The usual defense of Chavez, to the extent that there is one, is that he may be wrecking his country's economy, but at least he's helping the poor. Foreign Affairs has an essay by Francisco Rodriguez, the chief economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly from 2000 to 2004, saying that no, Chavez isn't doing that, either:
Views differ on how desirable the consequences of many of these reforms are, but a broad consensus appears to have emerged around the idea that they have at least brought about a significant redistribution of the country's wealth to its poor majority. The claim that Chávez has brought tangible benefits to the Venezuelan poor has indeed by now become commonplace, even among his critics. In a letter addressed to President George W. Bush on the eve of the 2006 Venezuelan presidential elections, Jesse Jackson, Cornel West, Dolores Huerta, and Tom Hayden wrote, "Since 1999, the citizens of Venezuela have repeatedly voted for a government that -- unlike others in the past -- would share their country's oil wealth with millions of poor Venezuelans." The Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz has noted, "Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez seems to have succeeded in bringing education and health services to the barrios of Caracas, which previously had seen little of the benefits of that country's rich endowment of oil." Even The Economist has written that "Chávez's brand of revolution has delivered some social gains."One would expect such a consensus to be backed up by an impressive array of evidence. But in fact, there is remarkably little data supporting the claim that the Chávez administration has acted any differently from previous Venezuelan governments -- or, for that matter, from those of other developing and Latin American nations -- in redistributing the gains from economic growth to the poor. One oft-cited statistic is the decline in poverty from a peak of 54 percent at the height of the national strike in 2003 to 27.5 percent in the first half of 2007. Although this decline may appear impressive, it is also known that poverty reduction is strongly associated with economic growth and that Venezuela's per capita GDP grew by nearly 50 percent during the same time period -- thanks in great part to a tripling of oil prices. The real question is thus not whether poverty has fallen but whether the Chávez government has been particularly effective at converting this period of economic growth into poverty reduction. One way to evaluate this is by calculating the reduction in poverty for every percentage point increase in per capita income -- in economists' lingo, the income elasticity of poverty reduction. This calculation shows an average reduction of one percentage point in poverty for every percentage point in per capita GDP growth during this recovery, a ratio that compares unfavorably with those of many other developing countries, for which studies tend to put the figure at around two percentage points. Similarly, one would expect pro-poor growth to be accompanied by a marked decrease in income inequality. But according to the Venezuelan Central Bank, inequality has actually increased during the Chávez administration, with the Gini coefficient (a measure of economic inequality, with zero indicating perfect equality and one indicating perfect inequality) increasing from 0.44 to 0.48 between 2000 and 2005.
Poverty and inequality statistics, of course, tell only part of the story. There are many aspects of the well-being of the poor not captured by measures of money income, and this is where Chávez's supporters claim that the government has made the most progress -- through its misiones, which have concentrated on the direct provision of health, education, and other basic public services to poor communities. But again, official statistics show no signs of a substantial improvement in the well-being of ordinary Venezuelans, and in many cases there have been worrying deteriorations. The percentage of underweight babies, for example, increased from 8.4 percent to 9.1 percent between 1999 and 2006. During the same period, the percentage of households without access to running water rose from 7.2 percent to 9.4 percent, and the percentage of families living in dwellings with earthen ?oors multiplied almost threefold, from 2.5 percent to 6.8 percent. In Venezuela, one can see the misiones everywhere: in government posters lining the streets of Caracas, in the ubiquitous red shirts issued to program participants and worn by government supporters at Chávez rallies, in the bloated government budget allocations. The only place where one will be hard-pressed to find them is in the human development statistics.
Remarkably, given Chávez's rhetoric and reputation, official figures show no significant change in the priority given to social spending during his administration. The average share of the budget devoted to health, education, and housing under Chávez in his first eight years in office was 25.12 percent, essentially identical to the average share (25.08 percent) in the previous eight years. And it is lower today than it was in 1992, the last year in office of the "neoliberal" administration of Carlos Andrés Pérez -- the leader whom Chávez, then a lieutenant colonel in the Venezuelan army, tried to overthrow in a coup, purportedly on behalf of Venezuela's neglected poor majority.
This is actually a broad lesson about governments everywhere: we give them too much credit for economic growth (and economic decline). It's safe to say that Chavez has done absolutely nothing to produce the tripling in oil prices that are boosting his economy and reducing poverty; in fact, oil production has fallen dramatically on his watch, thanks to mismanagement of PDVSA, the state owned oil company, which has gone from "best in class" to subpar in a few short years.
I confess I was surprised by this; it's a commonplace among energy people that PDVSA is suffering in part because its investment funds have been transferred to the poor. Now I don't know where they've gone.
Chavez, much like Castro, gets credit in spite of the evidence because he tickles ears with populist rhetoric, and the statistics, as always, can be spun to fit a certain picture if that's the picture one is looking for.
Howver, the overal economic and HDI picture of Venezuela appears to be that of a country deteriorating, much like the overall economic and HDI picture of Cuba has been one of a country that stagnated at a low level, while Dear Populist Leader makes out like a bandit on the side.
So, mouse-with-underscores, are we to understand that despite the punctuation change, you are the same improbably young engineer who has been writing curmudgeonly comments since the Live at the WTC days?
Gee, I dunno. Does Robert Mugabe help the poor?
Zimbabwe was once a fairly well-to-do place. 25 years of caudillo socialism has rendered it a pestilential hellhole. Venezuela also used to be near the top of its region in standard of living. Not now. If Chavez is "fortunate" enough to match Mugabe's tenure in office I predict present-day Zimbabwean living standards will by then apply in Venezuela. Things seem to be moving swiftly in that direction even as we speak.
As to where the money has gone, that's no mystery, really. There are the usual secret offshore accounts, of course, but Chavez fancies himself the second coming of Simon Bolivar. He figures to "liberate" himself a new "Bolivarian" superstate by conquering all of his contiguous neighbors. He recently bought two dozen Russian fighter jets and lots of other military hardware. Aggressive socialist states always have big military establishments. It's what they do.
It's now2008 and we have decades of data and scores of nations to examine the benefits and costs of socialism and communism. We can point to dozens of nations that have been nearly destroyed by these economic policies (even if you don't yet count Venezuela as one).
Can anyone point to a country that has been destroyed by capitalism?
And before you answer, note that you should exclude both mercantilism masquerading as capitalism and anarchy from lack of law and order or black markets.
Nessuno,
Well, Russia suffered a bit in the early days after the fall of Communism. But the corruption was really bad, so I don't know if that would count.
As far as where the money is going, I'm thinking some has ended up with FARC, some in Bolivia, and some in Cuba.
Can anyone point to a country that has been destroyed by capitalism?
And before you answer, note that you should exclude both mercantilism masquerading as capitalism and anarchy from lack of law and order or black markets.
You should not exclude "anarchy from lack of law and order". If a significant segment of the population have no stake in society due to inequality in wealth resulting from capitalism, then the resultant anarchy is due to capitalism. In Weimar Germany capitalism failed to provide the bulk of the populous a stake in society.
At its inception, social spending was high in order to undercut the communists. When the depression hit, the communists were very weak politically. The capitalist dominated conservative party insisted on drastic cuts to social spending in order to promote growth. Aside from being wrong about that, they did not realize how much it empowered the existing right-wing extremists.
Granted, Weimar Germany had an uphill struggle, but they had better circumstances then post WWI Russia or Post WWII China. Certainly, communism has a much worse track record, but capitalism does fail as well.
Rodriguez is a well known disgruntled fraud, who makes a fine living now cherry picking data and ignoring the mountains of evidence to the contrary in Venezuela. Those who think Venezuela is falling apart or declining in any way are badly misinformed.
Since just 2003, after the opposition tried to sabotage the economy, Venezuela has grown its GDP by more than a whopping 76%. Social spending has increased by 314% and poverty decreased by almost 40%. The unemployment rate has been cut in half, standing at 6.2% today. Extreme poverty has declined the most as incomes of the poorest 20% have mroe than doubled. And for those of you who care about such things, the private sector is a larger share of the economy than it was before President Chávez took office. All this was reported by the US based Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Nessuno, if we were to count the lives destroyed by capitalism and capitalist imperialism the figure would be in the hundreds of millions. Nevermind the effect on the environment our business first policies are having. Capitalism destroyed countless American cities and small towns and is now moving out to new areas as the mortgage crisis spreads.
Rodriguez is a well known disgruntled fraud, who makes a fine living now cherry picking data and ignoring the mountains of evidence to the contrary in Venezuela. Those who think Venezuela is falling apart or declining in any way are badly misinformed.
Since just 2003, after the opposition tried to sabotage the economy, Venezuela has grown its GDP by more than a whopping 76%. Social spending has increased by 314% and poverty decreased by almost 40%. The unemployment rate has been cut in half, standing at 6.2% today. Extreme poverty has declined the most as incomes of the poorest 20% have mroe than doubled. And for those of you who care about such things, the private sector is a larger share of the economy than it was before President Chávez took office. All this was reported by the US based Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Nessuno, if we were to count the lives destroyed by capitalism and capitalist imperialism the figure would be in the hundreds of millions. Nevermind the effect on the environment our business first policies are having. Capitalism destroyed countless American cities and small towns and is now moving out to new areas as the mortgage crisis spreads. Neo-liberal policies have been a monumental failure in Africa and Latin America. Just compare the astounding growth rate and development in LA during the socialist policies of the 50s-1975 verus the almost 0% growth in the 25 years after. There must be a new socialism, and Venezeula is showing the way with its focus on control of natural resources, cooperatives and citizen participation.
Nessuno, if we were to count the lives destroyed by capitalism and capitalist imperialism the figure would be in the hundreds of millions.
So, roughtly the number that communism literally killed, then? In all seriousness, who are these people? They must have been made worse off by capitalism, keep in mind; if they were subsistence farmers before, the fact that they have lousy factory jobs now doesn't mean their lives have been "destroyed."
Capitalism destroyed countless American cities and small towns and is now moving out to new areas as the mortgage crisis spreads.
Funny, some people might say that capitalism built those cities, but I guess not. We would have been much better off living in Soviet-designed apartment blocks than buying our own places in the free market, I guess.
I can think of a couple of other places where Venezuela's oil revenues have gone: into Argentine sovereign debt and into subsidized heating oil to support Joe Kennedy's charity/sinecure.
The WSJ also had an article recently about some of the collectivist rural 'cooperatives' that PDVSA has been forced to buy stuff from.
"Capitalism destroyed countless American cities and small towns and is now moving out to new areas as the mortgage crisis spreads."
The mortgage industry in America has had a gigantic level of government involvement: from the implicit subsidies of the mortgage interest tax deduction, to the de facto elimination of capital gains taxes on primary home sales, to the implicit subsidy of loose monetary policy, to the secondary market in mortgages created by the Government-Sponsored Entities. If it didn't, mortgage rates would probably have probably averaged 9% over the last several years instead of 6%, 33% of Americans would be homeowners instead of 66%, home prices would be more inline with average incomes, and there'd be no "crisis" of people at risk of losing homes they were never able to afford in the first place.
it's a commonplace among energy people that PDVSA is suffering in part because its investment funds have been transferred to the poor. Now I don't know where they've gone.
Empire building amongst the government/ not-really-government bureaucracy I imagine. That is where the money usually goes, after all.
Put another way: it is subsidising inefficient government. There is always an unlimited demand for that.
Njorl,
The capitalist dominated conservative party insisted on drastic cuts to social spending in order to promote growth. Aside from being wrong about that, they did not realize how much it empowered the existing right-wing extremists
If by "right-wing", you mean Nazis, then you are participating in the big lie. The Nationalist Socialists (Nazis), like all statist totalitarians, belong to the left. No matter how long the left has tried to pretend otherwise.
Oil is over $100 a barrell and there are food shortages in Venezuela. That is all you need to know about socialism.
Njor1 --
Weimar Germany inherited its economic structure from the Empire -- capitalist in form, but really having a high level of central control managed by a few large banks working hand in hand with the state. In WW I the Germans invented "war socialism" so assiduously copied by the Bolsheviks. Also, the policy of the Weimar government to rapidly inflate its currency as an offshoot of the French/Belgian occupation of the Ruhr destroyed the life savings of middle and working classes and seriously dislocated an already shaky economy. Capitalism did not fail in Germany -- the German political culture failed.
Nessuno --
Capitalism means private property, individual rights and the rule of law. That is why capitalism is most associated with liberal democracy. Liberal democracies do not go to war with each other -- the more liberal the society the harder it is to get it to go to war. Classical imperialism was not about markets. No imperialist country made a profit on any of its colonies -- though individual imperialists did. Hence a british liberal's complaint that the empire was "a vast system of outdoor relief for the aristocratic classes" -- outdoor relief being the 19th century britishism for workfare/welfare.
True capitalism eliminates poverty and other social ills like racism. Jim Crow laws were passed in the south in the late 19th century because blacks -- although politically disenfranchised -- were beginning to compete successfuly in what was still a fairly free economy.
Regards
"if we were to count the lives destroyed by capitalism and capitalist imperialism the figure would be in the hundreds of millions."
Heh.
"Capitalism destroyed countless American cities and small towns"
Funny. I've lived here all my life, and in my ~40 years I've never seen a single small town (I live in one) or city (I visit many of them often) destroyed by ANYTHING, much less capitalism. As a matter of fact, most of the towns around here wouldn't be there if it wasn't for capitalim building the businesses that provide the work for the people there. Like the owner of my company. As a matter of further fact, capitalism is the primary reason I will have a restful, rewarding retirement in about 20 years.
Hugo, is that you trolling the blogs?
It's hard to evaluate Hugo Chavez with all the propaganda flying back and forth. I've long regarded him as perhaps the biggest hero on the planet for his forthright condemnation of George W. Bush - the most hated person in the world (and deservedly so) - and for his efforts to free not just Venezuela but all of Latin America from corporate bondage and "Yankee imperialism."
No sane person can argue with those goals, which have most recently spawned a confrontation with Exxon, one of the most corrupt and destructive corporations in the world. Only a free market wh*re would back Exxon in this dispute.
Unfortunately, it's sometimes hard to know if Chavez really walks the talk, or if he's merely exploiting class struggle and freedom for political gain. Even if he is serious, does he have sufficient common sense to get the job done, or is he TOO socialist or too erratic?
In summary, I praise Chavez for calling a spade a spade (or worse, in George W. Bush's case), for forcing foreign oil corporations to pay fair share, for persuading other Latin American nations to break free of the U.S. and for such brilliant ideas a Telesur.
Evaluating him in other areas is more difficult, but you have to admit he has a very difficult job. Assuming Chavez is genuine and really is trying to help the poor, how can you do that with the world's most powerful nation meddling in your nation's affairs, sowing dissent and arming your neighbor (Colombia)? And how can you count on hearing the truth about it all in the corporate media?
The last time I ran for public office, I used my campaign to support Chavez. I'm now running for office again, and I'll once again publicly display my support.
Viva Chavez!
It's hard to evaluate Hugo Chavez with all the propaganda flying back and forth. I've long regarded him as perhaps the biggest hero on the planet for his forthright condemnation of George W. Bush - the most hated person in the world (and deservedly so) - and for his efforts to free not just Venezuela but all of Latin America from corporate bondage and "Yankee imperialism."
No sane person can argue with those goals, which have most recently spawned a confrontation with Exxon, one of the most corrupt and destructive corporations in the world. Only a free market wh*re would back Exxon in this dispute.
Unfortunately, it's sometimes hard to know if Chavez really walks the talk, or if he's merely exploiting class struggle and freedom for political gain. Even if he is serious, does he have sufficient common sense to get the job done, or is he TOO socialist or too erratic?
In summary, I praise Chavez for calling a spade a spade (or worse, in George W. Bush's case), for forcing foreign oil corporations to pay fair share, for persuading other Latin American nations to break free of the U.S. and for such brilliant ideas a Telesur.
Evaluating him in other areas is more difficult, but you have to admit he has a very difficult job. Assuming Chavez is genuine and really is trying to help the poor, how can you do that with the world's most powerful nation meddling in your nation's affairs, sowing dissent and arming your neighbor (Colombia)? And how can you count on hearing the truth about it all in the corporate media?
