chavez

as for Chavez himself - he does come across well in that film. I'd only ever read about him before, but when you actually see him in action he does have a real charisma. it was interesting in that film the way he had mobilised the common folk of Venezuela and it was their politicisation which ultimately saved him when the oligarchs staged their coup.

as to whether he is a good leader or not, that's a very subjective matter. It could well be the case that the kind of policies he pursues are actually detrimental to the interests of Venezuela in general and the people who voted for him. but you could say that about any leader in a democratic country, and it should be for the people of Venezuela to vote Chavez out in elections if they don't like him, rather than for shifty rightwingers to stage coups against him.

how long before some of ILX's token rightwingers start posting on this thread about how Chavez is an enemy of democracy by virtue of George Bush not liking him?

*tapes up mouth*

*tapes hands together*

pionawefinxl;dknvpwae

The government has never called Harry Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan or Bush I an "enemy of democracy," and each and every one of them 'cozied up' to more and worse dictators than Chavez could ever dream of.

Though I'm curious, outside of Castro, what dictators has Chavez 'cozied up' to? Even Castro, loathe as I am to say it, is objectively preferable to Batista (the US-backed dictator who Castro replaced, for those less up on THINGS THAT MAKE LEFTISTS UPSET).

So we have Castro and Qaddafi, rougly equal to our allies throughout the Middle East.

We have Saddam Hussein, who was more than "cozied up to" by members of the current Administration.

Milosevic has been out of power since 2000, Chavez was only elected in 1998. So that's a two-year period where they could have 'cozied up,' not even recently and even then I find no indication of this 'cozying up.'

And Tehran, is quite clearly preferable to our allies in the region. They have some semblance of democratic government.

You want to question Chavez's human rights record or his legitimacy, go right ahead. But any argument where criticism from the United States is justified by his "cozying up" to dictators is a joke.

It's a statement of fact, and a criticism of the argument that US criticism of and interference with Chavez is justified because he "cozied up" to dictators.

In order to make that argument and have it stick, a standard must be applied across the board. Everyone who "cozies up" to any dictator must be treated equally. No context allowed, right?

Which means that every United States President in the 20th century must be placed into the same category as Chavez. Do you see that happening? No, of course not.

And so, as a hypocritical non-standard, the 'cozying up to dictators' argument fails.

Likewise, those who fail to call the US on its sins can't make the "cozying up to dictators" argument with Chavez.

What I see you doing is defending the United States' criticism of Chavez, and (in a manner) calling him an "enemy of democracy." Have all Presidents from McKinley to Bush II been "enemies of democracy"?

i don't quite follow this ... because if you take it to its logical conclusion wr2 human/civil rights, then practically no government in the world can criticize any other for human/civil rights violations. which doesn't mean that i support active US meddling in venezuela (nor that i think that chavez is some cuddly latino scandinavian-stylee social democrat).

It all comes back to the oil (again), not only does venezuela have lots of oil, which chavez was giving th cubans and brazilians a much better deal on than the americans, but chavez reinvigorated OPEC and returned some control over the oil price to the oil producers.

As far as cozying up to dictators Cuba under Castro is a whole lot better place than Saudi Arabia under the Al Sauds, which of course, at least under the auspices of OPEC, Chavez has 'cozied up' to. (I quite like the image of Chavez and Castro in bed like Eric and Ernie).

VENEZUELA IS NOW an abyss where there is no rule of law. The government tortures innocent civilians with impunity while paying lip service to democracy and buying time at the "negotiation" table set up by the Organization of American States. Venezuela's foreign minister, Roy Chaderton, has funded an effective multi-million dollar public relations campaign to smear the opposition as coup-plotters and fascists intent on bringing about violence.

Jesus Soriano has never met Roy Chaderton or Hugo Chavez. Soriano supported President Hugo Chavez's meteoric rise, volunteered during the election campaign, and is now a second-year law student in Caracas. His law-school peers describe the 24-year-old as a cheerful and happy young man.

Soriano, a member of the Chavez party, is part of a national student group called "Ousia," a group that brings together moderates who support the government and opposition members seeking a peaceful resolution to the current crisis.

On December 6, Soriano witnessed the massacre that occurred during a peaceful protest in Altamira, a neighborhood in Caracas where the opposition has a strong presence. The killer was Joao De Gouveia, an outspoken supporter of Chavez who has an unusually close relationship with mayor Freddy Bernal, a Chavez crony. Gouveia randomly began shooting at the crowd. He killed three--including a teenage girl he shot in the head--and injured 28 people. As Gouveia kept shooting, several men raced toward him to stop the killing. Soriano was one of the men who wrestled Gouveia to the ground and prevented further killing. Soriano also protected Gouveia from a potential lynch mob that swarmed around the killer.

Soriano's heroic accomplishments did not cease that day. He became a national figure in Venezuela when he brought a small soccer ball (known in Venezuela as a "futbolito") to a sizable protest march organized against the rule of Lt. Col. Chavez. Soriano and other pro-Chavez partisans made their way towards the march intending to engage the opposition members in dialogue.

That hot afternoon, Soriano kicked the futbolito across the divide at the members of the opposition. They kicked it back. The magical realism of the event is evident in the extraordinary television footage of what occurred next. By the end of the match the anti-Chavez protestors and pro-Chavez partisans were hugging and chanting "Peace! Unity! We are Venezuela! Politicians go away! We are the real Venezuela!" In one particularly moving part of the footage, Soriano and a member of the opposing team trade a baseball hat for a Chavez-party red beret.

In one hour this sharply divided group of strangers accomplished more than the high-level negotiation team that seeks to defuse a potential civil war. Chavez was reportedly furious with the televised soccer match and even angrier that the reconciliation was a product of the efforts of one of his supporters. Soriano was declared an enemy of the revolution.

