In contrast, George W Bush has almost succeeded in making it a constitutional amendment that billionaires do not pay taxes. In the United States, giving tax breaks to the already rich and padding corporate welfare rolls is, of course, perfectly democratic, as is allowing forests and national parks to be looted and mined without any benefit to most citizens.
What an excellent read! Thank you, soccerdad. It's always fun to see how Bushco resembles the slimiest South American despots, only on a much larger scale.
Good Job soccerdad
Chavez's crime is that he gave the oil money, which belongs to the people of Venezuela, back to the people. That makes him anti American. Just shows us what this cabal in the WH has in store for us.
He said that watching the Argentine referendum on Chavez was like looking in a mirror, although a distorted one.
I'd believe that. Argentina's on the wrong end of the continent to be holding a referendum on the People's Jefe. At any rate, I do feel a bit sorry for those folks in Caracas; they dumped the oligarchs hoping for an FDR and got a Huey Long.
Posted by David Thompson at August 18, 2004 08:03 PMHe said that watching the Argentine referendum on Chavez was like looking in a mirror, although a distorted one.
I'd believe that. Argentina's on the wrong end of the continent to be holding a referendum on the People's Jefe. At any rate, I do feel a bit sorry for those folks in Caracas; they dumped the oligarchs hoping for an FDR and got a Huey Long.
Posted by David Thompson at August 18, 2004 08:06 PMI have noticed a sense of frustration in our
base lately. This situation is caused both by
the SCLM spinning the news against us(remember
they need a 'horse race') & the GOP negative campaign.What do we do? WE fall to their strategy
by second guessing Kerry & demanding more or less
perfection.WE have to be convinced that the Kerry campaign know what they are doing.
Kerry polls must be in his favor, so they need to stay on message & keep the high road. If
we start a negative counterattack we may feel
great but we may risk alienating the undecided.
I believe that the Kerry campaign has made some
mistakes, however those mistakes are minimal
compared to the countless errors of this administration.
they dumped the oligarchs hoping for an FDR and got a Huey Long.
Curious as to why you think this. I'm simply looking for more info.
Posted by soccerdad at August 18, 2004 08:34 PMIf dumbass wins in November, look for a CIA assisted regime change in Venezuela within the year. If he looses, make it 18 months....
Posted by Jake at August 18, 2004 10:46 PMThr nvr hs bn cmmnst tht ctlly mprvd th lt f hs ppl.
[Editor: ignore=off]Okay Progreso and Jake, I'll try to be better. I'll vote for K/E, even if the vote isn't counted. I admire Chavez, for calling Butch that name and hoping for an election failure. He does admire Fidel Castro, and I can't take that, but is secondary to the accomplishments he's made for Venezuelan countrymen.
Posted by BushHater at August 19, 2004 06:04 AMArgentina's on the wrong end of the continent to be holding a referendum on the People's Jefe
I am always amazed at how educated folks subconciously lump all of south america into one big interchangeable landmass. No one down here would ever call the US "Canada" by mistake, or France "Denmark". I don't mean to needle soccerdad over this, but we should at least have our countries straight before we go and take sides with the folks running them.
Chavez is no shining example of equitable democracy in action. The reality is, he's a madcap caricature of the the proverbial Latin American revolutionary.
Pacifying the poor to solidify political power is the oldest trick in the book in Latin America, and is the reason why countries like Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela never can get up and running smoothly. It is foolish to romanticize such leaders as Chavez or Toledo, who are not adept at public administration. Sure, it's fun to see the "people's candidate" win with the poor masses turning out the vote, but generally those same masses hit the streets a couple years later asking for his head.
Posted by kngdvd at August 19, 2004 07:04 AMI don't mean to needle soccerdad over this, but we should at least have our countries straight before we go and take sides with the folks running them.
Needle accepted- I don't know what i was thinking, because Venezuela was in the title. Must have been a brain cramp sorry.
Pacifying the poor to solidify political power is the oldest trick in the book in Latin America, and is the reason why countries like Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela never can get up and running smoothly.
Why is that, exactly. Is it because they cant get the others to come on board, so nothing gets better? Does Chavez have more money to work with than the other counties? Of so does that give him any leverage?
Looking to learn.
