrest of the President (with sources, por favor)?
I agree that the ouster was a coup, but disagree that it was a military coup. The military didn't take over. They were a tool of the court, even if (and this is unproven) they went further than the court intended.
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2013, 07:17:05 PM
I guess some of the more 'enthusiastic' contributors to this thread will demanding the utmost respect is shown in the future Thatcher RIP thread ?
Funny that.
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2013, 01:50:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2013, 07:17:05 PM
I guess some of the more 'enthusiastic' contributors to this thread will demanding the utmost respect is shown in the future Thatcher RIP thread ?
Funny that.
Admittedly I didn't look through the whole thread, but I didn't see CC or I acting 'enthusiastic' in this thread - though we both lambasted you in the Thatcher one. :contract:
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2013, 01:50:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2013, 07:17:05 PM
I guess some of the more 'enthusiastic' contributors to this thread will demanding the utmost respect is shown in the future Thatcher RIP thread ?
Funny that.
I knew. :ph34r:
Quote from: mongers on April 08, 2013, 03:31:47 PM
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2013, 01:50:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2013, 07:17:05 PM
I guess some of the more 'enthusiastic' contributors to this thread will demanding the utmost respect is shown in the future Thatcher RIP thread ?
Funny that.
I knew. :ph34r:
WITCH!
Quote from: mongers on April 08, 2013, 03:31:47 PM
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2013, 01:50:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2013, 07:17:05 PM
I guess some of the more 'enthusiastic' contributors to this thread will demanding the utmost respect is shown in the future Thatcher RIP thread ?
Funny that.
I knew. :ph34r:
Have you started studying Marti's paranormal ways?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 03:35:37 PM
Quote from: mongers on April 08, 2013, 03:31:47 PM
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2013, 01:50:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2013, 07:17:05 PM
I guess some of the more 'enthusiastic' contributors to this thread will demanding the utmost respect is shown in the future Thatcher RIP thread ?
Funny that.
I knew. :ph34r:
Have you started studying Marti's paranormal ways?
To be serious, it's just playing the percentages; DG's job.
For me the sadest thing about growing mature/old, is knowing a certain small percentage of ones older friends/colleagues are going to die in any given year.
I know find myself sometimes actively checking on them, to see that they're ok. :(
Quote from: mongers on April 08, 2013, 03:38:58 PM
To be serious, it's just playing the percentages; DG's job.
It's not my job to guess when people are going to die, I'm not a life actuary. It's just a hobby for me.
Quote from: garbon on April 08, 2013, 02:52:36 PM
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2013, 01:50:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2013, 07:17:05 PM
I guess some of the more 'enthusiastic' contributors to this thread will demanding the utmost respect is shown in the future Thatcher RIP thread ?
Funny that.
Admittedly I didn't look through the whole thread, but I didn't see CC or I acting 'enthusiastic' in this thread - though we both lambasted you in the Thatcher one. :contract:
No. I wasn't necessarily saying you and CC did...but just that you didn't seem to criticize people for acting enthusiastic in this thread, only in the Thatcher one. My point was it goes both ways.
I always thought of starting a dead pool thread...but I guess some of you would find that offensive? If we just stick with celebrities and news makers I think it's fair game.
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2013, 04:20:30 PM
I always thought of starting a dead pool thread...but I guess some of you would find that offensive? If we just stick with celebrities and news makers I think it's fair game.
How does a dead pool work?
We each pick, say, 3 to 5 celebrities whom we think will snuff it this year. We get one point at the end of the year for each one we guess right. Winner is one with most total points.
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2013, 04:18:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 08, 2013, 02:52:36 PM
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2013, 01:50:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2013, 07:17:05 PM
I guess some of the more 'enthusiastic' contributors to this thread will demanding the utmost respect is shown in the future Thatcher RIP thread ?
Funny that.
Admittedly I didn't look through the whole thread, but I didn't see CC or I acting 'enthusiastic' in this thread - though we both lambasted you in the Thatcher one. :contract:
No. I wasn't necessarily saying you and CC did...but just that you didn't seem to criticize people for acting enthusiastic in this thread, only in the Thatcher one. My point was it goes both ways.
Yeah but, at least for me, that stems from what I said in the other thread. I've different reactions and concerns about criticism for someone who was a net positive vs. net negative.
Nah. Hug your photo of Hugo, and make fun of Thatcher all you want. You're still wrong.
Quote from: garbon on April 08, 2013, 04:35:33 PM
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2013, 04:18:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 08, 2013, 02:52:36 PM
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2013, 01:50:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 05, 2013, 07:17:05 PM
I guess some of the more 'enthusiastic' contributors to this thread will demanding the utmost respect is shown in the future Thatcher RIP thread ?
Funny that.
Admittedly I didn't look through the whole thread, but I didn't see CC or I acting 'enthusiastic' in this thread - though we both lambasted you in the Thatcher one. :contract:
No. I wasn't necessarily saying you and CC did...but just that you didn't seem to criticize people for acting enthusiastic in this thread, only in the Thatcher one. My point was it goes both ways.
Yeah but, at least for me, that stems from what I said in the other thread. I've different reactions and concerns about criticism for someone who was a net positive vs. net negative.
But net positive v. net negative is one's opinion and not set in stone like, say, climate change.
There are some who say Chavez did good and Thatcher was the devil incarnate. You can't justifiably call me out in that other thread, when the same went on in this thread without indignation.
Quote from: Scipio on April 08, 2013, 04:39:34 PM
Nah. Hug your photo of Hugo, and make fun of Thatcher all you want. You're still wrong.
As long as I can make fun of Thatcher then that's fine. That's all I'm asking. ;)
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2013, 04:46:33 PM
Quote from: Scipio on April 08, 2013, 04:39:34 PM
Nah. Hug your photo of Hugo, and make fun of Thatcher all you want. You're still wrong.
As long as I can make fun of Thatcher then that's fine. That's all I'm asking. ;)
You're free to do what you want. And we're free to think of you as an ass.
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2013, 04:45:35 PM
But net positive v. net negative is one's opinion and not set in stone like, say, climate change.
There are some who say Chavez did good and Thatcher was the devil incarnate. You can't justifiably call me out in that other thread, when the same went on in this thread without indignation.
No, I disagree on that. Anyone who says what Chavez did is net good is clearly a) not thinking correctly and b) is not considering long term effects.
The same holds true for Thatcher.
No. :(
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2013, 04:47:55 PMYou're free to do what you want. And we're free to think of you as an ass.
Right back atcha sunshine :cheers:
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2013, 05:04:20 PM
The same holds true for Thatcher.
Whether or not Thatcher was good or bad is a question of ones politics, mostly.
Not the case with Chavez, unless one's politics are at the level of fruitcake basket lunacy.
One could easily hold the position that income equality is the greatest single good, trumping all others, and applaud Chavez' success in that field.
I would think they're very wrong, but it would be consistent.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 05, 2013, 05:23:04 PM
:punk:
Quote from: Habbaku on April 08, 2013, 03:04:25 PM
The problem isn't with people criticizing the deceased, but with crowing about their death. It can be tough, depending on the figure, to avoid crossing that line.
:hmm:
Good job Marty. :)