Last week Soriano organized another soccer match. On Wednesday he visited the Universidad Central de Venezuela, the main university in the capital, to attend a meeting of the student government. Violent clashes erupted as members of the Circulos Bolivarianos, an armed militia sworn to protect the revolution, began throwing rocks and tear gas grenades at the students. The militia identified Soriano and captured him. They then tied his hands and feet, lifted him up, and paraded him through the street like a sacrificial lamb chanting "Judas! Judas!" The entire spectacle was recorded by a cameraman who works for the official government television entity. Soriano was beaten so severely that he was left at the hospital emergency room. At the hospital he was detained by the DISIP, Chavez's secret police, and taken to their headquarters for questioning.

During his interrogation, fingernails in his left hand were torn out. After being further tortured and injected with drugs, the secret police took him into the bowels of the building and placed him in a cell. His cellmate: Joao de Gouveia.

Gouveia has the keys to the cell and comes in and out of the secret police headquarters at will. His only restriction is that he must sleep in the precinct, lest Chavez's police are revealed as allowing a confessed killer to roam free. Soriano's mother (who is also a Chavez supporter) tearfully claimed that Gouveia sodomized Soriano and beat him with such force that Soriano cannot open his eyes.

Soriano was released last Friday afternoon after Roy Chaderton advised Chavez that the case could filter out of Venezuela and could become a "human-interest story" with the potential to derail their PR campaign.

The government denied that Soriano had been mistreated. A thorough medical examination by a civil surgeon reveals that, beyond lacerations, severe bruising, and cracked ribs, Soriano had been repeatedly raped while in custody. His right arm shows that he has been injected. Nails are missing from his left hand. Soriano's internal organs have been crushed to the point that he urinates blood, and he cannot walk without assistance.

Once the medical report was made public, the secret police immediately began saying that Soriano was a member of a "right-wing paramilitary organization." This tactic, engineered by Chaderton, is used frequently to disqualify and discount opponents of the regime. All enemies of the "revolution" are coup plotters and fascists. The government now circulates a photo of Soriano in military fatigues. Carlos Roa, Soriano's attorney, showed me that the picture is a yearbook photo from when he was a schoolboy in military academy.

Although it was obvious that Soriano had been tortured, Iris Varela, a Chavez congressional representative, offered no apologies: "I am glad they did this to him. He deserved it." That such savage treatment is what greets government supporters who seek a peaceful resolution to the current crisis speaks volumes about Chavez's ultimate intentions. Soriano, now recuperating at home, must wonder why he ever supported the Chavez regime.

http://www.geocities.com/charleshardt2002/VenezuelaEng.html

the documentary shows that this is not an unfair thing to say,since the opposition party did plot and execute a violent coup
the tone of the sentence would imply to me that the writer is writing from a standpoint that would dispute this

I think the point he's making is that ANY opposition is smeared as being a part of a fascist plot, etc.

So in this case if there is widespread human rights abuse then this story can galvanise a mood against that, give it a figurehead/martyr. If there isn't then this story can act as a righteous bulwark against the broader picture. (I'm not taking sides either way - my knowledge of Venezuela is nowhere near in depth enough.)

(See also crime as a political issue in the UK - crime rates falling but people more scared and angry about it than ever, they simply do not believe that rates are falling because the issue has been so personalised - one beaten-up pensioner with a face and name beats 100 official figures).

ie. do respond to my criticism with something besides "But Reagan did it! Reagan did it!" yet again.

Weak strawman, and more than a little intellectually dishonest. I've already dealt with the impetus behind referring to the United States' similarities to Chavez - a response to your argument.

Your argument - as well as the US govt's - is that "Chavez is bad because he's nice to dictators." Well, OK, that's a good standard. I'll agree to it.

But, that standard has to be applied equally. If "cozying up" to dictators makes one "an enemy of democracy," and illegitimate, then you have to say that the United States government is equally an "enemy of democracy" and illegitimate.

Do you?

Indeed, as I said, there are valid criticisms of Chavez from a civil/human rights perspective, and they should be made. "Cozying up" to dictators, applied hypocritically, is invalid.

Even worse as a strawman, can someone offer a defense of his cozying up to dictators better than 'but the US does it'? does the US doing something automatically make it ok?

Stating that one nation which engages in an activity cannot criticize another nation for engaging in the same activity in no way makes either "OK.

i don't quite follow this ... because if you take it to its logical conclusion wr2 human/civil rights, then practically no government in the world can criticize any other for human/civil rights violations. which doesn't mean that i support active US meddling in venezuela (nor that i think that chavez is some cuddly latino scandinavian-stylee social democrat).
You're right. No government in the world really has the moral standing to criticize others completely. That's not really a shocker to me, nor disturbing in the least. Why would I expect any government to be 'good'?

Some are better than others, but when you commit the same sins that you criticize someone else for, your criticism is invalid.

the fact that it wd be hypocritical for america to say this doesn't remove it as an argument, it just means the american govt can't make it (on its own): *blount* is perfectly entitled to use the argument (HE isn't cozying up to dictators) (unless you count trife)

you're being "intellectually dishonest" in exactly the way you're attacking him for: ie (to put it less snottily) you misread his first post

And likewise, even if Blount was making that argument independent of the United States government, it would also be invalid on its face, unless he makes the exact same criticism of Presidents McKinley through Bush II. Which he has yet to do. Nor, in fact, acknowledge the question.

Instead, he continues on with the "Reagan did it" fallacy-strawman.