The last time I ran for public office, I used my campaign to support Chavez. I'm now running for office again, and I'll once again publicly display my support.
Viva Chavez!
I've long regarded him as perhaps the biggest hero on the planet for his forthright condemnation of George W. Bush
Oh come on. Castro and Imanutjob or whatever his name is both condemn Bush, too, not to mention innumerable Prius drivers, who do it without the benefit of being heads of state.
David Blomstrom -
If you're running for public office and making support for Chavez part of your campaign, shouldn't you actually visit Venezuela first? Try to buy milk there (no, not in a fancy hotel, but the way a real resident would have to, in an average neighborhood). Talk to the people standing in line with little hope of getting a pint of milk today or any time in the next week, and see if their joy at Chavez's crude verbal attacks on others is sufficient to make them stop wanting access to basic foodstuffs.
You support Chavez because he says things that you like, and as for the result of his actions, you say 'oh, well, evaluating actions is hard, so I think I'll stick to judging him on his words alone, and on who he hates' (a paraphrase, obviously, but a pretty good summary of your message). Shouldn't you look some of the Venezuelan poor in the eye before you applaud Chavez based on his words alone, regardless of results?
Anthony said it best:
"Oil is over $100 a barrell and there are food shortages in Venezuela. That is all you need to know about socialism."
It's also all you need to know about Chavez.
Rodriguez is a well known disgruntled fraud, who makes a fine living now cherry picking data and ignoring the mountains of evidence to the contrary in Venezuela.
Evidence?
You wrote, "Oh come on. Castro and Imanutjob or whatever his name is both condemn Bush, too, not to mention innumerable Prius drivers, who do it without the benefit of being heads of state."
That's just the point. Millions of people around the world - including Prius drivers - hate Bush and don't hesitate to say so. But how many public leaders have the courage to speak the simple truth about the world's #1 terrorist? Castro, Chavez, maybe a handful of others.
That alone merits admiration. But does Chavez do more than talk? Well, he's certainly taken a stand against the same oil corporations that scr*w U.S. citizens, with George Bush's blessing. You do the math.
Ann wrote, "You support Chavez because he says things that you like, and as for the result of his actions, you say 'oh, well, evaluating actions is hard, so I think I'll stick to judging him on his words alone, and on who he hates' (a paraphrase, obviously, but a pretty good summary of your message)."
I said evaluating the RESULTS is hard. I admire some of Chavez' actions, like taking a stand against Exxon, establishing Telesur and helping other Latin American nations break free of "Yankee imperialism."
"Shouldn't you look some of the Venezuelan poor in the eye before you applaud Chavez based on his words alone, regardless of results?"
I could throw that back in your face. Shouldn't YOU look Venezuela's poor in the face before defending George W. Bush?
In the meantime, you claim Venezuelans have a hard time buying milk. And we should believe you because...?
Anthony wrote, "Oil is over $100 a barrell and there are food shortages in Venezuela. That is all you need to know about socialism."
No, that is not all you need to know about socialism. That's like saying Enron, Haliburton and Microsoft are all you need to know about capitalism.
Socialism comes in many flavors, with definitions ranging from economics to social justice. I happen to believe in a mixed economy, combining capitalism and socialism. Or, to put it another way, I prefer capitalism with accountability, which many right-wingers define as "socialism."
Wow. I hit your website there David. Is there anyone you DO like? Other than Chavez and Muslims, of course. So how does one use his campaign to the local school board to support Chavez? That must have been interesting. God help those poor kids if you ever do actually win something. I think even in Seattle though, the majority of the voters are smarter than that. Good luck with that whole crazy thing you got going on.
sowing dissent
Isn't dissent patriotic, David?
Njorl,
In cases where the society started as stable capitalism then went to anarchy, you'd have a point, but I can't think of an example of this off-hand. Societies without enforcable property rights shouldn't be considered capitalist - after the collapse of property rights you've got a different economic system.
Also, I'm not that knowledgeable of German history, but I don't think that the Weimar Republic is a clear example of a failed capitalist state, let alone one that was destroyed by capitalism. I think the SDP (democratic socialists) was the most powerful party during the Republic (and more politically successful than the NVP and the other liberal (in the European sense) parties) and was a major player in most of the parlimentary coalitions. I wouldn't say that the Weimar Republic was socialist either - the coalitions were largely assembled based support for the existence of republican government (due to it never being particular stable in the first place with substantial right and left-wing challenges to it at various times), so the government never seemed to fall clearly into one economic approach or another with the actual policy varying greatly depending on the specific composition of the ruling coalition.
I'd have gone with the decline of the Dutch Republic, which was more convincingly capitalist despite some notable government-granted monopolies and was ultimately crippled military by overextending itself playing the empire game, which was at least in part motivated by their interest in trade with the East, allowing a French invasion to succeed.
There are a lot of people who assume that anyone who screws the rich must be helping the poor. The reasoning, I guess, is that they see the economy as a zero-sum game, so if the rich take it in the shorts then it must be happy times for the needy.
In reality, of course, the economy isn't zero-sum; it is possible for everyone to win, and possible for everyone to lose. Governments are a lot better at arranging for the latter.
(posted this in the wrong thread originally)
Buzz wrote, "Wow. I hit your website there David. Is there anyone you DO like? Other than Chavez and Muslims, of course."
Well, I think it's pretty obvious where you're coming from. Can't you right-wingers be less transparent?
But to answer your question, there really aren't many people I admire, at least not many high profile people. Given that corporate corruption is this generation's most urgent issue, it's kind of hard to admire anyone who isn't speaking out against corporate corruption.
And how can any sane, caring person not despise George W. Bush?
To put it another way, what was the big lesson the world supposedly learned in the 1940's? DON'T APPEASE DICTATORS.
Yet leaders around the world do Bush's bidding, with Hugo Chavez a rare exception. And if you think Muslims are the only people who support Chavez, let me give you a clue: Unlike George W. Bush, Chavez was fairly elected, and most Venezuelans are not Muslim.
But how many public leaders have the courage to speak the simple truth about the world's #1 terrorist?
It's true that few other people are willing to admit that Bush is Satan, despite clear evidence.
And how can any sane, caring person not despise George W. Bush?
Granting for the moment that non-despisers are either insane or uncaring, it doesn't follow that Chavez or Castro are heroes for hating Bush, does it? Hitler didn't leave it at mere words--he actually went to war with Stalin, but I'm not sure I'd declare him a great hero for his opposition to Soviet imperialism.
Some of Bush's enemies are surely lousy people themselves.
Rob Lyman wrote, "It's true that few other people are willing to admit that Bush is Satan, despite clear evidence."
I have no problem with calling Bush "satan" any more than I object to people calling him the anti-Christ or comparing him with Adolph Hitler.
However, Chavez has done more than compare Bush to Satan. He suggested that Bush might have been behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks, an idea many U.S. citizens agree with (myself included). I'm pretty sure he's labeled Bush a terrorist. I'm not sure if he's ever called him a war criminal, but he probably has.
"Granting for the moment that non-despisers are either insane or uncaring, it doesn't follow that Chavez or Castro are heroes for hating Bush, does it? Hitler didn't leave it at mere words--he actually went to war with Stalin, but I'm not sure I'd declare him a great hero for his opposition to Soviet imperialism."
Hitler wasn't a sworn enemy of "Soviet imperialism." He was a war criminal who wanted to conquer more territory. End of story.
"Some of Bush's enemies are surely lousy people themselves."
Of course, chief among them the Democrats (though most elected Democrats don't really qualify as Bush haters).
So you scored a point: There are some jerks in this world who hate George W. Bush, just as there are jerks who hate Adolph Hitler. What a brilliant concept.
"Unlike George W. Bush, Chavez was fairly elected"
Wow, I give up. If this is your reality, we'll never get anywhere. But if you ever actually went to Venezuela, you'd see the shortages of basic foodstuffs for yourself. And Chavez's 'taking a stand against Exxon' was just plain old-fashioned looting. Do you also admire street muggers (as long as they shout obscenities about Bush while waving their guns, of course)?
David, you still haven't responded to my asking if dissent was patriotic. The reason I ask is that you're running for school board, and you seem to be very worried about dissent, which is apparently being sown (surely no one would object to Chavez' Bolivarization campaign--it must be coming from splitters or outsiders). What do you plan to do about sown dissent when you are elected?
ME: ""Unlike George W. Bush, Chavez was fairly elected"
ANN: "Wow, I give up. If this is your reality, we'll never get anywhere."
It's not just MY reality. Venezuelan elections are hardly secret affairs. And if Chavez was UNFAIRLY elected, where's the international condemnation? The criticism I hear comes mostly from right-wing kooks based in the USA.
"But if you ever actually went to Venezuela, you'd see the shortages of basic foodstuffs for yourself."
So say all the right-wing kooks. Others say just the opposite. But we should believe Ann because...?
"And Chavez's 'taking a stand against Exxon' was just plain old-fashioned looting. Do you also admire street muggers (as long as they shout obscenities about Bush while waving their guns, of course)?"
Yes, you can always score points with mindless hyperbole.
First, Exxon and other foreign corporations mugged VENEZUELANS, just as they mug U.S. citizens. Or maybe you'd like to tell us about all the wonderful things Exxon has done for Iraqi civlians?
Leave it to a right-winger to promote the biggest filfth on the planet as somehow righteous, or at worst an innocent victim. Sheez.
Scone wrote, "David, you still haven't responded to my asking if dissent was patriotic. The reason I ask is that you're running for school board, and you seem to be very worried about dissent, which is apparently being sown (surely no one would object to Chavez' Bolivarization campaign--it must be coming from splitters or outsiders). What do you plan to do about sown dissent when you are elected?"
Following your line of reasoning, we might dismiss Jews who hate Nazis as unpatriotic dissenters. To put it another way, I think you're confusing dissent with propaganda.
As they say, "Dissent is essential." But it really helps if the dissent is accurate and channeled in the right direction.
Hitler wasn't a sworn enemy of "Soviet imperialism."
Well, he was certainly a sworn enemy of communism in general, which, of course, he blamed on the Jews.
But that said, The "greatest hero on the planet" thing is bugging me. I think that Ahmadinejad has at the very least matched Chavez in anti-Bush rhetoric ("terrorist," "war criminal," opposition to American imperialism, etc), and Saddam did very well in his day as well. So I'm struggling to see what sets Chavez apart from these guys, rhetoric-wise, so as to make him a planetary hero.
Reading comprehension check: I never said there are jerks who hate Hitler. I said that hating Stalin isn't enough to qualify you as a non-jerk. And thus hating Bush probably shouldn't be the principal qualification the planet's greatest hero.
Folks interested in an eyewitness account of the food shortage crisis in Venezuela should take a look at this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020801240.html
As they say, "Dissent is essential." But it really helps if the dissent is accurate and channeled in the right direction.
I see, dissent is OK, even essential, as long as it's not wrong or "sown" (otherwise it's "propaganda"). So you plan on "channeling" it in the right direction on the school board. I didn't think dissent could be "channeled" but no doubt you already have the speech code written up to solve this difficult problem. Could we get an example of what you would propose if a student were to submit to--or engage in--propaganda?
av2ts must be smoking crack.... I've been to Venezuela several times. Chavez and this so called 21st Century Socialism is nothing but the same old Marxist recipe for failure. Venezuela's crime rate has skyrocketed... It highest murder rate in the Western hemisphere... Widespread food shortages... increadible inflation and the strong Bolivar is anything but.
Controlled capitalism has.. Neoliberalism has been much more successful than Communism, rapped in socialist paper.
Most South American countries are failing due to a culture of corruption and self-importance, and the lake of civility.
Rob Lyman wrote, "Well, he [Hitler] was certainly a sworn enemy of communism in general, which, of course, he blamed on the Jews."
Rob, please get a clue: Hitler wasn't fighting for a noble cause. He was a fascist, a Nazi, a megalomaniac, get it? He probably would have invaded Russia if it was a nation of capitalist pigs.
"But that said, The 'greatest hero on the planet' thing is bugging me. . . . So I'm struggling to see what sets Chavez apart from these guys [Ahmadinejad and Saddam Hussein], rhetoric-wise, so as to make him a planetary hero."
I don't know what to think about Ahmadinejad. He seems like a very intelligent person, and he's certainly no coward. However, he's too authoritarian to merit hero status in most people's eyes. Saddam Hussein was a true dictator - and a very cruel one. He also had some very evil friends, notably Republicans.
"Reading comprehension check: I never said there are jerks who hate Hitler. I said that hating Stalin isn't enough to qualify you as a non-jerk. And thus hating Bush probably shouldn't be the principal qualification the planet's greatest hero."
Comprehension Check: I never said hating Bush was Chavez' principal qualification. I listed several things I admire Chavez for.
David Blomstrom writes:
No. He took over a relatively well off, peaceful country. The major commodity, oil, is hitting all time high prices. His predecessors weren't all that popular.
As far as head of state gigs go, his should be about as easy as it gets.
DJ wrote, "Folks interested in an eyewitness account of the food shortage crisis in Venezuela should take a look at this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020801240.html"
Now there's a credible source - the Washington "Let's Invade Iraq!" Post.
One of the few bright spots in Iraqnam was during the invasion when some the Iraqis greased some Washington Post columnist. I can't think of his name offhand, but he was a right-wing crank. I cheered when I heard the news. :)
One of the few bright spots in Iraqnam was during the invasion when some the Iraqis greased some Washington Post columnist. I can't think of his name offhand, but he was a right-wing crank. I cheered when I heard the news. :)
You're also in favor of killing journalists? Are you going to put that on your campaign website?
Scone wrote, "I see, dissent is OK, even essential, as long as it's not wrong or "sown" (otherwise it's "propaganda").
Let me put it another way: There's dissent, propaganda and BS (which is often a form of propaganda).
I believe dissent should generally be tolerated (it's called free speech), and when a corrupt government (e.g. George Bush, Inc.) succeeds in stifling dissent (e.g. in the wake of 9/11), then trouble is sure to follow (as we've all seen).
But do I believe that everyone who claims to be a dissenter is on the level?
No, I'm not that stupid. I've met plenty of "activists" who were working for Microsoft.
"So you plan on "channeling" it in the right direction on the school board."
I'll never serve on the Seattle School Board. Legislation is being crafted that would abolish our elected school board. I guess the corporations that run the school district can't stand dissent.
I never said hating Bush was Chavez' principal qualification. I listed several things I admire Chavez for.
Rob, please get a clue: Hitler wasn't fighting for a noble cause.
I don't believe I've said he was. But, see, he said he was fighting for a noble cause, just like Chavez does.
I never said hating Bush was Chavez' principal qualification. I listed several things I admire Chavez for.
Well, what you said was:
So you put "forthright condemnation" first, which I found suggestive. And as as I've pointed out, Ahmadinejad seems to qualify on all three of those standards, too. He may be "too authoritarian" for you, but Chavez is not exactly Mr. Civil Liberties here.
My point, simply put, is that talk is cheap. Just because you hate Bush--or from the looks of it, most American politicians--doesn't mean that you should make common cause with those who hate Bush.
Scone wrote, "You're also in favor of killing journalists? Are you going to put that on your campaign website?"
Actually, no one has a greater reputation for murdering journalists than Hugo Chavez.
Just joking! Actually, George W. Bush has probably presided over the murder of more journalists than any other U.S. president, possibly more than any other world leader. (However, don't quote me on that last part; I haven't verified it.)
In the meantime, remember that little conversation we had about dissent? Well, likewise, there are journalists and there are media wh*res. The individual who was killed in Iraq was the latter.
To make it perfectly clear, his words helped engineer the illegal and immoral invasion of another country. Thus, it was only fitting that an Iraqi freedom fighter greased him.
I'd call it poetic justice, wouldn't you?
I believe dissent should generally be tolerated
Can you elaborate on the times when dissent should not be tolerated, and the appropriate methods for dealing with intolerable dissent?
In a sane world Blomstrom would be in prison for sedition right now.
He is a domestic enemy of the United States and should be treated the same as foreign ones.