Posted by soccerdad at August 19, 2004 07:25 AMThat was in Venezuela. There is nothing to do with Argentina. Venezuela is on the northern part of South America, around the Equator. Argentina is in the southern tip of the continent and even though they have their own problems and a populist president they have nothing to do with Chavez or Venezuela.
Posted by Vitor at August 19, 2004 07:46 AMFixed it, sorry for the brain cramp. Not my first mistake, won't be the last. I do know the difference between the counrties, if for no other reason is I try to catch SA soccer whenever its on Fox Sports world. I'm trying to learn more about South America especially politics and economics so I welcome constructive criticism and pointers to vetted info.
Posted by soccerdad at August 19, 2004 08:48 AMChavez is hardly "a madcap caricature of the the proverbial Latin American revolutionary" as stated by kgndvd, the reality is he has demonstrated a willingness to stand up the corrupt upper-class.
Land re-distrubtion by spreading ownership among a wider section of the population (70% of all land is own by 2% of wealth Venezuelan presently), using revenue from the country's natural wealth (oil)to provide more social services and infrastructure, re-negotiating a larger percentage of oil revenue with Exxon etc., and speaking the truth about US's attempt to overturn a democratically elected government is anything but a "madcap".
Posted by Jibberjabber at August 19, 2004 10:48 AMthey dumped the oligarchs hoping for an FDR and got a Huey Long.
Curious as to why you think this. I'm simply looking for more info.
Nothing specific; just my impression from seeing the man in action over the last few years. Chavez employs a lot of the same rhetoric and corrupt dirty-dealing that was Huey's stock-in-trade. Problem is that doesn't work for long unless you can co-opt enough of the wealthy interests to get the economy back on its feet and protect you from the other wealthy interests. The other option is a Mugabe-style populist dispropriation, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Chavez try that if Venezuela's still a mess when his re-election comes around.
Posted by David Thompson at August 19, 2004 08:31 PMDavid,
Thanks for replying
Posted by soccerdad at August 20, 2004 04:37 AMSoccerdad, Sorry for the late reply
In Latin America, there is a traditional and long-standing battle for power between the aristocracies who controlled production, public services, and daily life in general up through the 1960s, and the disenfranchised, undereducated and underpaid working class that usually makes enough to live on with a large degree of effort, ingenuity and acceptance of numerous spatial and social constrictions (three generations under one roof, informal employment, etc).
This dichotomy continues today in Latin America, and there are no real examples of a functional middle class maintaining political balance. In countries like Chile, the Right imposes political agendas because it controls the wealth, and the left-leaning parties band together and push watered-down social agendas from the muddied middle-ground. Things give the appearance of working for the time being.
Every so often, a ruling aristocrat like Alberto Fujimori (Peru), gets caught red-handed enriching himself at the expense of his country, and this of course pisses off the populace to no end. Inevitably, a hero emerges, such as Alejandro Toledo, who has some roots in the rural or working classes and is capable of whipping up a frenzy of support to get himself elected on some "platform of the people" or somesuch. None of these "Toledos" have much of an idea about Public Administration, and usually they piss off the business community, which still controls the majority of the wealth. In the end, their tenure generates more discontent among the masses, and the country finds itself caught in the same old cycle of going nowhere real slowly.
In the case of Venezuela, you have one of these such leaders, with the twist that he comes from the military, which is usually on the side of the aristocracy.
And he is a madcap. Anyone who goes to Bolivia and makes an official declaration about not being able to rest until he can bathe in a Bolivian sea, has a number of loose screws floating around up there. If he really cared, he'd be trying to generate unity in Latin America through common dialogue, rather than spark regional conflicts through hard-headed revolutionary statements. I won't argue with Jibberjabber about standing up to the US or using oil revenue to fund public services, because I agree with those things, but I will say that agrarian reform and land re-distribution has never worked in Latin America. In Guatemala, for instance, it didn't work because the US didn't let it. In Chile, it didn't work because the radical left-wingers didn't realize that they'd also have to develop an entirely new system of public services to replace those lost by breaking up the Haciendas. In Brasil, it led to the rapid destruction of the rainforest and did nothing to decrease poverty. And so on and so forth.
Posted by kngdvd at August 20, 2004 07:31 AM