Should Mr. Blount acknowledge that the criticism he levelled at Chavez can and must be equally levelled at those who have run the US of A, then this would be quite a different argument.

this is typical anarchist ANTI-politics bullshit: "we are not allowed to address any issue unless we address ALL ISSUES EVER AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME" => it's NOT "invalid on its face", any more vthan any other comment about anything is rendered invalid by not remarking on EVERYTHING ELSE EVERYWHERE EVER

as i said, yr crit of blount is EXACTLY THE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY YOU ACCUSE HIM OF: *you're* refusing to address the actual question by deflecting it towards bullying blount into supporting/denouncing the us govt — a pissant mccarthyite strategy he is quite properly resisting

(also since you ARE saying "well Presidents McKinley through Bush II did it", how is that a strawman?)

As for it being "typical anarchist ANTI-politics bullshit" - the fact that you don't like the argument means nothing. What's your response to it?

Why would hypocritical criticism be, in any way, a valid discourse? What makes the United States/Blount/US Presidents privileged in such a way that the standard that they apply to others cannot be applied back to them?

I doubt you'll find anywhere in this thread where I've defended the alleged actions of Chavez, and have, in fact, noted concerns with human rights and civil rights. I've also given context to the allegations and responded to the argument.

"Why would hypocritical criticism be, in any way, a valid discourse?"
erm yr "hypocrisy" here — as a fellow us citizen of blount's — is *identical* to his (ie neither of you have that much responsibility for yr govts behaviour) (you both have more responsibility than me, for example, since i'm not a us citizen): and if you define "hypocrisy" THIS sweepingly then it undercuts any argument of yrs argument as much as his

This argument is not invalidated by the fact that US govt agrees with it, it's validated or invalidated by whether or not Chavez cozies up to dictators: that's it. The position of the US govt is irrelevant to its truth.

Excuse me? That's basically the opposite.

He's calling the references to the US's actions a "defense."

Now, this will be the third time I've stated that it's not a defense, it doesn't excuse anything, I'm not defending Chavez, etc.

Is that now clear?

[quote]erm yr "hypocrisy" here — as a fellow us citizen of blount's — is *identical* to his (ie neither of you have that much responsibility for yr govts behaviour) (you both have more responsibility than me, for example, since i'm not a us citizen): and if you define "hypocrisy" THIS sweepingly then it undercuts any argument of yrs argument as much as his[/quote]
This has nothing to do with citizenship.

In fact, I've never mentioned that, nor has Blount.

So, in essence, this paragraph, on the responsibility of citizens for their government's actions is a pure non-sequitur.

[quote]This argument is not invalidated by the fact that US govt agrees with it, it's validated or invalidated by whether or not Chavez cozies up to dictators: that's it. The position of the US govt is irrelevant to its truth.[/quote]
No, it's validated/invalidated by whether or not the standard is applied equally.

And it's not. And has not been, neither by the US government nor Blount.

Not defense: "In order for criticism of a person or nation for 'cozying up' to dictators to be valid and defensible, the standard must be applied equally, to all persons and nations, and specifically to the person/nation making the critcism."

But really, I'd like to know how holding that for a criticism to be valid and defensible it must be applied equally to all parties involved = "sitting on yr hands and feeling righteous, not actually working to change anything."

To change things, do you have to be a true-believer refusing to apply the same criticisms that you make of other beliefs to your own?

*bcz you can always start up a new argument abt who's "involved": in real politics you have to cut to the chase after a while

So holding everyone to the same standards is a timewasting device? Do explain that, please.

I'll repeat my question, since you didn't deal with it:
"To change things, do you have to be a true-believer, refusing to apply the same criticisms that you make of other beliefs to your own?"

What's your argument here? What's preferable to "equal application to all parties involved"? Differing application and standards? True-believer syndrome, immunity to criticism of your position and a complete lack of critical awareness of your own position?

What should I be doing, if not applying my standards equally for everyone?

Where did I say Bush and Blount are interchangeable? - milostrawman

milo - when you get pictures of me playing putt-putt with Qadafhi you can accuse me of being hypocritical for criicisng Chavez. and from now on anytime you criticise anyone for something without noting every single other example of someone else doing the same thing I am going to accuse you of defending whoever you don't mention (since for you 'failing to criticise at the same time' = 'defending or not applying the same standards').

anyway,i was just curious about chavez in general
i knew nothing about him before seeing the documentary,but he came across very well, although obviously this could reflect the film crew's wishes as much as anything else i liked the way he appeared on tv taking calls from the public and that sort of thing
so is he a genuinely good leader?

Robin was asking about the accuracy of the documentary. You responded with a couple of drive-bys instead of an argument, which doesn't come across as very respectful. Do you really think you were at all helpful in your response?

The thread starts out "gee, Hugo Chavez seems like a great guy", I state "no he isn't", you state "yeah he is cuz Reagan did it too!", I state that "everbody does it" doesn't excuse anything, you state that saying this is defending Reagan, I say show me where I defended Reagan. I am holding everyone to the same standards - Chavez ain't no saint.

Ah, apparently this is a problem with your ability to read, as no one ever said "Chavez seems like a great guy" (as covered by Kerry), and I never said "yeah he is cuz Reagan did it too!"

That's the intellectual dishonesty I was referring to earlier.

Tell you what, find any words of mine that state that Chavez "cozying up to dictators" is, in any way acceptable or good, "cuz Reagan did it too."

What I did was respond to your argument. I challenged the legitimacy of the Blount/US criticism because that criticism is not and has never been applied equally and thoroughly.

Whine all you want, but the question has been posed at least twice - if Chavez is "an enemy of democracy" and wrong/bad for (allegedly, once more) "cozying up to dictators," then every United State Presideny from McKinley onward is exactly the same.

Right?

Do you agree with that statement?

By your failure to even ackowledge the question, I suspect that the answer is no. Which goes back to exactly what I said, your criticism is invalid as it is not and has never been applied universally.