Leftists seek to destoy America and they may have a standard bearer in November. If Americans are foolish enough to elect one then we deserve our fate.
In a sane world Blomstrom would be in prison for sedition right now
Oh, let the man speak. He's not hurting anyone.
Rob Lyman wrote, "So you put "forthright condemnation" first, which I found suggestive."
Oh.
"And as as I've pointed out, Ahmadinejad seems to qualify on all three of those standards, too. He may be 'too authoritarian' for you, but Chavez is not exactly Mr. Civil Liberties here."
Ahmadinejad isn't just too authoritarian for me; many people consider him too authoritarian. It's a somewhat complex situation; people admire him for standing up to Bush at the same time, but I don't think many people regard revere him as much as Chavez.
I believe Ahmadinejad is also regarded as a religious extremist, similar to George W. Bush. The same can't be said of Chavez.
"My point, simply put, is that talk is cheap. Just because you hate Bush--or from the looks of it, most American politicians--doesn't mean that you should make common cause with those who hate Bush."
You sound like a propagandist. I've clearly stated - several times - that I admire Chavez for his ACTIONS as well as his words. And what ACTIONS have I mentioned?
> Standing up to foreign oil corporations (notably Exxon).
> Establishing Telesur.
> Helping other Latin American nations break free of the U.S.
> Recruiting Cuban doctors to help needy Venezuelans.
Another one I forgot to mention...I believe Chavez is trying to establish a Latin American bank, sort of a counterpart to the International Monetary Fund. I can't remember the particulars offhand, but the idea is to help make Latin Americans more financially independent.
You do agree that financial independence is a good thing, don't you?
According to UNESCO, Venezuela is ranked first in the world in terms of deaths by firearms. Murders are the third cause of death overall in Venezuela, and the first cause of death among adult males. By 2005, the increase in the murder rate was 301.76 per cent relative to 1998's rate. Last year, the homicide rate in Caracas was 154 per 100,000 inhabitants. To put that figure in perspective, Detroit and Washington D.C., the two cities that have alternated as the U.S.'s worst over the last few years, have never reached a rate over 46 homicides per 100,000 people. The Canadian rate, for 2004, was 2 per 100,000. (ht: Igloo Expert Blog) But, hey, all is for the best - fewer people standing in the bread, milk and honey line there in Chavezland. Because, after all, this time, after 200+ years (even worse than the Chicago Cubs) of consecutive micro and macro failure, we're finally going to figure this socialism thing out and make it work.
Thanks Megan for that. There are so many people who can't think critically about these issues because they live in a community based reality that has no basis in fact. It would be interesting to get someone with critical thinking skills to explain why so many economists are conservative, and so many communists are nuts.
"The opposite of war isn't peace, but surrender. While it pleases the Left to see itself as the embodiment of virtue, the "pro-war" element is working for peace too- but on better terms"
"I've long regarded him as perhaps the biggest hero on the planet for his forthright condemnation of George W. Bush - the most hated person in the world (and deservedly so) . . ."
This amused me. As a baseline, whoever is keeping Democrats from . . . whatever it is that Democrats want at the time . . . is always "the most hated person on earth."
The amusement (the current part of it, at least) comes from seeing them now split into two groups and aiming their bisected hatred at each other. I can't tell you how many Democrats have remarked to me that they never before understood why all the Republicans so viscerally hated Hilary Clinton. I usually just resist the urge to point out that most Republicans didn't hate her at all, because they never believe me - the Democrats simply cannot conceive of NOT hating someone who holds values different from their own values.
Can you elaborate on the times when dissent should not be tolerated, and the appropriate methods for dealing with intolerable dissent?
Of course he can: if you agree with his left-fascist outlook (that's what he, in his patronizing tone he refers to as "dissent"), you are allowed to live. Otherwise you're a media whore, and can be killed. That's what he hoped to bring to the Seattle schools.
What the fuck is so laudable about "helping" the poor, McArdle? Strip that of its fuzzy PC feel-your-pain candy coating, and what you're talking about is forceably transferring economic resources from those best able to employ them to those who are, demonstrably, least able. Not only do you distort the decision-making of both groups, but you obviously make the whole economic goods pie steadily smaller.
That makes as much sense as reverse triage in a hospital, i.e. spending all your health care time and resources on patients sure to die and ignoring those who might live with proper treatment.
You'd have to be a complete moron -- like David Blomstrom, for example -- to think that makes any kind of sense at all.
Sam wrote, "In a sane world Blomstrom would be in prison for sedition right now.
He is a domestic enemy of the United States and should be treated the same as foreign ones."
OK, I'll bite - How am I guilty of sedition? And how am I a domestic enemy of the U.S.?
"Leftists seek to destoy America and they may have a standard bearer in November. If Americans are foolish enough to elect one then we deserve our fate."
Oh, right, let's elect another George W. Bush and watch America rise to even greater heights - of corruption, debt and stupidity, that is.
In the meantime, you claim Venezuelans have a hard time buying milk. And we should believe you because...?
Anyone who has bothered to inform themselves on Venezuela is aware of the food shortages. Food shortages were one reason why Chavez lost the December 2 referendum. Regarding food shortages, here is a report from an English-speaking Venezuelan living in Venezuela. His blog is highly recommended.
http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2007/11/christmas-shelves-in-venezuela.html
Caracas Chronicles is also a good English Language blog on Venezuela.
Another good English Language blog on Venezuela is Devil’s Excrement. It translates a recent article in Tal Cual by Teodoro Petkoff, a former guerrilla: Media Show. At the top of the article is a cartoon by Weil. An English translation of the cartoon’s dialogue follows.
Left: Son take care of yourself at the border. Don't worry mother I will write daily. Right: If you can: send milk, chicken and eggs.
If one wants to believe there are not food shortages in Venezuela, feel free to do so. After all, one is free to believe that the sun revolves around the earth, and that man has not made a trip to the moon.
I doubt these sources are credible for David B. , because as a typical PSF he would apparently accept only Chavista sources. And no Chavista source will admit the truth. (PSF: Pendejo Sin Frontera. What oppo Venezuelans call Gringo Chavistas.)
(I have few links because the software on this blog does not readily post comments w a lot of links.)
Carl Pham wrote, "What the fuck is so laudable about "helping" the poor, McArdle? Strip that of its fuzzy PC feel-your-pain candy coating, and what you're talking about is forceably transferring economic resources from those best able to employ them to those who are, demonstrably, least able."
Baloney - for me, anyway. As I said earlier, there are many flavors of socialism (and at least a few flavors of capitalism).
I prefer the type of socialism where you take money from the super rich crooks and thieves (e.g. Bill Gates) and give it back to the people they stole it from.
Now, I can just about guess what you're going to say - Bill Gates isn't a thief! But IF there were ANY billionaires or multi-millionaires who made their money by scr*wing people, would not agree that they should be held accountable?
And can you name some people who belong to this category, or do you think Corporate America is pure as the driven snow?
I'll not bite, Mr.Blomstrom. It is useless to talk with you, I clearly understand what you are. My statement was for others.
Have a bad day.
You do agree that financial independence is a good thing, don't you?
Well, provided the beneficiaries of this bank are independent from Chavez, as well, and the bank functions credibly, then sure. The IMF has many, many problems, no doubt about it.
You sound like a propagandist.
Oh, well that's because I am one. You are cordially invited to cheer my death whenever it occurs.
People, stop feeding the troll.
Someone wrote that Venezuela has the highest murder rate in the world. According to a chart on this page - http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita - it does indeed rank very high (4th place).
So what country is #1? Venezuela's neighbor Columbia, South American headquarters for George Bush, Inc.
Interesting coincidence, eh?
Rob - yes. The confusion had come up in the past (there were three of us in a thread once) but that twit in the firefighting/healthcare comments section finally convinced me that a slighty modification was in order.
David Blomstrom wrote: Yes, you can always score points with mindless hyperbole.
That explains why your most recent post just triggered a register overflow in the computerized scoreboard, which is kind of special when one considers that we had just upgraded the system to 64-bit.
Interestingly, I think I met you in Colorado Springs about two years ago, on a hot day in mid-July. You were the one standing by the downtown bus station in sunglasses, a trenchcoat, and a full beard, shouting random gibberish at random people right before crossing six lanes of traffic against the light, yes?
Blomstrom is the best thing conservatives have going- a "liberal" who clearly and eloquently shouts his ignorant gobbledy-gook from the tallest structure at every opportunity.
But IF there were ANY billionaires or multi-millionaires who made their money by scr*wing people...
People who make money by screwing people are usually called whores. And you're on record as supporting the death penalty for whores, so I guess it's all self-consistent.
That said, certainly crooks should be held accountable, but perhaps you should define "crook" whenever you get around to defining what is unacceptable "dissent" and how it should be dealt with.
Anony_mouse wrote, "Interestingly, I think I met you in Colorado Springs about two years ago, on a hot day in mid-July. You were the one standing by the downtown bus station in sunglasses, a trenchcoat, and a full beard, shouting random gibberish at random people right before crossing six lanes of traffic against the light, yes?"
Typical right-winger; if hyperbole and BS don't work, try outright lies.
Rob Lyman wrote, "That said, certainly crooks should be held accountable, but perhaps you should define "crook" whenever you get around to defining what is unacceptable "dissent" and how it should be dealt with."
I'll go one better and cite some examples of crooks: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Gates, William Gates, Sr., Paul Allen, Billary Clinton, Al Gore, Rush Limbaugh, etc.
So what makes these people crooks? They're all dishonest. (In plain English, they're liars.) They're all ultimately working for corporations. More specifically, they help corporations screw people.
Microsoft (Bill Gates' mirror image) has a reputation for screwing just everyone - competitors, its own customers, workers, teachers, children and on and on.
But this little discussion really wasn't necessary. I think most people instinctively know what a crook is - even the right-wingers who cheer for the world's most disgusting crooks.
Typical right-winger; if hyperbole and BS don't work, try outright lies.
Yes, but what will I do for an encore?
Yes, but what will I do for an encore?
That's that question that keeps us all coming back.
They're all ultimately working for corporations...
Well, then you'll be glad to hear that I work for a limited liability partnership.
But in all seriousness, people do have an instinctive notion of what "crook" means, but their notions are not all the same. Yours, for instance, appears to differ from mine. That's why I asked for a definition, so that I could better understand where you're coming from. You gave me a list of rich, famous people. That's not helping.
And with that, I must go home to my wife and child. I will close with yet another request for a definition of unacceptable dissent and the proper means for dealing with it.
Have a lovely evening, all.
Rob Lyman wrote, "You gave me a list of rich, famous people."
No, here's a list of rich, famous people:
Magic Johnson, Jessica Alba, Herb Alpert & Jerry Lewis.
The list I gave you earlier consisted of rich and famous people who are CORRUPT. Which isn't to say that all crooks are rich and famous. But the more politically powerful crooks certainly manage to steal more money from most of us.
Rob Lyman wrote, "And with that, I must go home to my wife and child. I will close with yet another request for a definition of unacceptable dissent and the proper means for dealing with it.
Have a lovely evening, all."
Good night, Rob.
From CEPR:
From 1960 to 1979, Latin American economies grew at a decent rate, chalking up an 80% gain in income per person. In spite of Latin America having the world's worst inequality in income distribution, this was enough to substantially improve living standards for the vast majority of the population, including most of the poor.
But then something went wrong, and it has as much to do with policies advocated by the "Washington consensus." From 1980 to 1999, per-capita income grew by only 11%. The 1980s were known as Latin America's "lost decade," when the region's income per person actually fell. The 1990s produced only modest growth, and the first decade of the 21st century is now looking like it might also count itself among the missing. Using the International Monetary Fund's [IMF] projections for 2004, the first half of the new decade [2000-04] shows a gain of about 1% for the whole five years.
Well, why don't the VE people turn his head into a cloud of pink?
I can't stand to listen to the twerp. Shame there's not a comet headed his way...
av2ts: I have read the CEPR report, and I understand its conclusions. However, the Foreign Affairs article is arguing that Venezuela's recent success has been the result of oil demand shocks, not any of Chavez's policies, and in fact his policies have almost certainly hurt the country's poor. That doesn't contradict the CEPR article.
I'm curious what makes you think the author is disingenuous. He's certainly not claiming that Washington Consensus policies were good for Venezuela's poor (after all, he used to work for the Chavez government).
"Microsoft (Bill Gates' mirror image) has a reputation for screwing just everyone - competitors, its own customers, workers, teachers, children and on and on."
At any time in the last forty years, you were free to devote all of your free time (plus most of your not-so-free time) to the decades-long task of teaching yourself an entirely new way of thinking (binarily), teaching yourself hardcore electronics, and then combining them in a way no one else had ever done and designing the first workable, stable, useful computer operating system, one that changed the computer from a nerd's toy for drawing spirals and printing out the numbers from 1 to 1998227744.9 by threes into a very useful productivity multiplier.
But, no, you were too busy getting high, playing video games, and writing scathing entries late at night on blogs so that you could change the world in the manner you knew you were destined to do.
So, how's that workin' out for ya'?
David Blomstrom: "I don't know what to think about Ahmadinejad. He seems like a very intelligent person, and he's certainly no coward. However, he's too authoritarian to merit hero status in most people's eyes."
Let's see if we can review the facts: Ahmadinejad has teenagers murdered for having inappropriate physical contact with each other and he has homosexuals murdered just for being.
BUT he badmouths Bush while he has people killed.
And you don't know what to think of him.
Fortunately, I think that I know what to think about you.
By the way, your views on US imperialism are almost as silly as your views on 9-11.
And no, it isn't a coincidence that Columbia might have the highest murder rate in the world. With Chavez supporting and harboring the murderous FARC, it would be quite surprising if it were not so.
Bobby b wrote, "At any time in the last forty years, you were free to devote all of your free time (plus most of your not-so-free time) to the decades-long task of teaching yourself an entirely new way of thinking (binarily), teaching yourself hardcore electronics, and then combining them in a way no one else had ever done and designing the first workable, stable, useful computer operating system, one that changed the computer from a nerd's toy for drawing spirals and printing out the numbers from 1 to 1998227744.9 by threes into a very useful productivity multiplier."
Ah, but I wasn't born with the world's biggest silver spoon in my mouth. I wasn't born into a very wealthy and politically powerful Seattle family. And my father wasn't a corrupt attorney who could help me screw competitors. (No, Bill Gates did not invent computers or software; he's had competitors all along.)
"But, no, you were too busy getting high, playing video games, and writing scathing entries late at night on blogs so that you could change the world in the manner you knew you were destined to do."
No, I don't play computer games, I've never been a pothead, and I didn't start posting on blogs until about 1995, long after Bill Gates had stolen his way to fame and fortune.
I'd say, "Nice try, BB," but your post was another example of free market whore idiocy.
Gringo -
Thank you for listing some good blogs on Venezuela!
I agree with Half Canadian that we should all stop feeding the troll.
And anony_mouse_, I'm a bit slow tonight (which hopefully is an exception) - are you anonymouse, or someone separate?
Chris wrote, "Let's see if we can review the facts: Ahmadinejad has teenagers murdered for having inappropriate physical contact with each other and he has homosexuals murdered just for being."
So you're saying Ahmadinejad is just as bad as George W. Bush, a fellow religions kook who has murdered as many as a million people in Iraq alone.
You could be right. Still, you have to give Ahmadinejad a brownie point for being reasonably intelligent. And, like it or not, Iran is the sole power standing up to the U.S. in the Middle East.
It would be nice if Iran was led by someone all of us could truly embrace. Sadly, that's not the case. So what does that make Ahmadinejad - a hero? A tainted hero? A derelict who serves a useful function?
As I said, I don't revere him the way I do Chavez. But I would not want him replaced by someone who sucks up to Bush, no matter how "nice" that person might be.
"By the way, your views on US imperialism are almost as silly as your views on 9-11."
Millions of people around the world share my silly views. But what do they know? America's right-wing Christian kooks are the experts on all things political and moral, right?
"And no, it isn't a coincidence that Columbia might have the highest murder rate in the world. With Chavez supporting and harboring the murderous FARC, it would be quite surprising if it were not so."