Continually accusing me of defending Chavez is weak and intellectually dishonest. Applying criticisms to Chavez and failing to apply them to others is hypocritical.

I agreed with you on the human rights issues, remember? Oh, wait, no, if you realized that it would make your whole "defending Chavez" schtick look even more asinine.

But yes, criticizing a leader's foreign policy without applying the same criticism elsewhere is invalid.

That's why your criticism (and that of the US) is invalid.

Further, going into talking about "the saint many people think he is" and repeating the "Reagan did it" stuff is just getting more and more lame. Until you can find where I actually defended Chavez. And you won't.

Do you have a fucking reading problem? Is functional illiteracy holding you back?

Let's see if you can read the statement that follows what you quoted.

"I agreed with you on the human rights issues, remember? Oh, wait, no, if you realized that it would make your whole "defending Chavez" schtick look even more asinine."

Is that coming in clear now? I agreed with you about problems with his human rights and civil rights record.

I AGREED.

where is anyone failing to apply the same standard elsewhere? show me
So you're agreeing that every United States President from McKinley onward (and truthfully before that, but using him makes this easier) is exactly the same as Chavez?

I've asked that, oh, four times now.

Maybe you'll acknowledge the question this time.

The government has never called Harry Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan or Bush I an "enemy of democracy," and each and every one of them 'cozied up' to more and worse dictators than Chavez could ever dream of. - I'm not "the government" milo, and you saying "Reagan did it! Reagan did it!' doesn't explain why I can't criticise Chavez

"if Chavez is "an enemy of democracy" and wrong/bad for (allegedly, once more) "cozying up to dictators," then every United State Presideny from McKinley onward is exactly the same"

Why do you avoid the question?

Chavez wasn't the issue. Your argument and criticism was the issue.

Jesus, is that a tough concept?

How many times do I have to say "I haven't defended Chavez"?

Why?

What I challenged was the validity and applicability of your/the US's criticism.

Which in your world apparently equates to defending Chavez.

answer

answer

now answer some of my questions, strawman

As to the latter, I've already said, I agreed with you - technically, I agreed with your concerns, I haven't seen a great deal to damn him completely (yet). I did that several posts before you accused me of DEFENDING HIM "CUZ REAGAN DID IT TOO!"

Which is really what I take issue with, your continued insistence on ignoring what I say and focusing on what you think I'm going to say as Stereotypical Leftist Defender of Leftist Governments.

1) US foreign policy = bad
2) Chavez foreign policy = also bad.

you're saying becuz the first is true, one cannot say the second

And Blount, you keep saying you're not defending the US's actions, and trying to claim you weren't defending its criticism (though that's clearly the issue with your 'cozying up to dictators' argument).

You have not responded to the question of placing McKinley through Bush in the same position as Chavez. Which gets to the root of the legitimacy of your criticism.

Do you hold McKinley-through-Bush to the same standard you have attempted to apply to Chavez? Are they enemies of democracy? If not, why are they different? Was their cozying up to dictators more acceptable than Chavez's? Why?

And note that "Chavez being 'good' or 'bad'" is the entire point of this thread, Milo -- not "good" or "bad" relative to his detractors, which as Mark points out is a gigantic time-waster. Say what's good about him and what's bad about him and elaborate, that's it.
But without some form of critical analysis, these opinions are meaningless. Anyone can say "Chavez bad" - but if their criticism don't stand, then the opinion really has no force behind it, other than that of "I don't like Chavez."

Milo, you're relative/contextual approach has done exactly what Mark predicted: dragged the whole thing down into a moral discussion of who has the grounds to criticize the guy.
Isn't that rather important, in and of itself? Aside from "Cuz I say so," we have to create some basis on which to build an argument/criticism.

Well, we, as human beings with opinions, have the right, and we also have the right to praise him, so let's go, people: which is it? (You in particular, Milo -- you've posted to this thread more than anyone, explicitly declining all along to actually offer an opinion on Chavez.)
Because I don't hold concrete positions on Chavez. I've agreed with bad points on him (rights record) and challenged other criticism of him (cozying up to dictators).

And yes, everyone has the right to their opinion, and to state their opinion. Great. But for anyone else to listen to it as more than unfounded personal preference, it has to have some kind of merit.

Standards are created on the fly, in a context. Could the US's conduct be a standard? In a certain argument yes.

But I've not applied any standards, other than my statement that for them to have legitimacy they must be applied equally. Hence "standard."

Applying one standard to Chavez and another to a US President makes the standard invalid and any argument stemming from it invalid.

and since I've answered your question six times now, can you answer someone else question (like robin's maybe) just once?
You haven't. You've talked about "foreign policy" and "actions" by the US government. I haven't asked you any questions about them.

I'm questioning the legitimacy of your argument, with a very simple yes or no question.

Do you place every United States President from McKinley and Bush in the same position as Chavez, as "enemies of democracy" and "bad"?

If a man steals my stereo, I am not obliged to conduct a critical investigation of all stereo theft ever, indicting all relevant thieves and performing a complex analysis of the details of each incident. It is much faster and much easier if I simply demonstrate that the person in question did in fact steal my stereo, and that stealing is bad, and thus I object to the man's actions.

But "foreign policy" still isn't the issue, as I've said. I'm asking about President's personally. Blount's position is that he agrees with criticism of Chavez as bad and "an enemy of democracy" for "cozying up to dictators."

I've asked a number of times if he holds Presidents McKinley-through-Bush in the same position as "enemies of democracy." Not foreign policy good/bad, not good/bad people - but about whether or not his standard is applied equally.

And to your latter request - I have taken a position. That of critical ambivalence. I agree with some criticms (the human rights record is bad) and challenge others. I see no reason that a position must be "Chavez good/Chavez bad." Sometimes the position is that whether or not he's good/bad needs critical analysis, thus allowing everyone to make up their own mind.

Incidentally, I'd be overjoyed to hear that he holds the individual Presidents equal to Chavez. That would then move the discussion on to something less, uh, esoteric - that of whether or not Chavez qualifies as cozying up to dictators.

But it's still funny that I was repeatedly accused of defending Chavez. I could hate Chavez with a fiery passion, but still challenge "cozying up to dictators" criticism of him.

Milo, I apologize for saying so, but this is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever seen anyone say on this board -- even in the hole-digging depths of an entrenched argument, and including numerous stupid proclamations by yours truly.

In other news, I have just killed your dog. I expect you not to press charges until such time as you've named and denounced every human being who has ever caused the death of a pet; until this is done, any criticism of my dog-murdering will be deemed "irrelevant and invalid."

If you've killed a dog, I would be remiss in criticizing you, but not criticizing another person who killed a dog under similar or identical circumstances. (ie Blount agreeing that Chavez an enemy of democracy for "cozying up to dictators," but failing to make the same condemnation of, say, JFK)

And I would be even more remiss in criticizing you if I had done the exact same thing under similar or identical circumstances. (ie US criticism of 'cozying up to dictators')

This isn't exactly a radical position I'm taking.

To go back to your example, if you're holding the man who stole from you to a different standard from everyone else, what makes that justifiable? That he stole from you? That's purely an emotional matter - I'd be more upset about someone stealing from me or killing my parents than I would be about the same happening to someone else. Obviously. But if I called out the person who wronged me and excused (even by omission) someone else, how is my criticism valid?

It's not. I'd be a narcissistic hypocrite. I'm not special - wronging me is no worse than wronging someone else.

If you're going to create a standard of conduct by which to judge individuals or nations ("cozying up to dictators is bad"), then for that standard to be valid and relevant, it must be applied equally to all individuals or nations in similar or identical contexts.

Sure you do. You also have the "right" to make the moral judgements that slavery was good and the Holocaust is overblown.

Well, great. As I said, have all the opinions you want, but unless they stand up to criticism... they should mean absolutely nothing to anyone else.

What you're arguing here is that no one can really contradict anyone else or challenge their judgement/criticism/argument - that all statements should be considered just as valid as any other.

How does that possibly work? If I can't challenge someone's argumentation, how do I challenge their position?

"No, you're wrong, so there!"

[quote]For instance, rape is bad. It's not bad relative to the number of rapists in the general population, and it's not bad relative to my ability to denounce all of them equally; it's just bad.[/quote]
So you're saying that there exists no possible context when "rape" could be "good"?

I tend to agree, as the only hypothetical situations that come to mind are so outlandish they couldn't even be considered.

But even then, they're possible.

But here you're saying "rape is bad." No exceptions - that makes it a flawed (in that you're claiming a universal truth) but effective and valid criticism. You hold all individuals equally responsible in regards to rape.

All rapists are the same.

Now, if you said rape in one context was wrong, but sometimes in that same context, it's right - then the criticism would be invalid and irrelevant.

You've wasted a tremendous amount of time here trying to weasel and triangulate your way around a very simple proposition of James's: that certain of Chavez's actions -- in and of themself, and regardless of who opts to criticize them -- are just plain bad.
Bollocks. The actors, the actions, the persons judging the action - these things all matter. Every last time.

You're arguing that context is irrelevant, that actions and ideas exist independent of humanity.

You can argue that they're not, or you can insert the additional context that they're not so bad relative to expectations or alternatives, but beyond that you're just passing gas.
Why? Because it's not taking a forceful, specific position - Chavez good! Chavez bad! There's no in between? There's no gray area?

Why can't my position be "Chavez might be good or bad, but this criticism of him doesn't hold water"?

"My political position is, without question, absolutely and eternally correct. And it's my right to hold this opinion, so you can't ay otherwise! Haha!"

JAMES: Chavez has a problem.
MILO: The US does too!
JAMES: Yes, that's true.
MILO: [additional rambling on this topic containing no discernable opinion]

Quite the opposite. I've laid out fairly simple ground rules for criticism - equal application. Don't criticize one person for an action while excusing an identical action. Don't criticize one for person for an action that you engage in. Don't call the kettle black. You said this is ridiculous and impossible, without offering an alternative - outside of "everyone gets to have their opinion."

Which, incidentally, I agreed with. I just didn't see any reason to care what someone's opinion is, when that's all it is.

Have fun with your head in the sand there. I'm sure your opinions are valid and wonderful, but since you don't believe that they need to stand up to criticism or analysis, I don't see what anyone else should care.

But I'm the one who rules out criticism!

Whew. I'm glad we've cleared that up.

This phrase must be used by me in everyday conversation.

PS - Chavez roxx

A, defending US criticism of Chavez.
B, refusing to hold US presidents to the same standard as Chavez.

Pretty simple double-standard.

However, if you read as much as you posted, you would have noticed the part where you agreed with you and said: "I'd argue US foreign policy has been worse than Chavez."
Uh-huh, of course, my question isn't about a double-standard on "US foreign policy" but judgements on the Presidents themselves, just as he judged Chavez.

But hey, maybe if I say that again, you'll notice this time.

This started with Blount's defense of right-wing/US criticism of Chavez based on 'cozying up to dictators.' While it might be convenient for him to argue that wasn't what he meant, that was the issue at the time. The post he responded to was about right-wing criticism, which largely comes from the Bush Administration and its supporters. He defended this criticism.

And he has yet to even acknowledge the question about individual Presidents.

DV: "how long before some of ILX's token rightwingers start posting on this thread about how Chavez is an enemy of democracy by virtue of George Bush not liking him?"