Ah, but Venezuela isn't the only country that could be meddling in Colombia. In fact, the U.S. was meddling in Colombia even before Chavez came to power. And, as I recall, Colombia became famous for its political carnage quite some time ago. So don't tell me it all started with Chavez, fool.
Ann wrote, "I'm a bit slow tonight."
We noticed.
"And anony_mouse_ . . . are you anonymouse, or someone separate?"
Thank you for asking the question that's dancing around in millions of people's heads around the world. Here we are discussing an article about Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, and you manage to shock everyone back to reality with your dazzling intellect.
As much as I admire people who post anonymously, I have even more admiration for people who confuse the opposition with names like anony_mouse_ and anonymouse. These people have more credibility than George W. Bush and Rush Limbaugh combined.
David-
I can't believe I'm taking the bait, but here goes. Bill Gates & co, through practical application of business and engineering knowledge, have set the standard for systems which have increased productivity and growth at rates unimaginable throughout human history. Who else has demonstrated the potential to do as much with the money they make than them?. Look at it this way - for a $109 DVD I can take advantage of a global standard for access to the sum total of human knowledge. Seems like a good deal to me.
And at the end of it all, Mr. Gates chooses to spend his money sending more poor people to school than you would in a thousand lifetimes of ranting at the Seattle school board. Must sting a little, huh?
Someone wrote that Venezuela has the highest murder rate in the world. According to a chart on this page - http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime
-murders-per-capita - it does indeed rank very high (4th place).
So what country is #1? Venezuela's neighbor Columbia, South American headquarters for George Bush, Inc.
If our PSF friend David Blomstrom knew better how to find and evaluate information, he would realize the Colombia data was for 2000. (try Clicking on Colombia from the Nationmaster link, and Google the UN study.). So, the murder rate for data applies to the time that Clinton was President, not Bush.
There is more recent data. Here is a comparison of the murder rates in Venezuela and Colombia. This shows how Venezuela has fared under Hugo since he was elected in 1998, and how Colombia has fared by comparison. (I have gone to the sources that Wikipedia cites. I cite one below.)
Murder rates per 100,000
Country 1998 2005 % change
Venezuela 22 42 +91
Colombia 56.6 39.3 -31
During this time, Venezuela,a nation at peace, saw its murder rate increase 91%, and Colombia, a nation at war, saw its murder rate drop 31%. ¿Viva Chávez? There was an article several months ago in El Universal which gave the number murdered up to the end of November 2007, from which one could infer that for 2007, the murder rate for 2007 would be above 45/ 100,000.
This can also be found in a UN document http://www.unodc.org/pdf/Colombia_Dec06_en.pdf
David B.,
You need to live your dream and actually move to a socialist/communist country and experience what the non-ruling class, i.e. those who are not in power, experience. The socialist ruling class get the best food, best medical care, best housing, best of the best because they, after all, know what is best for the "little people." They rule with an iron hand, and those who disagree don't fair too well. I think the perfect country for you to move to is the one ruled by Chavez.
Waterkat
hugo started a NEW WORLD BANK. called Banco del Sur. this is what its all about. to understand your world- the whole enchilada- one must understand fractional reserve banking. you guys yap, but understanding the money takes 3 hours of stuff that's way too boring for even most political junkies. so you all think you know, but you're missing the biggest piece of the puzzle. if you wanna be wise, watch a PBS special from 1995 called "the money masters" directed by bill still. just google it. dodge the "get rich" stuff that bears the same name. by the way, cover your ass in silver- and I don't mean stocks- crap is fixin to hit the fan. folks, how do you think a new world bank with an interset rate that respects human life will be to the world, popular or unpopular? unpopular certainly with the world bank. and folks, how do you think the world bank is gonna react to compitition, nicely or not nicely? sure, they'll say" well shucks, that's free enterprise." commodities are at a global checkmate. s. america is already established in the world- contract-wise. we couldn't march in on them without a global fight. freddie mac was punished for crashing our economy by being awarded the very loans they sacked- citi and merill are getting the public spanking. look deeper- there is much worse pages in this story than citi. Quasi-govt program, they call fannie and freddie. you don't wanna know- not cause its so damn horrible- it is- but because its too boring. sooooo nerds rule the world......boooooring. wake up sillies.
>>> During this time, Venezuela,a nation at peace, saw its murder rate increase 91%, and Colombia, a nation at war, saw its murder rate drop 31%.
And remember, these changes in murder rates happened during a time while Columbia was fighting off an out and out terror group... FARC... which lets all the hot air out of Blomstrom's whining about people formenting dissent in his favorite worker's paradise.
So, Venezuela funds terrorists to murder Colombians and it is Venezuela whose murder rates increase instead. Now THAT's incompetence.
Another anonymous Chris wrote, "David-
I can't believe I'm taking the bait, but here goes. Bill Gates & co, through practical application of business and engineering knowledge, have set the standard
STANDARDS? ROTFLMAO! Pal, you obviously don't have a clue about IT, do you?
"...for systems which have increased productivity and growth at rates unimaginable throughout human history. Who else has demonstrated the potential to do as much with the money they make than them?"
Apple? Google? Adobe?
Oh, that's right; they don't manipulate corrupt politicians and exploit schools the way Bill Gates does. Never mind.
"Look at it this way - for a $109 DVD I can take advantage of a global standard for access to the sum total of human knowledge. Seems like a good deal to me."
Or you could just try Google - it's free.
"And at the end of it all, Mr. Gates chooses to spend his money sending more poor people to school than you would in a thousand lifetimes of ranting at the Seattle school board. Must sting a little, huh?"
Dude, I worked for the Seattle School District for 16 years. You do know where Seattle is, don't you? It's Bill Gates' home town and his current backyard. The district has been going downhill since the 1960's, and the rate of deterioration accelerated after 1995 - in spite of all the money Bill Gates has thrown at it.
Of course, you would have us believe that Bill Gates wants to help children, not exploit them. Fool.
As for Bill Gates' "philanthropy," maybe you can explain why he couldn't even pay for his new headquarters? He had to screw taxpayers out of some $10 million to relocate to the Seattle Center. Some philanthropist.
I might also recommend the LA Times' sensational revelation that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is actually an INVESTMENT FIRM, proving me half wrong. I'd been telling the world that it was nothing but a public relations stunt. In fact, it's an investment firm AND a public relations stunt.
In the meantime, I sure am glad I finally abandoned Microshaft for a Mac. It actually works, and I can sleep better knowing I'm no longer contributing money to the Microsoft mafia you free market whores so passionately adore.
"Or you could just try Google - it's free."
What a stupid comment ... and what does Google do to free me from buying some of the best productivity software in the planet? What productivity software does Google make that's better than anything Microsoft makes?
I too love Apple, but I love them because competition makes capitalism great. Remember, this years Apple/Google is tomorrows Microsoft. When Apple becomes large enough to push people around you will no longer care for them either.
Gringo wrote...more BS.
You might want to read about the Colombia Plan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia
You would discover that Colombia has been torn apart by political violence since the 1960's. Of course, the U.S. has been militarily, or paramilitarily, involved in Colombia for a long time, too.
In the meantime, there are a few questions that should be asked about the murder rate in neighboring Venezuela.
1. WHY does it have a high murder rate?
2. How does the murder rate compare between now and the pre-Chavez years?
There are many possible answers to the first question, including Colombian and/or U.S. influence.
Jud wrote, "What a stupid comment ... and what does Google do to free me from buying some of the best productivity software in the planet?"
If you want access to "the sum total of human knowledge," you can either pay $109 for something you apparently think Microsoft invented or learn to use Google (at no cost). It really isn't hard to understand.
"What productivity software does Google make that's better than anything Microsoft makes?"
I really can't answer that, because I haven't used any Google software. I was increasingly using open source software on my PC before I switched to a Mac. (I'm now using a combination of software, including commercial programs and open source.)
But Google is produced a growing variety of software programs, and I understand many of them have all the features the average person would need - and I believe they're generally free.
"I too love Apple, but I love them because competition makes capitalism great."
Yes, competition can indeed make capitalism great. But capitalism without accountability can lead to a DECREASE in competition (think MONOPOLY). That's why corporations like Microshaft make capitalism suck.
I like Apple because it's a class act - not free of corruption but nowhere near as bad as Microsoft. And it makes great hardware and software.
"Remember, this years Apple/Google is tomorrows Microsoft. When Apple becomes large enough to push people around you will no longer care for them either."
Ah, grasshopper, there was a time when Apple was far more popular than it was today - and it did not have Microsoft's reputation for pushing people around. Frankly, I would like to see more competition than just Microsoft vs Apple, and I'm hoping Linux will join the party some day soon. In the meantime, I'd love to see M$ and Apple reverse positions.
>>There are many possible answers to the first question, including Colombian and/or U.S. influence.
Sure, if you're a raging paranoiac.
You've got to love this guy... the colombians kill a terrorist, crack his laptop and find out Chavez has been slipping them at LEAST 300$ million to kill more Colombians with, and so therefore in Blomstrom's mind Colombians must be murdering Venezuelans to drive the murder rate up so that brave defenders like him can't quote favorable statistics.
Sometimes when listening to people like this, you've got to wonder: is their mind REALLY this infested, or are they just pulling your leg by saying the most ridiculous thing they can think of?
Ryan Waxx wrote, "And remember, these changes in murder rates happened during a time while Columbia
It's spelled ColOmbia, Einstein.
Ooh, a misspelling on the internet. Who'd have thought it possible?
I guess you showed me, Einstein.
Ryan Waxx chirped, "The colombians kill a terrorist, crack his laptop and find out Chavez has been slipping them at LEAST 300$ million to kill more Colombians with..."
The Colombians invaded another nation, where they killed several people, then someone CLAIMED they had found a laptop with information incriminating Hugo Chavez as - guess what? - a terrorist...just the sort of idea George Bush, Inc. wants to plant in people's minds.
The corporate media repeat the story as if it was the gospel truth, and all the right-wing drones suck it up. Have you seen this laptop yourself? Was it classy laptop (e.g. a MacBook Pro) or a piece of sh*t running Windows?
Please give us some details. Inquiring minds want to know.
Um, you can wave your hands and repeat "Evillll Bush invented it all!" all you like, but even so, it's a hell of a lot more evidence than you have for your little "The Colombians are driving up Hugo's murder rates to make him look bad!" theory.
But I guess actual, you know, evidence is only for us proles. You are obviously above such petty concerns.
David -
I frequently use Google software, and love most of it. But it cannot and won't ever (according to their admission) replace what Microsoft Office and several other programs do.
For someone who would use an Office program on a daily basis, no, there are no productivity programs that Google makes which would serve as replacements. I and millions of others gladly pay the cost for programs like Excel and Word. Many would argue that the most important and influential program ever designed in the World is Excel.
You may be hyper sensitive to Microsoft living in Seattle. And I have no doubt that they have been part of some bad deals.
I do definitely agree with your final comment, the more "private" competition the better. And Apple isn't the only competition: Google, Yahoo, IBM, Sony, Nintendo ... all have strong presences in markets that Microsoft is in. You see, when the government gets involved, they tend to like to make Monopolies as well.
are you guys impressing each other with your big brains. chavez is rewiring his entire grid with fiberoptics. blah blah google blah blah microsoft. your crap is academic. study your internet providers. smart tech distributors give you dumb tech service and you pay out the ass to sit while your computer and ponder commands like a moron. tech is doled out by the masters- govt, quasi govt, and ultim. the central banking system. ponder the buisness implications of offering the actual speed of light to your customers. they supressed that tech and caused the stock bubble of the 80's. cash cow for em, those bubbles. yo big brains, study the banks, cuz you dont impress with your command of the Murdock news
>> The Colombians invaded another nation, where they killed several people,
I *love* how you casually omit the little datum that the Colombians were killing TERRORISTS, not some generic 'people' who were minding their own business.
You can't bear to even utter one sentence without lying by omission to apply the proper spin, can you?
Ryan Waxx wrote, "Um, you can wave your hands and repeat "Evillll Bush invented it all!" all you like, but even so, it's a hell of a lot more evidence than you have for your little "The Colombians are driving up Hugo's murder rates to make him look bad!" theory."
So what you're saying is that you have " more evidence" than I do. If MY evidence can be dismissed as a theory, then YOUR evidence = a theory, too.
End of story.
2. How does the murder rate compare between now and the pre-Chavez years?
1998: Pre Chavez. 91% increase in murder rate through 2005 compared to Pre Chavez years. I already said it. Reread my post. Reread my post. Reread my post. Reread my post. (Elected Dec 6 1998, took office in 1999. Of course, you already realized this.).
1. WHY does it have a high murder rate?.... There are many possible answers to the first question, including Colombian and/or U.S. influence.
Colombian or US influence. Yes, I suppose that Hugo is a CIA plant.
Yes: why did the murder rate DOUBLE under Hugo Himself? Great steward he is. Andate vos a Petare para averiguar. Te lo van a decir de manera bien fuerte.
Andate vos a Tachira para que puedas vivir en el paraíso Chavista. Por ser PSF propagandista, te darán bastante guita para comprarte un Hummer. Podrás proteger la frontera contra los fascistas del Ejército Colombiano. Podrás proteger secuestradores como Tirofijo. Podrás prevenir que los contrabandistas arruinen a Venezuela con comestibles Colombianos. Podrás prevenir que los contrabandistas lleven gasolina que cuesta como $0.05US/ litro en Tachira - que regalo para los pobres quienes son dueños de Hummers- a Colombia.
Ciao.
"THE MONEY MASTERS" 1995 originally aired on pbs. i beg you political junkies stop with your drivel. theres a 900 lb elephant in the room. the commodities are at a global checkmate due to ever increasing demand we cant keep up with. silly guys notice the weather? even if you had a billion to start another mining co., ole mother nature's had it with us. have fun in your flooded mine that being hit by an earthquake. watch the damn movie, get the final piece to this not so complicated it turns out puzzle. lets all focus cuz this yapping needs an ancor. a root. they sell hopeless this is life.... this is fiction. love democracy now, but stop it, alternative media. they cash in when we are confused. if you think lincoln was whacked over slavery, you need a lesson. in fact there is a simple way to piece together crappy, objective historical reporting. just follow the banking. its the whole enchilada. you've gotten bits of it maybe, but the whole story so bring your lunch. if you dont weep you either fell asleep or your doing cartwheels cuz this info will serve your greed. use the force, luke, youll thank me.
Jud wrote, "I frequently use Google software, and love most of it. But it cannot and won't ever (according to their admission) replace what Microsoft Office and several other programs do."
It doesn't have to; M$ Office is being attacked from all corners. Surely you've heard of OpenOffice.org (free). Apple's word processor is good enough for me, and I'm a professional writer.
In addition, Apple recently released Numbers, which is a VERY impressive spreadsheet. Comparing it to Microsoft Excel is like comparing apples and oranges. But we're talking about APPLE - it's a pretty good bet the first Numbers upgrade will be far better.
"I and millions of others gladly pay the cost for programs like Excel and Word. Many would argue that the most important and influential program ever designed in the World is Excel."
Yes, Excel is an excellent program, one of the few class acts Microsoft ever produced. But I predict that it will soon meet its match in Apple's Numbers. Microsoft used its little evil monopoly to drive WordPerfect into the dirt. That's the only reason Word is the most popular word processing program.
Reality Check: Word is as easy to dump and replace with an equivalent program as Microsoft's crappy browser, Internet Explorer.
you know so much, tell me about chavezs new world bank. what kind of returns does the world bank get. how easy for chavez to make a better offer. realise these implications. study banks. you guys are weak. im a dishwasher. get your head out of your degree and teach the world that banking doesnt have to mean dead babies. come on big brains wake up and take part in a new world that has respect for human life.
Ryan Waxx wrote, "I *love* how you casually omit the little datum that the Colombians were killing TERRORISTS, not some generic 'people' who were minding their own business."
Were ALL of the victims terrorists? Were ANY of them true terrorists? Remember, no one exploits terrorism better than George Bush, and "leaders" around the world are following his lead.