JAMES: "it might be more by virtue of Chavez cozying up to so many dictators"

Any English-speaking human being who was not trying to keep up a losing argument would interpret that as meaning what it says: that Chavez is an "enemy of democracy" not because of what Bush says, but because he consorts with dictators.

I would guess, Milo, that James was working under the not-uncommon assumption that hypocrites can nevertheless be right. For instance, if Slobodan Milosevic called Stalin a genocidal tyrant, I would agree with Milosevic; if the ghost of Stalin replied that Milosevic was a genocidal tyrant as well, I would agree with Stalin.

"A, defending US criticism of Chavez.
B, refusing to hold US presidents to the same standard as Chavez."

Note that I never said Blount's position is that "Chavez is an "enemy of democracy" not because of what Bush says." I've said nothing of the sort. I've said nothing like that.

What you cannot do is post anything that I am going to bother to read. You are either being willfully stupid or willfully an asshole, and I suspect the truth is a combination of both. Congratulations, you've hijacked a thread.
Are we not discussing Hugo Chavez? Are we not discussing criticism of him?

Regardless, I've yet to see any long thread in which the discussion didn't vary from the original question. That's how discussions work.

Even better, you continue to claim you've answered the question. You haven't, or else you could point out where you have.

I'll post it one last time, maybe you'll answer:

Are Presidents McKinley-through-Bush in exactly the same position as Hugo Chavez, "bad" and "enemies of democracy"?

Nothing about "US actions" or "US foreign policy." Judgement on the Presidents individually and personally.

anyway, how 'bout that "GEORGE BUSH & THE STINK OF SULPHUR" speech?
my guess this helps add a couple points to dubya's approval ratings, which already have somehow seen a little bump in the last week or two. sorry if this has been addressed somewhere else, couldn't see an obvious place to bring this up.

For some reason I keep wondering about the hyper-dramatic interpreter I heard in all the audio clips though. I can't help but feel there's a weird backstory to her.

seriously, thank god he gave them that up front or they might have had to actually write something about the content of his speech.

wait, who are we talking about again?

But compared with Mr. Ahmadinejad, Mr. Chávez was just more colorful. He brandished a copy of Noam Chomsky’s “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance” and recommended it to members of the General Assembly to read. Later, he told a news conference that one of his greatest regrets was not getting to meet Mr. Chomsky before he died. (Mr. Chomsky, 77, is still alive.)

So what - Miami channels mainly watched by Cuban Americans, well known for their ultra leftism. Mexican channels probably owned by oligarchs (as are the private channels in Venezuela).

-- Squirrel_Police (goblinatri...), September 21st, 2006.

FINISH HIM!

Charles Rangel did his best to show Chavez how an "opposition" party operates in a Free Country. As he put it, in his Ralph Kramden voice:

"I want to express my extreme displeasure with statements by the President of Venezuela attacking U.S. President George Bush in such a personal and disparaging way during his remarks at the United Nations General Assembly.

"It should be clear to all heads of government that criticism of Bush Administration policies, either domestic or foreign, does not entitle them to attack the President personally.

"George Bush is the president of the United States and represents the entire country. Any demeaning or public attacks against him are viewed by Republicans, Democrats, and all Americans as an attack on all of us."

You tell 'em, Chuck! United we stand! Children are our future! Refrigerate after opening!

http://redstateson.blogspot.com/2006/09/fliday-fun.html

those are some pretty high standards there.

No one, as far as I can tell, is alleging that Chavez disappears or kills anyone; he has been known to throw opponents into prison sometimes, but I don't think they stay there long.

As for Chávez visiting / "cozying up" to dictators, that is certainly very damning because no U.S. leaders have EVER done that EVER in our country's history.

Also: the new Los Amigos Invisibles album is really good!

Just as long as when/if they make enough money to leave their shantytowns they don't make enough to be slandered by their own government as bourgeois imperialist stooges, or protest too loudly.

Hey, if I get tetchy, it's because I deal with this shit every day; the arguments are part of the culture. Living in a city where it's all you can do to maintain a sense of irony, it's inevitable that once in a while I sound like a blowhard on occasion. I'll take the risk if I can show the dangers and idiocies of class-warfare rhetoric.

and I want proof that Chavez disparages his own poor-made-good as evil bourgeous pigs before I swallow yr argument, Alf; not all socialist leaders fit the same suit you know.

I a) like Rangel, b) don't agree with him here, and c) understand that his point was something other than "United We Stand."

I certainly buy the possibility of the neocons-as-warlords view, but has it ever occurred to you that these guys might actually be frightened of people like him, and react the way they understand best?

No question he's spent millions ON the poor, but it's really a means of keeping them beholden to him without providing education, an infrastructure, or the business incentives to a commerce class that are essential to a free market society. What you have then is an oligarchy: the Chavez administration awim in oil revenue and a huge working class dependent on its largess. The situation is rather different than Cuba's, where you have thousands of young men and women extraordinarly well educated and no jobs at all, which forces them to emigrate.

From my own experiences with students and grad students (which, I realize, you can accept or not), their families were middle and upper-middle class who upon Chavez's election in 1998 whose finances were subject to increased government regulation and taxation.

(This is, of course, not to say that there wasn't corruption of the vilest kind in this same class).

and how many times do we have to go over the fact that you don't have to be an angelic being to call other people on their shit?

the face of cuban-americans pre-1983: ricky ricardo
the face of cuban-americans post-1983: tony montana

A friend in Venezuela sends this excerpt from an editorial by Ana Julia Jatar in the leading liberal daily El Nacional (09/25):

"The truth is that all the nonsense our President has said in the United States confirms that for him, worrying about unemployment, insecurity, inflation and housing for Venezuelans is already too small. We will have to face these problems with candidate Manuel Rosales, because Chávez is very busy saving other peoples, including the Americans, whom he recently asked to 'wake up' and choose a better president.
American Democrats and Republicans have closed ranks to defend their President. The Venezuelan President has made an error in calculation. Americans thought that Chávez was a nice guy trying to help the poor, victim of a Venezuelan selfish oligarchy. Now they learned that our President is offensive, vulgar, and intolerant. President Chávez has lost key support in Washington, Latin America, Europe and in other world continents. If he continues like that, making up enemies and 'saving' other peoples from the Devil, he will continue to make mistakes that will soon lead him to his political defeat. Being the idol of Hizbollah and of Cuba does not benefit Venezuela. Chávez's fights with the world cost Venezuelans too much. He no longer defends our interests. It is time Venezuelans woke up, too and chose a new President, December is getting closer."

Unfortunately, Chavez's massive oil-windfall handouts to the poor (which can only ruin labor productivity in the long run) have kept his popularity quite high. He has an infinite supply of $20 bills which he hands out daily for those who go to school, join the (inactive) reserves, etc., etc. Recent polls suggest he leads opposition candidate Roasales 3-to-1 headed into the December national elections. But being anti-American is not very popular in Venezuela, where more than 60% of the population continues to have a very positive view of the United States. Chavez's rants against Bush may cost him over there as well as here.

Now, saying there's a slant to these comments obv. understates, but anyway.

"el salvador? is that like, columbia?"

in Venezuela, co-management is being posed as an alternative to the interests of the bosses, and more fundamentally, to those of capitalism. As Canadian academic Michael Lebowitz, now living in Venezuela, explained at a recent national gathering of workers for the recuperation of factories, “the point of co-management is to put an end to capitalist exploitation and to create the potential for building a truly human society. When workers are no longer driven by the logic of capital to produce profits for capitalists, the whole nature of work can change. Workers can cooperate with each other to do their jobs well; they can apply their knowledge about better ways to produce to improve production both immediately and in the future; and, they can end the division in the workplace between those who think and those who do — all because, in co-management, workers know that their activity is not for the enrichment of capitalists.

“The development of worker decision-making, the process of combining thinking and doing, offers the possibility of all workers developing their capacities and potential.”

The idea of co-management was planted in the new constitution, which was discussed and voted on by the people a year after Chavez came to power. etc

--

There seems to be a lot of contradictory information regarding Chavez's human rights record. I was making the argument to a good friend of mine who is from Venezuela (and a staunch Chavez supporter) that Chavez has cracked down on the free press. He replied that most of the private media in Venezuela is controlled by the same factions that have sought to overturn Chavez since he took power, so the idea of an objective, free media in Venezuela has always been a myth. He also said that it only seems like most Venezuelans are against Chavez because those in America are generally more affluent immigrants and thus more likely to be aligned against him. Not sure if I totally buy that, but it does seem to be worth mentioning.

...sorry for the long post...

which will never have a venue do to Hugo's restrictions of free speech.

I hear this argument a lot. How does the testimony of affluent immigrants invalidate the complaints that there's no true free press in Venezuela?

(xxpost)

I'm not equating the Cuban problem with Venezuela's, but this was said, and is still said, about the "Cuban Miami Mafia."

Alfred said:
"I hear this argument a lot. How does the testimony of affluent immigrants invalidate the complaints that there's no true free press in Venezuela?"
(I don't know how to do italics)

As i said, if the free press represents essentially a mouthpiece for those who wish to depose chavez, then how free was it in the first place.

I'm trying to separate the bullshit from the truth myself when it comes to Chavez. Since the issue has become so politicized, it's difficult to check the facts on either side.

I get the impression you are smoking the crack. One thing informed visitors to Venezuela often comment on is the invective heaped on Chavez by the privately owned media. This is not suggestive of his shutting down free speech.

having said that, maybe this has changed recently.

that term bothers you, huh? i think it has a nice ring to it.

> what current world leader is a "friend of democracy"?

i don't understand this question at all. obviously there's a varying degree of corruption in every gvmnt but some are worse than others and it seems to me that chavez is a very bad apple.

i don't understand this question at all.

> what current world leader is a "friend of democracy"?

i don't understand this question at all.

> what current world leader is a "friend of democracy"?

i don't understand this question at all.

> what current world leader is a "friend of democracy"?

i don't understand this question at all.

> what current world leader is a "friend of democracy"?

i don't understand this question at all.

Set out runnin but I take my time
A friend of the devil is a friend of mine
If I get home before daylight, I just might get some sleep tonight.

Ran into the devil, babe, he loaned me twenty bills
I spent the night in utah in a cave up in the hills.

Set out runnin but I take my time, a friend of the devil is a friend of mine,
If I get home before daylight, I just might get some sleep tonight.

I ran down to the levee but the devil caught me there
He took my twenty dollar bill and vanished in the air.

Set out runnin but I take my time
A friend of the devil is a friend of mine
If I get home before daylight, I just might get some sleep tonight.

Got two reasons why I cry away each lonely night,
The first ones named sweet anne marie, and shes my hearts delight.
The second one is prison, babe, the sheriffs on my trail,
And if he catches up with me, Ill spend my life in jail.

Got a wife in chino, babe, and one in cherokee
The first one says shes got my child, but it dont look like me.

Set out runnin but I take my time,
A friend of the devil is a friend of mine,
If I get home before daylight, I just might get some sleep tonight.

The danger coming is that the opposition will withdraw from the Presidential elections in December to enable to US to say that the election wasn't free and fair, and assist the demonisation of Chavez as a dictator. We've seen this before in 1973.

also, you know what invalidates the idea that there's no free press in Venezuela? THE EDITORIAL QUOTED ABOVE FROM THE VENEZUELAN NEWSPAPER THAT IS CRITICAL OF HUGO CHÁVEZ.

also, LOL at 'why won't anyone listen to the poor little rich immigrants?'