Assuming they were terrorists, was it still OK for Colombia to kill them on another nation's soil? You apparently see nothing wrong with this. Would you then object to a Canadian mob invading the U.S. and killing some terrorists in Illinois or Washington State? Or do you think there are no terrorists in the United States?
>> So what you're saying is that you have " more evidence" than I do.
No, I'm saying that *even if* we grant your absurd canard that the claim is dubious because Colombia is out to get Chavez, even if we postulate a massive frameup and government conspiracy to please your fevered imagination, then even in that Bizzaro-world, my claims have more foundation than you care to back your own with.
Meanwhile, back in reality, you need something more than a random shout of "BushHitlerExxonDidIt!" to make a major incident like that just go away.
>> Were ANY of them true terrorists?
Oh. My. God.
Reality Check: not even Ecuador is denying they were FARC.
google "the money masters" 1995 bill still originally aired on pbs. its not about colombia, big brain. the dishwasher says "banco del sur". look it up. look hard cuz they dont discuss it. you think you know who "they" are but you got a head full of Murdock. those listening help me put these punks in thier place . watch the show. youll never have to listen to another conspiacy theory cuz this 3 hour history lesson is the whole enchilada. gives you chills when you realize the film was made many years ago. darkness has descended on a superpwer and its buisness as usual...... but stay tuned... me and big brains are gonna work it out. imagine a system of banking that respects human life. dont miss the last half hour. its the simple solution. we can even keep wall street.
Are FARC troops best described as terrorists, freedom fighters, or a little of both? If terrorists, are they worse than the right-wing paramilitaries that have been assigned to fight them? And which group is more involved in the drug trade - FARC or George Bush's friends?
While the truth is elusive, it's certainly more complex than the black-and-white BS are right-wing friends are feeding us. Check out this video -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uxEP7C4wxk - then do a little more research.
And remember - the United States DOES have a long tradition of supporting right-wing groups that brutally retaliate against ordinary citizens who dare to ask for their fair share. The script has been played out in Colombia, Argentina, Chile, Central America, the Caribbean - throughout Latin America.
In retrospect, Colombia's unauthorized raid on Ecuadorian soil may have been a good thing. It exposed Colombia for the thug and George Bush ally it is, united Latin America and publicized FARC as never before.
My prediction: More and more people will come to view FARC as the good guys and its paramilitary opponents as the terrorists. The conflict will escalate, eventually drawing in other nations.
I can't predict who will win, but if the U.S. sends in more troops, I hope they all come back in body bags.
Ryan Waxx wrote, "Oh. My. God.
Reality Check: not even Ecuador is denying they were FARC."
But does Ecuador consider FARC a terrorist group? Even if it does, that mean FARC is really a terrorist group?
To put it in perspective, does Ecuador consider George W. Bush a terrorist? After all, Bush is behind the murder of as many as a million Iraqis.
Think that figure is inflated? OK, let's reduce it to one tenth that amount. Let's say American storm troopers have only murdered 100,000 Iraqis. Wouldn't that still put them in FARC's league?
So pardon me if snicker every time you right-wingers invoke the T word.
Even if Ecuador subscribes to the odious moral equivalency of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", you were bound by honesty to at least call them 'militants' or something to distinguish them from random civilians.
Hence, you were lying by omission. The fact that no one here is stupid enough to fall for the lie does not excuse you.
In reference to Colombia's Claims regarding their killing of Raul Reyes, let me give you a little lesson in how to evaluate information from sources you don't quite trust.
First, unless you are an absolute zealot, you don't automatically dismiss everything you hear that you don't like. And that's why you never get past first base. No great mystery there.
Second, you ask "What would the person gain by lying?" Your theory seems to be that Colombia started a major border incident for a mere handful of propaganda points. But if they were going to fake an laptop retrieval, they could have gotten even MORE propaganda points by simply pretending they raided a FARC base inside their own borders. So your little theory doesn't even stand up to the most cursory of logic tests.
Third, you ask "If this person was lying, how would I know it?" In Colombia's case, If all they killed was a bunch of sheep farmers, then all Raul Reyes has to do is release a Bin-Laden style tape proving he's alive contrary to Colombia's claims. But you never got this far, because you failed the zealot test way back in step one.
There are other tests you could apply, but this seems sufficient all by itself... its not like you really had a fleshed-out theory of how this was ginned up, you just had a series of objections to make it look like you had a plan. That method is a lot like the one creationists use when debating evolution, actually.
As honest as a creationist... I leave you with that pleasant self-image for you to caress yourself with as you lick your wounds from the beating you just received...
I'm afraid I've found this discussion too late and the battle lines are already drawn. Listen, if anybody is interested in an economist's perspective on the life of poor people under Chavez, the Center for Economic and Policy Research has done the most extensive: Here's a link: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/update-the-venezuelan-economy-in-the-chavez-years/
The conclusions are directly contrary to those of Francisco Rodriguez. It's important to keep in mind that Rodriguez is a political actor from Venezuela, and he seems to be on a campaign to discredit the social missions since even before his study was conducted. I question his motives.
I'm happy to report that Venezuelan supermarkets are stocked with food (I've recently returned from visiting friends in Caracas). There are periodic shortages of particular items (milk especially). Price controls have some impact on that of course, but the biggest factor is that the average Venezuelan has far more money in his pocket these days, and for the first time the poor are competing with the middle and upper classes for groceries. Venezuela hasn't been able to keep up with demand in some perishable goods, but it's a bit of a happy--if annoying--problem to have. Here we see that meat consumption is through the roof, for example: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=a1YANOdLAo1s&refer=latin_america
Ryann Waxx droned, "Even if Ecuador subscribes to the odious moral equivalency of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"..."
Odious moral equivalency? It's the simple truth. For example, suppose one nation invades another nation and begins slaughtering civilians. One day they destroy your home and murder your wife and children. In grief and rage, you fight back. Are you now a terrorist or a freedom fighter?
In fact, there are probably thousands of Iraqis in this very position. Now be a man and 'fess up: There are many freedom fighters in Iraq. Or are you going to take the coward's way out and insist that everyone shooting at Americans in Iraq is a terrorist?
"You were bound by honesty to at least call them 'militants' or something to distinguish them from random civilians."
I don't know what they were. SOME may have been terrorists - or freedom fighters. I believe some were students. If you know for a fact that every one of the people were killed was a terrorist, then why aren't you down in South America, sharing your information with the authorities?
"Hence, you were lying by omission. The fact that no one here is stupid enough to fall for the lie does not excuse you."
And you're lying every time you mention George W. Bush without adding "TERRORIST."
Ryann Waxx again: "In reference to Colombia's Claims regarding their killing of Raul Reyes, let me give you a little lesson in how to evaluate information from sources you don't quite trust. . . . Second, you ask 'What would the person gain by lying?'"
Uh, Ryan, I did a search for "What would the person gain by lying?" and guess what...the only person who wrote that is YOU. When people start manufacturing statements and falsely attributing them to other people, we can assume one of two things:
1. That person is a L-I-A-R.
2. That person is a right-winger (and thus a L-I-A-R).
Now go to bed you little truthphobe.
Poor stupid David Blomstrom asks what he seems to think are devastating questions:
"Were ALL of the victims terrorists? Were ANY of them true terrorists? Remember, no one exploits terrorism better than George Bush, and "leaders" around the world are following his lead.
Assuming they were terrorists, was it still OK for Colombia to kill them on another nation's soil? You apparently see nothing wrong with this. Would you then object to a Canadian mob invading the U.S. and killing some terrorists in Illinois or Washington State? Or do you think there are no terrorists in the United States?"
The answers to these questions are quite simple:
Were ANY of them terrorists? Anyone who has to ask whether the second-in-command of FARC is a terrorist is a moron. Anyone who thinks the second-in-command of FARC would have been lurking in the jungle on the border with no one around him except kindergarten teachers and nuns is a moron. He must obviously have had an armed bodyguard. Obviously some, or most, or all of those killed were in fact terrorists.
Would I object to a Canadian mob invading the U.S.? Of course. Would I object to the armed forces of Canada invading the U.S. to kill terrorists if the U.S. government were allowing the terrorists to operate freely and plot attacks on Canada from American soil? That is the equivalent of what Colombia did in Ecuador, and D.B. just can't seem to stop himself from twisting the facts to make his case look less implausible. In such a case, yes, I would, and international law would be on my side. Poor David Blomstrom has apparently never heard of the Caroline Incident (late 1830s), in which a Canadian-British military expedition crossed the Niagara River into New York state and destroyed the ship Caroline, killing two and capturing two in the process. Canadian rebels and American sympathizers were using American soil to plan an attack on Canada, and had loaded the Caroline with arms and munitions. The Canadians set the Caroline on fire and let it drift over Niagara Falls.
The principle is well-established, though terrorists and their sympathizers try to confuse the issue. If a country is either unwilling or unable to prevent its territory from being used by forces (native or foreign or mixed) making military or terrorist attacks on a neighboring country, that neighboring country has a perfect right to cross the border and stop them. Canada had a perfect right to burn the Caroline, the U.S. had a perfect right to pursue Pancho Villa into Mexico and to bomb Viet Cong and North Vietnamese in Cambodia, Israel has a perfect right to attack 'militants' in Gaza and the West Bank so long as they are firing rockets across the border, and Turkey has a perfect right to chase Kurdish guerrillas into Iraqi Kurdistan, no matter how inconvenient that may be for our campaign in Iraq.
One more thing: if you start a sentence with "Remember", you should continue with something that's actually true. Asking people to "remember" a lie is rude.
Dr. Weevil (who sounds an awful lot like Ryan "Mad Waxx") drooled, "The answers to these questions are quite simple:
Were ANY of them terrorists? Anyone who has to ask whether the second-in-command of FARC is a terrorist is a moron."
So you think FARC is a terrorist group. WHO designated them a terrorist group? Does the international community agree that it's a terrorist group?
And if FARC is a terrorist group, then what are its roots and objectives? Do FARC members simply enjoy terrorizing people, or are they fighting for a cause? Are they cut from the same cloth as the terrorists that make up the U.S. armed forces?
"Anyone who thinks the second-in-command of FARC would have been lurking in the jungle on the border with no one around him except kindergarten teachers and nuns is a moron. He must obviously have had an armed bodyguard."
MUST...OBVIOUSLY... In other words, you're assuming.
"Obviously some, or most, or all of those killed were in fact terrorists."
OBVIOUSLY...SOME...OR MOST... So you admit that some of the peole who were murdered (er...killed) may not have been terrorists. What shall we call it then? Uh..."collateral damage" - on another nation's soil?
"Would I object to a Canadian mob invading the U.S.? Of course. Would I object to the armed forces of Canada invading the U.S. to kill terrorists if the U.S. government were allowing the terrorists to operate freely and plot attacks on Canada from American soil?"
Yes you would object, because you'd follow the corporate media in designating the victims terrorists.
"In such a case, yes, I would, and international law would be on my side."
So you respect international law, huh? Then do you admit that the war in Iraq is illegal, if not a blatant example of terrorism? Do you condone the torture that George W. Dumbass turns a blind eye to?
"Poor David Blomstrom has apparently never heard of the Caroline Incident (late 1830s)
Yeah, something that happened in the early 19th century is SO relevant to George Bush's phony war on terrorism. If you're into history, you might want to read up on the Geneva Convention.
"The principle is well-established, though terrorists and their sympathizers try to confuse the issue. If a country is either unwilling or unable to prevent its territory from being used by forces (native or foreign or mixed) making military or terrorist attacks on a neighboring country, that neighboring country has a perfect right to cross the border and stop them. Canada had a perfect right to burn the Caroline, the U.S. had a perfect right to pursue Pancho Villa into Mexico and to bomb Viet Cong and North Vietnamese in Cambodia..."
Dude, here are a few facts to think about:
1. The Vietcong never invaded the United States
2. Neither Vietnam nor Cambodia border the U.S.
3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the Vietcong were ever officially designated "terrorists."
"Turkey has a perfect right to chase Kurdish guerrillas into Iraqi Kurdistan, no matter how inconvenient that may be for our campaign in Iraq."
You think it's OK for Turkey to punish "guerillas" (why aren't they TERRORISTS???) if the latter attack Turks. Then I assume you're OK with the idea of Iraqis similarly retaliating against people who attack THEIR people...unless the attackers are Americans.
HYPOCRITE.
What strikes me as the most disturbing in following this thread debate is that this Blomstrom character wants a place on his local school board to control the education of our kids. And, like a good lefty, control is what he is after; he readily admits that he would suppress inappropriate "dissent" if it presents itself. (Of course, his freedom to freely and openly dissent at school board meetings and on the internet in a country presided over by the fascist, eeeeevil Bushitler totally escapes him.) Thank God that even in Seattle the voters can tell a determined political fanatic when they see one (does this guy even have kids?). Why is that these nuts always want to go after our kids?
Blomstrom's posts are good for one thing - they show us just how truly innoculated against reality some of our fellow countrymen are. I agree with Ryan Waxx - Oh. My. God.
inmypajamas whined, "He readily admits that he would suppress inappropriate 'dissent' if it presents itself."
Where did I say that? And what do you mean by "suppress" - or what do you think I meant by "suppress" (assuming I actually used that word somewhere on this thread)?
Time's up...I did a search and discovered that YOU were the first one to use the word suppress.
LIAR.
Hit a nerve, did we?
inmypajamas declared, "Hit a nerve, did we?"
Uh, yeah...I'm sure everyone who's viewing this thread is awed by the logic and wit displayed by the man, woman or shemale who courageously calls himself "inmypajamas."
I think we ought to declare you the winner of this debate and delete every post except yours.
Dumbass.
There is something to be said for distributing/redistruting natural resource wealth, especially in countries where the government has control over the actual resources involved. However, the way it is usually done is completely fatal to the society in question.
If Chavez were really concerned for the people of Venezuela, he would have turned PDVSA into a publicly traded, privately owned firm of the Venezuelan people themselves- he would have given each citizen an ownership stake with rights to dividends and capital appreciation- and left it at that. By trying ineptly to supply direct services and goods to the poor, and by trying to control the prices of private goods and services, he is slowly, but surely, destroying the non-oil economy on which the society of Venezuela depends. This reveals itself in the shortages of goods and services seen today in Venezuela. And to top it off, the oil economy of Venezuela is also suffering due to mismanagement by the Chavez government.
Megan asked where all the oil money has gone. Some of it has gone into the creation of government jobs and the provision of some goods and services to the people of the country, but like all government-run provision, it is highly wasteful, and rarely delivers what any given individual or family actually wants/needs. In addition, Chavez and his favored cronies have, no doubt, stolen a great amount of the wealth and shipped it overseas (this is a recurring pattern for autocrats and tyrants). Also, Chavez has used a great deal of it to spread around to buy political support around the world. As domesticate conditions deteriorate and spiral out his control, we can expect him to turn to warmaking as a means to realign the Venezezulan people behind him, and as a means to blame their growing poverty on foreigners.
"Chavez and his favored cronies have, no doubt, stolen a great amount of the wealth and shipped it overseas (this is a recurring pattern for autocrats and tyrants)"
Um..any evidence to back this up? Look, there are inefficiencies in the system for sure, but Venezuela has no shortage of critics, domestically and internationally who are constantly digging for evidence like this. The fact that nothing has turned up makes me pretty certain it's not happening. Let's stick to facts here, not guesses.
Tinker,
If they haven't, Chavez and his cronies would be nearly unique in history.
It's an unfair charge w/out any evidence to back it up. I'm not asking that you reject AND condemn it, but you know, either one or the other ;>
Tinker,
In most instances, I might agree with you, but history tells me that this is one instance in which the charge is far more likely to be true than not. The problem is that it is rarely known how much has been stolen until the tyrant is dead or out of power.
I admit, I could be wrong, but it is unlikely that I am.
For those who might be interested in seeing how people who bring forth charges of corruption are dealt with in Hugoslavia, here is a posting from Venezuela News and Views.
Readers might also be interested in the post’s reference to the Tascon list, which addresses the issue of the democratic bonifides of Hugo Himself.
The propagandists need to work a little harder on this stuff. This is pretty transparent nonsense. Is Bush helping the poor? Is Sarkozy
helping the poor? Is Clinton helping the poor? Is anyone helping the poor? Chavez, maybe, these other thugs, no.
Yancey Ward wrote, "In most instances, I might agree with you, but history tells me that this is one instance in which the charge is far more likely to be true than not."
Ah, HISTORY tells us that Hugo Chavez is corrupt. Well, I suppose history doees tell us that George W. Bush is corrupt - but we don't need to rely on history because his corruption is rather obvious. In fact, what I've read about Latin American leaders who stood up to the U.S. suggests that they're generally more honest than the tinhorn dictators propped up by Uncle Sam.
"The problem is that it is rarely known how much has been stolen until the tyrant is dead or out of power."
So we won't know how much George W. Bush has stolen until after the next election or his death?
"I admit, I could be wrong, but it is unlikely that I am."
No kidding - with such a mountain of logic supporting every word you say, it's hard to imagine how you could be wrong. Indeed, history virtually proves you're right.
Armsless wrote, "The propagandists need to work a little harder on this stuff. This is pretty transparent nonsense. Is Bush helping the poor? Is Sarkozy helping the poor? Is Clinton helping the poor? Is anyone helping the poor? Chavez, maybe, these other thugs, no."
Wow, someone who condemns George Bush (Republican) AND Bill Clinton (Democrat).
In fact, I liked Clinton when he was first elected, before I was politically savvy. As time went on, I came to realize that Democrats were sh*tting on our public schools just as ferociously as Republicans. Then Clinton sold us out to the World Trade Organzation.
Clinton also failed miserably at election reforms, leaving the barn doors open for George W. Bush, who left the barn doors open for terrorists.
Yours is among the few intelligent comments I've seen on this thread.
David,
Someone that believes that the attacks of 9/11 were ochestrated by George W. Bush is a complete fool that can be ignored from here on out.
Yancey Ward wrote, "Someone that believes that the attacks of 9/11 were ochestrated by George W. Bush is a complete fool that can be ignored from here on out."
Anyone who believes the federal government's account of 9/11 is a complete fool who should be ignored. For me, one of the most riveting moments in that whole affair was the video of George W. Dumbass sitting on his butt in an elementary school and looking generally emotionless as he was told what was going on - after which he refused to assume his role as commander-in-chief.
No normal human being could watch that sensational footage of airliners crashing into the World Trade Center without feeling SOMETHING - shock, anger, awe, whatever. Of course, Bush is hardly a normal person. Not to mention the likelihood that the SOB was fully aware the attacks would take place even before 9/11.
How convenient that he found refuge in a school in a state where his brother was governor.
Bush vetoes bill to ban waterboarding: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-veto9mar09,1,2322885.story
* * * * *
See - Bush is a humanitarian, not a terrorist. Maybe the right-wingers would lay off Chavez if he followed Bush's lead and began torturing people around the world.
Mr. Blomstrom is remarkably modest in not mentioning that he holds the Capricorn Once Chair in American Studies at the Christic Institute.
"If by "right-wing", you mean Nazis, then you are participating in the big lie. The Nationalist Socialists (Nazis), like all statist totalitarians, belong to the left. No matter how long the left has tried to pretend otherwise"
This is not true. Any definition of Nazism will tell you they were fascists, and fascists are rightist by definition.
Just as Bill Gates is destroying Microsoft with his megalomania and deranged greed, so do right-wingers shoot themselves in the foot with their often bizarre propaganda. In their world, the Nazis were liberals, George W. Bush is a peacenik and anyone who criticizes him is a terrorist.
Unfortunately, too many liberals are intimidated into silence or, even worse, partial agreement.
The answer is to get right in their face. Screw George Bush and f*ck the troops that murder in his name.
Viva Chavez!
David, you have convinced me. I am sure that Chavez is as enthusiastic about liberty, democracy and peace as FARC, Castro and the insurgent-of-the-month in Iraq.
And I will take your word for the claim that George W Bush has done the United States as much damage as Bill Gates has done to Microsoft.
I find it interesting how lefties like David complain about authoritism at the same time they talk about taking things away from people they don't like. (Since that is really all they're talking about)
In fact, that is one thing that is common with Socialism, Communism, whatever. It all depends on people like David gaining the power to force people to act the way they think they should.
But in their case, THEY are going to do it right. THEY are going to make sure that the benefits go to the RIGHT PEOPLE. Of course, those RIGHT PEOPLE will be the ones that tell them what they want to hear and vote the way they want them to vote.
There is no difference between Castro, Chavez, Trujillio, Somoza, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin or any of a hundred African petty despots. They're all the same mold.
People like David just want to be one of them.
Hi -
Jeez. All we need is a Georgist, and this places would be just like sci.econ.
Trolls should not be fed.
John D wrote, "I find it interesting how lefties like David complain about authoritism at the same time they talk about taking things away from people they don't like."
I want to take things away from people who are corupt. It's called ACCOUNTABILITY.
If you rob a bank or break into a person's home, you go to jail. But if you're an elected official or corporate executive, you can screw thousands or millions of people out billions or trillions of dollars.
Right-wingers don't have a problem with that. Those idiots actually cheer while George Bush and Bill Gates are screwing us back to the Stone Age.
I have no problem with wealth, as long as that wealth is earned and used legally and ethically. But I think the rich should be held to the same standards as everyone else.
Double standards may work for right-wingers (and the plutocrats they support), but not for me.
Here is a reference to corruption in Hugoslavia in an August 9 2007 issue of The Economist : The Rise of the Boligarchs.
I included the final quote to show the gap between Chavista rhetoric and reality, as shown by a quote from the venezuela-europa.blogspot : socialism-venezuela-style .Google: venezuela europa blogspot socialism venezuela style to get the article.
By the way, because the opposition boycotted the December 2005 legislative elections, all the legislators are Chavistas.For all the Chavista rhetoric about helping the poor, gasoline costs about 15 cents US per gallon. This is not a subsidy that goes to the poor, as the poor don’t own autos.
Gringo wrote, "Here is a reference to corruption in Hugoslavia in an August 9 2007 issue of The Economist
The Economist? Is that an example of a magazine that understand or cares about the poor in this country, let alone Venezuela???
Apart from anti-communism, which are the traits that are identically 'right wing'? And there's nothing wrong with anti-communism IMO - the more the better.
One doesn't have to believe Jonah Goldberg to think you are full of it.
Mindless wrote, "Apart from anti-communism, which are the traits that are identically 'right wing'?"
patriotism (at least in the phony, kneejerk sense), nationalism, militarism, totalitarianism, corporatism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism
If opposition to "economic liberalism" is right wing, and support for it is left wing, then, clearly, our hostess is left wing, as were Reagen, Thatcher and Churchill.
Castro, on the other hand, would be right wing. Like Chavez.
Then you consider George W. Bush a liberal. I see.
David Blomstrom thinks patriotism is "right-wing" but would surely be offended if anyone called him unpatriotic. Since he's called for the death of American soldiers ("I hope they all come back in body bags", 3/8 3:08am) he of course is unpatriotic, not to mention morally, if not legally, a traitor.
Of course, anyone who posts 46 comments on a single post on someone else's website has some obvious problems. D.B. hasn't a clue about the difference between guerrillas (protected by the Geneva Conventions), terrorists (not protected), and irregular combatants (ditto). Nor can he seem to comprehend that that distinction has nothing to do with whether a country is allowed to defend itself from cross-border attacks by any of the three. He even asks whether the Viet Cong were ever designated as terrorists, as if that mattered. Anyone who remembers, or has read of, the massacres they committed in occupied Hue during the Tet Offensive knows that they were in fact terrorists: they slaughtered thousands of civilians when they captured the city. A decent human being would be ashamed to write some of the things D.B. writes.
Dr. Boll Weevil whined, "He even asks whether the Viet Cong were ever designated as terrorists, as if that mattered. Anyone who remembers, or has read of, the massacres they committed in occupied Hue during the Tet Offensive knows that they were in fact terrorists: they slaughtered thousands of civilians when they captured the city."
Well said. Then you apparently agree that the U.S. soldiers and corporate mercenaries who have murdered so many civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan are also de facto terrorists.
If the U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were lining up civilians, shooting them in the head, and burying them in mass graves, as the Viet Cong did, they would be terrorists. Of course, with a very few exceptions (
Dr. Weevil again: "If the U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were lining up civilians, shooting them in the head, and burying them in mass graves, as the Viet Cong did, they would be terrorists. Of course, with a very few exceptions."
How do you know they're not? How do you know the U.S. government isn't encouraging Iraqi factions to slaughter each other?
And what about U.S. soliders who murder people one at a time from a distance and don't bury them at all? How many homes have been destroyed in Iraq? How many cities? What about torture?
Of course, right-wingers turn a blind eye to terrorism when its committed by their own. And if you want to play the patriotism card, I'll throw it back in your face:
Why don't you move to China, you fascist traitor?
Let's try that last post again, without the less-than symbol:
If the U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were lining up civilians, shooting them in the head, and burying them in mass graves, as the Viet Cong did, they would be terrorists. Of course, with a very few exceptions (less than 10), all of whom are in jail for very long terms, they do nothing of the sort. The fact is that the vast majority of civilians who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan have been murdered by the other side, whether shot, blown up by bombs, or being filmed having their heads sawed off slowly with rusty knives. Civilians who have been killed by U.S. bombs and bullets have died because the other side makes a habit of hiding behind them. Hiding behind civilians is a war crime, and when civilians are killed in such a situation it is the responsibility of the war criminals hiding behind them, even if they do not fire the actual bullets. Fighting out of uniform is also a war crime. As far as I can determine, the number of American and allied troops killed in Iraq by enemies who were NOT committing war crimes at the time -- that is, by uniformed soldiers with a fixed chain of command carrying their weapons openly and taking care to separate themselves from the civilian population -- is a few dozen. The other 3900+ were killed because the enemy are war criminals. But that's OK with David Blomstrom: he likes war criminals and terrorists, as long as they kill Americans.
David Blomstrom is either a liar, a fool, or insane (categories not mutually exclusive): his loved ones really need to keep him off the web.
Poor D.B. thinks I'm a fascist, and Bush is a fascist, but that I should emigrate. Why? Wouldn't I fit right in in Bush's America? In fact I do: I am every bit fascist as Bush, which is to say, not at all, and I like it here just fine, though I admit that this country would be better off without some people.
The question is why David Blomsbrom doesn't emigrate if he thinks Bush is a fascist and terrorist. He doesn't seem to like this country much. If I thought the president of my country were a fascist and terrorist, I'd sell all my wordly goods and emigrate as soon as I could, not being a fascist myself. The fact that D.B. has no plans to emigrate shows that he is either too stupid to know the meanings of the words he flings around, or that he knows that meanings very well but just can't stop lying, or that he's a fascist himself and feels right at home. Again, these choices are not mutually exclusive.
Then again, most likely it's just his peotomy acting up and we should cut him a little slack.
Dr. Weevil wrote, "If the U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were lining up civilians, shooting them in the head, and burying them in mass graves, as the Viet Cong did, they would be terrorists. Of course, with a very few exceptions (less than 10), all of whom are in jail for very long terms, they do nothing of the sort."
That's the ONLY crime that constitutes terrorism in your book, and there have been LESS THAN TEN occurences of said crimne, and ALL the perpetrators are in jail for very long terms?
What about the innocent people who have been caught in George Bush's global dragnet, then sent to Gitmo to be tortured?
"The fact is that the vast majority of civilians who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan have been murdered by the other side, whether shot, blown up by bombs, or being filmed having their heads sawed off slowly with rusty knives."
So let's just ignore the civilians murdered by Team Exxon. I see.
"Civilians who have been killed by U.S. bombs and bullets have died because the other side makes a habit of hiding behind them. Hiding behind civilians is a war crime, and when civilians are killed in such a situation it is the responsibility of the war criminals hiding behind them, even if they do not fire the actual bullets."
So it's OK to murder someone if you think a "terrorist" might be hiding behind them, if that terrorist is actually a freedom fighter.
"Fighting out of uniform is also a war crime."
Are you saying all the corporate mercenaries in Iraq are actually terrorists?
"As far as I can determine . . . The other 3900+ were killed because the enemy are war criminals. But that's OK with David Blomstrom: he likes war criminals and terrorists, as long as they kill Americans."
I believe in good and evil, and I like to see evil punished. If the evil doers happen to be U.S. citizens, then let them pay for their crimes.
"If I thought the president of my country were a fascist and terrorist, I'd sell all my wordly goods and emigrate as soon as I could, not being a fascist myself."
Nor are you much of a patriot. A true patriot would stay and fight. You're a coward.
"The fact that D.B. has no plans to emigrate shows that he is..."
Not a coward.
Actually, David Blomstrom is a gutless weenie who pretends that he is living in a fascist terrorist state, without doing what any decent person would do in such a case, which is either take up arms to overthrow the evil government (if there is some hope of doing so) or leave (if the situation is hopeless). Words are cheap, and words -- lots and lots of stupid lying words -- are all David Blomstrom has contributed to this thread or, so far as I can tell, to anything else in the world. What a contemptible cowardly lying little turd he is.
Keep on posting, D.B. I doubt anyone else is reading at this point, but perhaps it will make you feel better about your peotomy. You do know your condition is irreversible, don't you?
Friends of a feather flock together.
From Caracas Chronicles homepage:
"...he's a brother..."
--Chávez on Saddam
"You are and always will be a true freedom warrior."
-Chávez on Mugabe
"I feel I have met a brother and trench mate after meeting Chávez."
--Ahmadinejad on Chávez
"...a friend and brother."
--Chávez on Qaddafi
"I am only a soldier in this battle. Fidel is our president. If we had to name a president of the world with enough powers to set it right, it would be Fidel. I believe in one decade he could set the world right."
--Chávez on Fidel Castro
"We have the same political vision."
-Chavez on Bashar Al-Assad.
"Here, I've got a new friend and together we'll form a team, a go-ahead team. I thank you, Alexander, for solidarity and we've come here to demonstrate our solidarity."
--Chávez on Lukashenko
By extension, friends of Chávez are friends of the preceding.
Because the software on this website has a tendency to kick out posts with links, I am not providing links, but have independently verified all these quotes.
LOL! I exposed the anonymous "Dr. Weevil" for what he is - a right-wing coward - and now he's coming unglued.
He whined, "Actually, David Blomstrom is a gutless weenie who pretends that he is living in a fascist terrorist state, without doing what any decent person would do in such a case, which is either take up arms to overthrow the evil government (if there is some hope of doing so)..."
Fool, I would have no chance of overthrowing the government by force alone, and there are currently far too few people to ally with. No, the Revolutionary War was won with bullets, but this is a war of words, information, knowledge and truth.
You made a public admission that you'd dessert your birthplace - just as Bush ran and hid in Nebraska on 9/11 - if you knew Bush was a fascist. That marks you as a COWARD.
All you can do now is call names and hurl insults in impotent anonymity. I've exposed you for what you are - a clown.
No, D.B., you made a public admission that this is not in fact a "fascist" or "terrorist" state by the fact that you feel free to say that it is under what is apparently your real name. As Kathy Shaidle likes to say, "if Bush is Hitler, why aren't you a lampshade?" Can you answer that? Can you explain how a country that allows you to post the traitorous crap that you post here can possibly be considered "fascist"? Do you think Hitler or Mussolini or Franco or Saddam or Ahmadinejad would let you publicly wish for the slaughter of your own country's shoulders without arresting and tortuing you?
If you really thought this was a fascist state, you would be skulking in the shadows trying to overthrow it, or getting out of the country to try to overthrow it from abroad. Or do you think Charles DeGaulle was a coward because he based his Free French forces in London until after Normandy?
No, you're just a spouter of inance words, and your accusations of cowardice are obvious instances of projection. You hate American soldiers because they make you feel like the dickless moron that you are.
By the way, I'm not anonymous, I'm pseudonymous. My real name is easy enough to find, though I'm quite certain Megan will delete it if you post it here. (I teach high school and prefer to keep my political opinions from my students.) Yet another bald-faced lie from peotomy boy.