HULK SMASH

goes without saying, but they should stop appealing to the nationalism of the sensitive little pussies who were so offended by Chavez's remarks.

is this not hilarious?

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/venezuela/chavez-parrot.jpg

leftist chavez-worship is so embarassing.

dunno about his politics but he is a heck of an oilman.

leftist chavez-worship is so embarassing.

-- J.D., Sunday, 26 August 2007 08:35 (11 minutes ago)

http://www.jewcy.com/feature/2007-06-18/rise_of_the_faux_cialists

leftist trotsky-reverence is even worse

The problem with Chavez is that politics is completely personalised around him. This is not just a case of the Venezuealan aristocracy vilifying him, but of the way he works, with his running of politics so that everyone in the country becomes his personal client. This is a grossly dysfunctional way of going about things, and it also creates a rubbish and elitist political system. And the fundamental problem is that if you remove Chavez then everything he has built will disappear like a house of cards.

The gangsters who oppose Chavez are however probably worse.

Chavez, movie mogul.

Other productions currently underway include a story of a young violinist torn between pursuing her talent and leaving her poor but loving family; a tongue-in-cheek comedy about a group of people trying to bring down a government; and a political thriller based on the life of anti-Castro militant Luis Posada Carriles who is accused of masterminding the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner in which 73 people died.

This shit is kind of fucked up:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080208/bs_nm/exxon_venezula_dc

This really so bad?

Chavez joy as voters let him run again for presidency

Not like he's declared himself supreme ruler for life or put an end to elections, just providing the voters with the opportunity to elect him again should they so choose.

What am I not getting?

well he fucks about with the media, hasn't actually done anything for the poor beyond what would be expected by any government despite the fact that that's his whole thing, and has tinkered with the constitution to concentrate power in the president's (his) hands.

this is the only Chavez I fuck with:

http://nmallory.exit-23.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/lou_diamond_philips_.jpg

'92 coup attempt kinda backs the idea that he might not be totally mad for his democracy.

yeah, I understand (to some extent) that Chavez does not exactly walk the talk when it comes to human rights but I'm struggling to fathom why "term limits" alone are the difference between dictatorship and dictatorship. Doesn't seem like they've helped Russia much.

I'm gonna give this a read for a better understanding of the situation.

state control of the media is another aspect of dictatorship.

yes, term limits on their own not a big deal to me, add it to the fact that the dude first came to prominence trying to win power in a coup, to the fact that he censors the media, to the fact that he's changed the constitution to concentrate power in his hands then it starts to get a bit worrying. I'll leave human rights out of this because I'm pretty sure there's no Latin American nation with completely clean hands on that one.

not sure many North American countries have clean hands on the human rights front either, but that's neither here nor there.

btw, one of those "dictatorship"s should say "democracy", but you probably figured that out.

if he is, as that report suggests, using state funds for political campaigns, then eliding the difference between the party and the state is a step on the route to dictatorship too.

Removing term limits is only one step among many. Not an enormous deal in itself - we don't have them here, after all. But put it together with media censorship, continual centralisation of power, and all the other things mentioned above and it looks fairly clear what direction things are heading in. You can only make a call on what way the wind is blowing - if you only oppose actual dictatorships, Chavez gets a free ride until he's finished constructing one.

As for term limits themselves, you have to ask yourself why it's so important that a constitutional check be removed for the benefit of this one man - let's face it, it's not for anyone else's benefit. Can't a country with a democratic system produce another individual capable of running the place?

i dunno, I think object to term limits on the grounds that they deprive the electorate of the opportunity to decide whether or not they want to maintain the status quo. Don't elections constitute term limits in their own right?

(Obv I understand the enormous advantage of encumbency but they don't have term limits in the US congress, or in the UK's parliament, so who are we to judge?)

if bush had extended the term limits on the presidency then there'd be a lot of judging, imo.

Ismael my impression is that if Chavez wanted to be a real, true-blue dictator he could do it right now. It wouldn't be difficult.

My memory's gone a bit hazy, but my impression has certainly been that there is a significant opposition in Venezuela which has had to revert more and more to unofficial actions/protests precisely because of all these reforms - among other things, Chavez removed all of their representatives from parliament a few years back iirc. If it would be easy to declare himself el Presidente now, that's largely his own doing

With friends like these etc.

chavez has totally not cracked down on freedom of speech, and aynone who says otherwise should be locked up

jailed? JAILED?

haha xp

http://thecia.com.au/reviews/i/images/i-am-sam-10.jpg

i liked the way he appeared on tv taking calls from the public and that sort of thing
so is he a genuinely good leader?

The innocence of that first.

post.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66E7E420100715

"People don't seem enthusiastic, they don't want to participate, I don't know why, since it's for them," said the head of the carpentry shop, Alexis Valdiviezo.

RIP DEAR LEADER OF OUR NATION

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n13/greg-grandin/down-from-the-mountain

not bad wee piece this.

kind of disgusted that coverage in the northern hemisphere of what is happening in venezuela is either a total pollyannaish whitewashing of the chavez/maduro governments and condemnation of protesters from the left, or completely positive coverage of the protesters which ignores the fact that many of them are extremely right-wing and have killed as many innocent people as the security forces from mainstream media

Yes, that's very good.

I've got students with relatives with four days' worth of food stashed under mattresses and on their persons for fear of looters

I do see criticisms from the left around the haphazard practices of redistrubtion; things I only come across now and then in English.

Its a good piece, loved the stuff around Macondo/One Hundred Years of Solitude.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/04/venezuela-to-launch-cryptocurrency-to-combat-us-blockade-maduro-says?CMP=twt_gu