Dr. Weevil babbled some lame excuse...but I'm not letting him off the hook that easy. THIS is what he wrote:
If I thought the president of my country were a fascist and terrorist, I'd sell all my wordly goods and emigrate as soon as I could, not being a fascist myself.
Whether or not our current government is fascist is irrelevant on this point. The key word is IF. You said that if our government was fascist, you just run away (rather than stand and fight). COWARD
Anyway, our resident coward sobbed, "No, D.B., you made a public admission that this is not in fact a "fascist" or "terrorist" state by the fact that you feel free to say that it is under what is apparently your real name. As Kathy Shaidle likes to say, "if Bush is Hitler, why aren't you a lampshade?" Can you answer that?"
Are you really as stupid as you are gutless? We have a strong tradition of free speech in this country. Bush was worked hard at destroying our civil liberties, but he's still up against some powerful forces. If they start randomly killing everyone who criticizes Bush, they'd had to murder literally millions of people. I think even a dullard like you can see how that might spoil their little scheme.
"Can you explain how a country that allows you to post the traitorous crap that you post here can possibly be considered "fascist"?"
I haven't posted anything traitorous.
"Do you think Hitler or Mussolini or Franco or Saddam or Ahmadinejad would let you publicly wish for the slaughter of your own country's shoulders without arresting and tortuing you?"
Probably not. But then, they didn't have to deal with the 1st Amendment, the Supreme Court, the Internet and on and on.
"If you really thought this was a fascist state, you would be skulking in the shadows trying to overthrow it, or getting out of the country to try to overthrow it from abroad. Or do you think Charles DeGaulle was a coward because he based his Free French forces in London until after Normandy?"
DeGaulle had no choice; France had been conquered by another nation - a fascist nation - just as Iraq has been conquered by Corporate America.
"By the way, I'm not anonymous, I'm pseudonymous. My real name is easy enough to find, though I'm quite certain Megan will delete it if you post it here."
Yeah, right. I typed "Dr. Weevil" into Google and got 16,600 hits. But go ahead and hide behind Megan. That's what your best at.
Sniveling coward.
Ah ha. So the Soviets, Chinese, Castro, Chavez and the hard-core American Progressives of the 30s are all "right wing" as they all meet most of these characteristics. Your own opposition to economic liberalism is tellingly "right wing" as well.
Ever see a trap you didn't fall into?
"Mindless" - where DID you come up with that? ROTFLMAO!
Oh, no, I'm on David Blomstrom's hook, and now he's so mad he's forgotten how to spell his own (alleged) last name! I'll let the arguments here stand for themselves. Anyone who thinks D.B. is winning, or has contributed anything at all intelligent or honest or even interesting to the dicussion, or is not indulging in blatant projection when he accuses others of cowardice, be sure to chime in.
Anyone, anyone?
I'll just leave with the suggestion that David Blomstrom try telling anyone he meets that was a refugee from Nazism, or the USSR, or the Ayatollahs, or Fidel, or was a Vietnamese boat person, that he or she is a coward and should have stayed and died rather than fleeing the fascist boot. I suspect even the refugees from Nazism would kick his ass for saying so, and they're mostly over 75.
He might also want to ask himself if there's any legitimate reason why he would need to know my real name? What would it be good for other than ad hominem arguments? The fact that he doesn't have a clue how to figure it out is just one more sign of his impenetrable ignorance.
The anonymous, self-professed coward, Dr. Weevil is now hiding behind VIETNAMESE BOAT PEOPLE. If we can't help him find a spine, let's at least help him get his head screwed on straight...
The Vietnamese boat people have a counterpart - Vietnamese who never left Vietnam to begin with. Some were brave enough to fight, whether there enemy was the communist Viet Cong, the corrupt South Vietnamese government or U.S. bombs and helicopter gunships.
There were also people who stayed and fought the Nazis and the other tyrants you mentioned. Some were killed. Some were forced to flee their homelands before resuming the fight from another country - no, that's not the same as running away, Dr. Weevil and George Bush style.
You might be surprised to learn that there are people fighting those nasty Iranian ayatollahs in Iran itself, just as people are fighting George Bush, Inc. on U.S. soil. So why are they still alive?
Corruption and tyranny come in different shades and flavors. Moreover, I've already hinted at the checks and balances most Americans learn about as children.
As for why your name matters, it's just that people who are out in the open are generally more credible. It's easy to spout nonsense and jingoism when you're hiding behind a pseudonym.
But I'll give you one thing - you're very good at hiding, running away and other cowardly pursuits. My hat's off to you, Dr. Evi.
I think this D.B. guy is a idiot. Spouting leftist propaganda at the drop of the hat and is very uniformed about his "heros"
And Dr. Weevil would your name be close to something like this Michael H.? Left your last name out.
MHD writes: "David Blomstrom is either a liar, a fool, or insane"
I'd say he's hit the trifecta, actually, and I'd add thick-headed, arrogant, and invincible in his staggering ignorance to the list. Not to mention the solipsism and delusions of significance.
Honestly, Mindles, I don't know what you're playing at by slumming it with the fool, but you have proven that it really is best not to waste your time on half-wit trolls like him. Personally, I prefer to let them be -- after all, I can enjoy the idea that Colombia successfully killed FARC biggies, Chavez's economics are doomed to failure, Bill Gates will retire from Microsoft much richer and happier than Blomstrom ever has or will be, Bush served out two terms, and Exxon is scoring some payback on Chavez's property grabs.
Meantime, Blomstrom et al. will continue to gnash their teeth and wail impotently ("UN! International justice! Geneva convention!") and amount to nothing. Why bother trying to clue in people who lack even basic common sense or decency, when all they do is provide you with amusement? I mean, it's wrong to laugh at the mentally infirm and all, but surely if they insist on making public fools of themselves, we're not required to avert our eyes? Just enjoy it -- reality will prove them wrong in the end, and they'll move on to their next delusion.
Actually E.Nough, it was Dr. Weevil on March 9, 2008 at 4:33 PM., NOT MHD (Mindles H Dreck whatever) who made the "...fool...insane" remark.
Oops, yes indeed. Apologies to Mindles and the good Doctor, both of whom were slumming it.
My name would indeed be something like that, Howco. Have we met, or are you just competent at basic web-navigation? Don't tell D.B. how you figured it out: I don't need harrassing telephone calls.
Blomstrom epitomizes the Dems: can't even back their own nation in a fight. What good are they?
That he expresses admiration for every tinpot kleptocrat dicator out there, Chavez being one of the biggest, blowhardiest, and also among one of the richest among thieves (I believe Blomstrom's hero Castro stole the most in Latin America, worth around a billion or so USD, while Chavez lags only a bit behind) says it all.
What Dems really want is a KING. And to hold the whip hand in stealing from the people and treasury. So Zimbabwe starves to death while Mugabe is estimated at 3 billion USD net worth.
Really, what's the difference between Chavez and say, Pinochet and Marcos? The latter two generally stole less and were pro-American. That's about it.
A tinpot, bully, strong man, caudillo, kleptocrat thief is still a kleptocrat thief. No matter how much he shouts Viva la Revolucion! I suspect that's the whole point about Blomstrom.
He is running for office. And as Twain put it, America lacks a native criminal class. Except Congressmen.
I, for one, am quite tired of the slum that these comments have turned into.
So I'm offering $100 of my own hard-earned money as the initial funding for a "Help David Blomstrom emigrate from the realm of the Hated Bush" campaign! :-)
Well DR. Weevel I learned how to uses intertubes right after Al Gore invented it. I would not know you from Adam if you were right in front of me. But shuly D.B. knows sekret allready. He is much smarters than the rest of us and oh so enlightened.
For Chavista PSFs who believe there is no corruption in Venezuela,from todays Wall Street Journal,World News: Venezuelan Industrialist Describes Corruption --- Duran Offers Glimpse Into Chavez Government In Interview With FBI
By Jose de Cordoba and Joel Millman (excerpt)
Mr. Duran's fortunes soared after Mr. Chavez came to power in 1999. In 2002, Messrs. Duran and Kauffmann bought Venoco from its owners shortly after the company's chief executive, Pedro Carmona, took a lead role in a failed coup attempt against Mr. Chavez. During the coup, Mr. Carmona named himself "interim president" until Mr. Chavez retook power two days later. Mr. Carmona is still jokingly called "Pedro the Brief."
After Mr. Chavez regained power, his government cut off supplies to Venoco of oil derivatives that it needed to make its lubricants, and hit the firm with surprise tax audits, making the company's owners eager to sell. "[It was] practically being given away," recalled Mr. Duran to his FBI interviewers, explaining his purchase.
In the FBI's account of the interview, Mr. Duran said that his company's value has tripled since the purchase thanks to his government contacts and an almost "symbiotic" relationship with state oil company Venezuela SA, or PDVSA. Last year, Venoco bought a concession to supply 49 service stations in the country from Exxon Mobil Corp. after the Texas company decided to leave Venezuela over Mr. Chavez's nationalistic oil policy.
Mr. Duran said his business is helped by an intimate relationship with Venezuela's intelligence services, where he knows "everybody." According to the interrogation account, he told agents that another key to his success is his habit of paying off important Venezuelan officials, including "politicians, government officials, and high-ranking officials." Mr. Duran didn't want to name names because of "fear of retaliation," the statement said.
A spokeswoman at Venezuela's embassy in Washington said that she wasn't authorized to comment on Mr. Duran's allegations of generalized corruption within the Venezuelan government.
Despite his rise, Mr. Duran showed disdain for Venezuela's political masters -- and his benefactors. "Venezuela is being governed by ignorant and uneducated people," he told the agents, according to the statement.
Mr. Duran's lawyer, Mr. Shohat, wouldn't confirm that Mr. Duran had made those statements to the FBI, saying, "It's what the FBI said he said." Mr. Shohat added: "I don't see the post-arrest statement as problematic."
Mr. Duran has come under scrutiny by law enforcement before. A decade ago, U.S. and Venezuelan authorities investigated him for drug-money laundering, records show. Two federal grand juries in the U.S. heard testimony concerning Mr. Duran's alleged money-laundering activities, according to three people with knowledge of the matter and a review by The Wall Street Journal of extensive legal correspondence. U.S. authorities received detailed information on at least $13 million of suspicious financial transactions made by Mr. Duran and his associates from 1998 to 2001, according to the documents.
Mr. Duran was never charged, says Mr. Shohat, who declined to discuss the substance of the money-laundering allegations. Grand-jury proceedings are secret, and it wasn't possible to determine the outcome of the investigation.
In trying to persuade the judge in his current case to allow him bail, Mr. Duran offered to hire a reputable security company to monitor himself. The judge ruled that Mr. Duran, who owns a private jet, is a flight risk, and denied him bail.
Surveying this thread, I can't help but ask a burning question...
How many anonymous right-wing pussies does it take to bring me down? There must be two dozen clowns taking potshots at me - calling me names, making false accustations and generally trying to outdo each other in looking stupid. Yet it isn't working.
Folks, you need to recruit some of your inbred friends to help you. If they know how to copy and paste, they can duplicate some of the above posts and sign their pseudonyms to'em. That'll make it look like the whole world hates me - or at least most American Christian kooks (and no one else in the world matters, right?).
Now stop standing around and get to work!
Most people can't resist the urge to hit a punching bag. Hitting a punching bag can be good exercise, but at some point one has to stop.
Again, learn to recognize what a troll is- then starve it to death. This is good advice that a disappointingly few number of people follow.
Yancey you killjoy. But you've mixed your metaphors - "punch it" or "starve it to death". I think the nourishment analogy is better. This participation is sort of...fattening, like eating a quart of Haagen-Dazs.
Can't beat the undisputed champion.
"Surveying this thread, I can't help but ask a burning question..."
The answer to that question is yes, you should have worn a condom.
"How many anonymous right-wing pussies does it take to bring me down? There must be two dozen clowns taking potshots at me - calling me names, making false accustations and generally trying to outdo each other in looking stupid."
A the good ol lefty battle cry "good for me not for thee". You call people pussies and clown then whine and seethe that your being called names in the same sentence. Typical lib. Kettle I would like to introduce you to Pot.
"Yet it isn't working."
Sure it is. You look pretty stupid from were I sit.
"Folks, you need to recruit some of your inbred friends to help you. If they know how to copy and paste, they can duplicate some of the above posts and sign their pseudonyms to'em. That'll make it look like the whole world hates me - or at least most American Christian kooks (and no one else in the world matters, right?)."
Ah and there is another lefty battle cry "poor me!" Say stupid things expect them to get them thrown in your face. Seriously "Viva Chavez!" you are a idiot. And time will show that.
It occurs to me that DB is a prime example of fractal wrongness, a delightful term I ran into while on another blog:
I will disagree with Yancey on a small point: baiting a nutjob like Blomstrom isn't a total waste of time. I learned in my own blog exploits a few years ago that it's really more like junk food, where a little is pleasurable and can be soothing -- if only for its ability to confirm that Chavez apologists really are morons. Too much, however, is bad for you: not only do you feel dirty after over-indulging, but you also can grow complacent in thinking that all your political opponents are blomstromous idiots.
Still, a few bites here and there don't hurt.
"I have no problem with calling Bush "satan" any more than I object to people calling him the anti-Christ or comparing him with Adolph Hitler."
I concluded David Blomstrsom was an insane moron when he wrote this. I didn't need the next 43 hilarious posts to prove it, but they were quite amusing.
that study by rodriguez is wrong on lots of things. for starters, the pro-poor program in venezuela is actually working. household poverty rates is down by about 30% -- see this credible study: http://www.scribd.com/full/2068957?access_key=key-ub3i1itjlrfi05akoan
that study by rodriguez is biased and full of errors. basically, the pro-poor program in venezuela is actually working. the household poverty rate is down by about 30% -- see this credible study: http://www.scribd.com/full/2068957?access_key=key-ub3i1itjlrfi05akoan
that study by rodriguez is biased and full of errors.
Please document the bias and errors.
BTW,you are not the first person to have posted the Weisbrot study. The basic reply is that any economy where the price for its main commodity increases by a factor of 5, there will be economic growth.
Just wondering: how do the exchange rate subsidies for travel and 15 cents US per gallon gasoline help the poor? Perhaps Mr. Duran can inform us.
Then you consider George W. Bush a liberal. I see.
No, David.
You do.
It was you who claimed that conservatives oppose economic freedom, and implied that liberals support it.
E. Nough: I think the term “fractally wrong ” is misleading. It suggests that your adversaries incorrect supporting arguments existed before you challenged him. What usually happens is that the incorrect argument was invented by him as soon as you disproved his original assertion. If you prove that his argument implies that 2+2=5, he will either ignore you, invent an irrelevant argument on the spur of the moment, or claim that 2+2 does equal five – something he never believed before, and will probably never believe again.
Perhaps we should call this “Quantum Wrongness”?
ME: "Then you consider George W. Bush a liberal. I see."
Ad: "No, David.
"You do.
"It was you who claimed that conservatives oppose economic freedom, and implied that liberals support it."
So, following your twisted logic, we learn that George W. Bush is a liberal because he supports "economic freedom."
Yeah, right. Try telling that to the millions of Americans whose jobs have been outsourced, salaries have been slashed or benefits eliminated. Try telling that to the millions of people who are unemployed or lack health care.
Most sane people would call this getting screwed, but right-wing propagandists call it "economic freedom."
As they say, figures don't lie, but liars do figure. Perhaps we should call this “Quantum Wrongness”?"
DAVID BLOMSTROM IS A SEATTLE LUNATIC. READ HIS REPLY TO A SEATTLE NEWSPAPER:
"Hello, does anyone at The Stranger do any RESEARCH? Irene Stewart is a member of Mayor Greg Nickels’ administration. That means she’s an INSIDER. She’s corrupt. Or, as I like to call ‘em, she’s a WHORE."
This is the kind of temper, anger driven people who do not care what Chavez is doing wrong as long as he says Bush is the devil.
For your information Mr. Blomstrom, I lived in Venezuela 20 years and I lived in the US 8 years. Three of my family members have been killed by the Venezuelan government's incompetence. For 9 years, this government has seen the levels of violence rise in the streets to the point that the country became the most violent in the world, with over 100 murders per weekend. The government stopped publishing the figures about two years ago. Has anything been done about this? No. Read any local paper in the social section and you will read of murders every day. Don't try to blame it on past governments because a decade is enough to have promoted this as the main cause of the government. Plus, during previous governments the figures were not even close.
My other family member was killed because there was a flash flood in the middle of the highway, killing him inside his car. The government knew they had to fix the drainage of the highway, even after 4 years in power and they still didn't do anything. That is death by negligence. But nobody is to blame in this government and just like the guys who killed my other family members to steal their car, these people too will escape the law. Because there is no law of the land. When a president sets the example by holding a minute of silence for a man who had ordered the killing of a dozen Venezuelan soldiers 20 years earlier (Raul Reyes, FARC guerrilla leader), believe me, I will confront anyone who tries to defend Hugo Chavez.
Your website looks terrible and you praise yourself too much Mr. Blomstrom
http://www.david-blomstrom.org/
DAVID BLOMSTROM IS A SEATTLE LUNATIC. READ HIS REPLY TO A SEATTLE NEWSPAPER:
"Hello, does anyone at The Stranger do any RESEARCH? Irene Stewart is a member of Mayor Greg Nickels’ administration. That means she’s an INSIDER. She’s corrupt. Or, as I like to call ‘em, she’s a WHORE."
This is the kind of temper, anger driven people who do not care what Chavez is doing wrong as long as he says Bush is the devil.
For your information Mr. Blomstrom, I lived in Venezuela 20 years and I lived in the US 8 years. Three of my family members have been killed by the Venezuelan government's incompetence. For 9 years, this government has seen the levels of violence rise in the streets to the point that the country became the most violent in the world, with over 100 murders per weekend. The government stopped publishing the figures about two years ago. Has anything been done about this? No. Read any local paper in the social section and you will read of murders every day. Don't try to blame it on past governments because a decade is enough to have promoted this as the main cause of the government. Plus, during previous governments the figures were not even close.
My other family member was killed because there was a flash flood in the middle of the highway, killing him inside his car. The government knew they had to fix the drainage of the highway, even after 4 years in power and they still didn't do anything. That is death by negligence. But nobody is to blame in this government and just like the guys who killed my other family members to steal their car, these people too will escape the law. Because there is no law of the land. When a president sets the example by holding a minute of silence for a man who had ordered the killing of a dozen Venezuelan soldiers 20 years earlier (Raul Reyes, FARC guerrilla leader), believe me, I will confront anyone who tries to defend Hugo Chavez.
Your website looks terrible and you praise yourself too much Mr. Blomstrom
http://www.david-blomstrom.org/
Carlos wrote, "My other family member was killed because there was a flash flood in the middle of the highway, killing him inside his car."
Now that's FUNNY. I have a feeling most of your family members have been candidates for Darwin's Award at one time another. :)
Here is what Venezuelans think about crime, corruption, and poverty
http://caracaschronicles.blogspot.com/2008/03/kelles-says.html
Wow, I didn't think David Blomstrom could sink any lower, but that last comment was sick even for him.
Right-wing Annie moaned, "Wow, I didn't think David Blomstrom could sink any lower, but that last comment was sick even for him."
There's nothing sick about natural selection, babe. Anyone stupid enough to walk off a cliff deserves to die. Americans who support George W. Bush deserve to see their country transformed into the world's biggest joke.
And the idea of a right-winger getting erased by a flash flood - in the middle of a highway in Venezuela - is almost too funny for words. Kind of reminds me of Hurricane Katrina, except that was George Bush's fault, not Hugo Chavez'.
Well I think we all know what Mr. Blomstrom is all about.
My cousin was not a right winger sir, he was a Chavista and I hope someone in your family drowns soon for your kind words. Then maybe you'll realize that ideology and incompetence are not related. I don't care if Chavez was right wing or left wing if he had given the right maintenance to the highway flooding system, that would not have happened. It's poor public administration from the city mayor that he so praises as a revolutionary. I would be as angry if the same thing happened under the Bush administration. But that said, I've read quite a bit about you already and nothing I've read is good except what you say about yourself on your own website.
How many times did you run for public office in Seattle?
You should really read that study, it's based on government figures.
http://caracaschronicles.blogspot.com/2008/03/kelles-says.html
Carlos, David will not bother to read the poll results. As a PSF, facts don't matter to David.The only concern David has with Venezuela is to use it to bash BushHitler. David wouldn't know an arepa from an aardvark.
Carlos whined, "Well I think we all know what Mr. Blomstrom is all about.
My cousin was not a right winger sir, he was a Chavista and I hope
Let's put this in a little perspective. This forum has turned into a virtual right-wing kook headquarters. And what do we know about the people who post here?
1. They're all into Chavex bashing.
2. In fact, they seem to enjoy bashing anything that they perceive as a threat to George Bush, Inc.
3. Virtually all of them post anonymously (or pseudonymously), including "Carlos."
So why should anyone believe you when you tell us one of your relatives drowned in a flash flood in the middle of a highway in Venezuela?
Hey, I have a cousin who was killed by a CIA robot in front of the Washington Monument...But that's just between you and me, OK?
Yes , we should believe David, who knows so much about Venezuela, that he wouldn't know a catire from a tire, who claimed that the murder rate in Colombia is higher than in Venezuela by using outdated eight year old data, who denies corruption in Venezuela in the face of the facts. Only if Chavez would admit corruption- as if HE would- would David admit it. Such are ignorant PSFs.
Here are some articles on Hugo’s abysmal record on infrastructure, one issue being the collapse of the main bridge between Caracas and the coast. The following is from a January 7, 2006 posting.
I was somewhat neutral about Hugo until I worked with some Venezuelans, who provided me with some direct knowledge of Hugo. I had previously worked in Venezuela. At this stage, it is the ignorant PSFs who support Hugo of Hugoslavia.BTW, I never voted for GW Bush, and I don't go to church. If that makes me a "right wing kook," so be it.
David's abysmal ignorance about Venezuela, and his willingness to pontificate on Venezuela in spite of his ignorance, is most amusing.
David's method of argument is most juvenile: "You are a doo-doo head/ right wing kook." He attacks those who know more about the subject due to his inability to counter with facts.
Gringo wrote, "I was somewhat neutral about Hugo until I worked with some Venezuelans, who provided me with some direct knowledge of Hugo. I had previously worked in Venezuela."
So you PREVIOUSLY WORKED in Venezuela, but you didn't have a clue about Chavez until you later worked with some Venezuelans (expatriates?) who had "direct knowledge" of Chavez. And what constitutes "direct knowledge"? Were they involved in the U.S.-backed coup that nearly ended Chavez' rule - and possibly his life?
As they were 20-something engineers, I doubt it. They were too young. I assume you are referring to the 1992 coup. My working in Venezuela was long before that.
As much as I enjoy sparring with right-wing morons, it's time to inject a little backbone in this rambling thread. Let me pose the following question:
Did Colombia's unauthorized raid on Ecuadorian soil help the bad guys (Colombia's government and right-wing death squads, along with their U.S. ally) or the good guys (FARC, Venezuela and their supporters)?
Of course, it's too early to tell exactly where this is headed. We might one day see yet another war that enriches Haliburton and Exxon. But, at the moment, this looks like a clear victory for the good guys to me.
Consider the following...
1. Colombia was clearly in the wrong. Not only did it violate international law, it pulled a stunt that can only remind people of its arch ally, the United States, which loves to invade other nations at will.
2. FARC has seldom, if ever, received more publicity. People who care enough to research its origins are learning that Colombia's guerilla war began as battle between the rich and the poor. Guess who FARC represents?
This isn't to say all FARC members are perfectly clean. They might even deserve to be called terrorists. But how can one call them terrorists without applying the same label to the paramilitary thugs who hunt them down?
3. Nearly everyone rallied around Chavez. There aren't many Latin American nations who are in lockstep with the right-wing scum polluting this forum with their lame propaganda. Venezuela immediately sided with Ecuador, and several other nations condemned Venezuela's actions. France appeared to side with the good guys, too. Support for Colombia was largely limited to George Bush, Inc., including the puppet state Israel.
4. Bush pulled a Chavez. People like to accuse Chavez of being too impulsive. For example, some say he stupidly shot from the hip against both Exxon and Colombia. He made threats that he apparently couldn't easily carry out.
I wouldn't be quick to agree - time may be on Chavez' side. In the meantime, George W. Dumbass now wants Venezuela listed as a terrorist state. It's no big secret; America's media whores have been widely publicizing and promoting the idea.
So what are the potential consequences? First, Bush has never looked like a bigger hypocrite. Having learned some lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan, the whole world knows what's going on here.
If Venezuela is NOT listed as a tererorist state, then Bush looks like an impulsive fool who blew a lot of hot air for nothing. In addition, not designating Venezuela a terrorist state after making such a furious effort strongly suggests that it is NOT a terrorist state - hardly the idea Gomer W. Bush wants to convey.
If, on the other hand, Venezuela is listed as a terrorist state...well, I think we can safely predict some continuing fallout. Expect other Latin American nations to rally even more strongly behind Venezuela. Expect people around the world to declare the U.S. and Colombia terrorist states.
5. In the meantime, Latin America continues drifting farther and farther away from American domination. Political slut Condoleeza Rice didn't even dare set foot in Argentina during her recent foray into South America. And have you been following the news on Brazil?
Here's what it comes down to:
Uncle Sam's grip on South America is now largely limited to Colombia and Paraguay (both vile right-wing states, with extremely corrupt governments and harsh laws). Yes, we have a military base in Ecuador, but that will soon be history.
Mexico's last presidential election was extremely close (and probably fraudulent). Our influence in Central America is also waning, with Nicaragua allying with Ecuador and Venezuela.
So even if the U.S. maintains its grip on Mexico, Colombia and Paraguay, so what? Controlling these lost states obviously hasn't slowed down Latin America's Bolivarian Revolution. If the U.S. wants to continue screwing Latin Americans, it's going to have to go on the offensive - you know, it's going to have to invade some foreign nations, stage a few coups and assassinations, etc.
Well good luck, because Latin Americans have never been more unified, nor have they ever had more global support.
I only hope that the revolution topples Mexico before surging into the United States.
A more in depth report about violence in Venezuela since Chavez stepped in.
El diario "El País" de España publicó un trabajo especial sobre la inseguridad que vive Venezuela actualmente. Según el reporte, desde que Chávez ganó sus primeras elecciones presidenciales en 1.998, se cometieron 4.550 homicidios. El año pasado fueron 13.200. En 10 años se han triplicado las cifras. Entre el 80% y el 90% de las muertes violentas se producen en los barrios más pobres. El reporte también analiza cómo es la vida en los barrios de Caracas y cómo sobreviven los venezolanos a esta crisis.
Hace un par de años Jackson Gutiérrez, un barbero de Caracas que ahora tiene 25 años y dos hijos, rodó junto a sus amigos con una cámara de videoaficionado una película que tituló Azotes de barrio en Petare. La película trataba de reflejar la violencia en un barrio donde se pueden alquilar pistolas por un día al precio de 60 euros y donde todo el mundo conoce a algún malandro (delincuente) al que mataron por alguna culebra (pleito) entre bandas.
Cuando hay culebra en alguna calle, la gente sabe que durante unos días no se podrá pasar por ella. Los mototaxistas saben que muchos compañeros han perdido la vida porque alguien se llevó la moto a punta de pistola. Y no es sólo Petare. En el resto de Caracas, mucha gente jamás entrará en su propio garaje si lleva un coche pegado al suyo. Cada 15 días, la gente cobra en Venezuela. Y los usuarios de microbuses saben que tienen muchas posibilidades de que en algún momento suban dos malandros y mientras uno encañona al conductor, el otro se llevará móviles, dinero y joyas.
La inseguridad es desde hace tres años el problema más grave de los venezolanos, según la encuestadora Datanálisis. La película de Gutiérrez nunca se estrenó. Pero uno de los vendedores callejeros a los que afeitaba sacó copias y hoy se vende en los miles de puestos callejeros de toda Venezuela. Su triunfo no responde tanto a su calidad técnica ni argumental, sino al hecho de que refleja un buen trozo de la realidad.
En Venezuela se les llama barrios a los suburbios, situados, en el caso de Caracas, en lo alto de los cerros. Petare es el más grande y el más peligroso en una ciudad de tres millones de habitantes. Uno se acerca allí de día y parece un barrio normal, con música en las tiendas, gritos y bromas en las aceras. A las siete de la tarde oscurece y se acabaron las bromas. "Hay como un toque de queda y nadie sale de sus casas", explica Beti, una vecina. "Desde hace unas semanas se ven más policías por las calles", comenta Gutiérrez, "pero la gente también les teme a ellos, porque te paran y te piden dinero".
Petare es un barrio pobre, un bastión chavista con alcalde chavista, donde los primeros médicos cubanos que llegaron de la mano de Chávez hace años fueron recibidos como agua en el desierto. Pero la inseguridad puede hacer que este barrio de más de un millón de habitantes pase a manos de Carlos Ocáriz, candidato a la alcaldía de Petare por Primero Justicia, organización afín al PP español. "Hay más de cinco cuerpos policiales en Caracas y hasta hace unas semanas estaban descoordinados", señala Ocariz. "Aquí el año pasado mataron a 700 personas. Y en un fin de semana pueden morir 30".
Quedan nueve meses para las elecciones en los 335 municipios y 22 gobernaciones de Venezuela. El recién fundado Partido Socialista Unificado de Venezuela (PSUV), que preside Hugo Chávez, aún no ha elegido a sus candidatos. Pero los de la oposición ya están haciendo campaña con los suyos. Y la inseguridad es el punto débil del chavismo en los barrios más pobres.
Roberto Briceño, director del Observatorio Venezolano de Violencia, entidad privada con la que colaboran cuatro universidades, señala: "En 1998, el año en que Chávez ganó sus primeras elecciones presidenciales, se cometieron 4.550 homicidios. El año pasado fueron 13.200. En 10 años se han triplicado las cifras. Entre el 80% y el 90% de las muertes violentas se producen en los barrios más pobres. En 1998, la tasa era de 19 homicidios por cada 100.000 habitantes. En 2006 pasó a 49. En España, la tasa está entre uno y dos. En Argentina están alarmadísimos porque tienen nueve. En Brasil andan por los 23 y en México, 24 por cada 100.000. Hace 10 años Venezuela rozaba el 20. Ahora tiene el doble que Brasil y México. ¿Qué ha pasado?". "La hipótesis que yo mantengo", añade Briceño, "es que los primeros muertos por cada 100.000 habitantes tienen la misma explicación que tendrían en México o Brasil. Pobreza, desigualdad... Pero los otros veintitantos tienen que ver con el quiebro del pacto social que se ha llevado con este Gobierno. Cuando el presidente hace un minuto de silencio por el guerrillero Raúl Reyes, está creando un desorden en la sociedad".
Eliseo Guzmán, ex director de la Policía Judicial, cree que el aumento de los homicidios obedece a varias razones: "No se ha hecho crecer la fiscalía para adaptarla a la cantidad de casos que crece en el país, ni ha aumentado el número de jueces. Con lo cual, aumenta la impunidad". Sin embargo, el viceministro del Interior, Tarek el Aissami, asegura que la tasa de delitos por habitantes es la misma que en Brasil o México. "Desde hace seis semanas hemos puesto en funcionamiento un plan que ha reducido los delitos en un 60%". Tanto Briceño como Guzmán se muestran escépticos.
I just read that the Venezuelan assets that were frozen on behalf of Exxon have been unfrozen. God, I love this guy - no other world leader has given George W. Dumbass more shit, nor can I think think of any other leader who has stuck it to corrupt corporations the way Chavez has. The icing on the cake - Hugo Chavez could be the only person in the world to unite an entire continent.
America needs a Hugo Chavez of its own. Only then would the nation's motto of "Greed is Good" be banished forever, as it has been in every other civilized nation. Capitalist America is the last bastion of greed.