More HPCA

[Aaron]

He doesn't seem to have been much worse then bush or obama, he just shoveled money in a different direction.

[Flagg]

Yeah and actually did stuff for the actual people of Venezuela. If things got worse for anyone it was the rich fucks and who cares about them?

[Infinity Biscuit]

It's hard to feel that the image presented in American news about Chavez should be taken at face value, anyway. There was an AP article that talked about how Chavez wasted the country's oil money by using it to build programs for the lower class rather than spending it on mega skyscrapers or super hotels as is the current trend in other oil-rich countries. You don't have to do much to give a warped view, just keep harping on anything bad done (or pass the good done as bad) and never comment on the good. And since the bar in question isn't "a wonderful saint of a man" but rather "not a monster whose death we should celebrate", I don't feel Elfdart's view in that instance was a particularly controversial one.

[evilsoup]

adr (and shroom)
man what
Chavez maintained a blacklist of people who signed the petition that forced his re-election, so as to deny them government jobs, loans & contracts
he made secret recordings of his political opponents (and aired them on his national TV program)
at least one judge who ruled against him ended up in prison

you can argue that he had a net positive effect on his country (how do you balance halving infant mortality against doubling the crime rate of the capital?), but he wasn't an unambiguously good guy at all. Being suspicious of the media is a good thing, but that doesn't mean that you should just believe the exact opposite of what they say.

[Oxymoron]

Oh, sure the guy wasn't in any measure a saint. Far from it even. You've got to remember, after all, that he was originally a putchist himself.

On the other hand, he had to fight at least one coup attempt (maybe more, I haven't followed the story that closely), and since his takeover / first election he has had to fight against several of his own governors which were trying to have their states, the richest ones, secede (Venezuela is a federation IIRC). And in all instances, these opposition movements where loudly supported by a large part of the private medias which where trying to incite open rebellion against the central governement ; private medias owned by corporation with ties to these opposition movements.

When the private medias actively supported an armed coup attempt against you, you tend to get far less tolerant about them.


He wasn't a Saint by any mean, but neither were (and still are) his opponents.


I don't want to fall into the trap of HPCA-ite rhetoric myself, but a country that's been on the verge of civil war for the last decade and a half doesn't govern itself like you would do with a relatively stable country like the UK.

[Shroom Man 777]

i don't dispute any of that

just the soundness of basing an argument on "because a letter from a guy ACTUALLY LIVING THERE said so-and-so!"

cause if the subject in question was obama instead of chavez, and if none of us were americans, alternate-universe non-american darksi could have made the same argument by citing statements from some hydrocephaloplatypucockldmericans as a source of the legitimacy of the leader in question

[Bakustra]

chavez was, like many leftists, prone to use of state violence and force against dissidents

he was also probably better than anyone else in venezuelan politics for the country

now post some more insanity

HPCA on Prop 8:

No. There are two questions for the judiciary. 1) Is civil marriage is an inherent right, or a selective carrot privilege furthering a legitimate government interest in social policy? 2) Does Proposition 8, which bans the word (and case law) of marriage, but not a single legal right that comes with marriage (because it does not overturn CA's domestic partnership laws, which are essentially DPs=marriage, without the title), then is it advancing the legitimate state interests, or just reflecting government animus against homosexuals without furthering legitimate government interests?

Those are not questions a legislature can answer, since they directly determine whether a legislature - or electorate - can make law on said issue.

It could go either way. I suspect, should Prop 8 be overturned, it will be by upholding the 9th Circuit's ruling, which held that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional expressly because it did not ban gay marriages, just the use of the word marriage. Frankly, the worst outcome would be full nationwide repeal, because it will continue the stranglehold the gay ideologues have on the pro gay rights debate (being one of "rights" and not "here's why you straight people should not care if somebody's gay, or should support institutions that mitigate our baser instincts").

If anything, upholding Prop 8 would probably be the best outcome for gays long-term, since it's an express rebuff of the rights/equality whiners and it means there's one course of action: convincing straight folks to change their minds instead of just calling them bigots and running to liberal judges. Gay rights are not happening because gays bitch about being an oppressed minority - they're happening cause gays are convincing straight folks they're no different and not sex-obsessed, bubbleheaded Valley Girls.

Rob Herrick is perhaps better known as the "guns-obsessed" Andrew Sullivan.

Lots. Not many people realize the Democratic party hates the gays and realizes they will vote Republican as soon as we reach the Nirvana of gay rights.

LOLZ

The Elaine Photography case is VERY disturbing. Things like that are expressly why New York and IIRC Maine codified religious protections in their gay marriage laws. The state is blind, but a church does not have to solemnize a gay wedding if they don't want to.

The real problem is that the "gay community" is the most conformist bunch of assholes on the planet, and for a lot of people who just found the balls to admit they like the lads instead of the ladies, there's huge pressures to conform in opinions, mannerisms, and interests to be part of the group. It's better than it was (I no longer have to deal with people who think gays can't be engineers or scientists), but the world is still full of, frankly, people who think being gay is a full-on package and not just the fact you're attracted to males instead of females. It's a clique, and that engenders a clique mentality. You also have wholesale co-opting of gay advocacy groups like the HRC into fundraising and vote-buying arms of the Democratic Party, despite the fact that 25% of gays vote Republican. Add in the issues of "permanent advocacy" that you see cropping up in both the black civil rights fields and the women's rights fields (IE, the inability to declare victory and disband), and you've got one hell of a mess.

On the bad days, I suspect we'll only get to a world that doesn't care if you're gay or straight - just whether you're being a bastard or not - is with a wholesale Stalinist purge of the advocates.

The Boy Scouts are in a mess of their own making. Their being hit with showboating, and their not responding by "that's nice. now shut up and go help an old lady across the street." That's the only answer to these sort of showmanship issues. For a long while, the BSA didn't care, and they should only care if scouts are knocking boots in the tents at scouting events.

Ahahahahaha go get forced into corrective therapy and suffer from pathological depression you revisionist jackass

Go to an African-American-owned printing business and request a quote for printing up KKK leaflets.

When they tell you to go have sexual intercourse with yourself, sue them.

The judge will tell you to go have sexual intercourse with yourself.

Certain minority groups have become more equal than the majority.

That is extraordinarily dangerous. Especially for members of those minorities.

A summary of HPCA opinions on the minimum wage:

My response when discussing minimum wage with someone who wants it to be at least $15/hour is that they are pikers. If they're going to raise it by that much, bring it up to something like $100 or $150/hour.

Also, let me know ahead of time so I can get a large, long term, fixed rate loan.

As we all know, the working class are exactly as well-off as pre-Civil War slaves were, because it's impossible to actually shift the amount of wealth that is held by different people, because any increase in wages creates the exact same increase in prices as well. This is why computers are still 5,000+ dollars for basic models, and milk is 7 dollars a gallon.

[Bakustra]

This has made me mad so I'm going to rant a bit: the minimum wage increasing would only prompt a 1:1 inflationary increase if a) all the costs of doing business were payroll, b)no businesses were ever profitable, and c) all wages were pegged to the minimum wage. a) is obviously untrue, and b) is obviously untrue, and c) is also untrue, though it takes a bit of thought. For instance, the pay of a skilled worker is dependent on the overall labor market for that skill- if there is a glut of accountants, accountants will be paid less, and they will be paid more if there are few, as long as their work is necessary. The pay of a senior manager is largely related to his ability to influence the stock value of the company. The pay of most public-sector employees is set by law or by contract, and the same for the handful of unionized private employees. Raising the minimum wage will put upward pressure on wages defined in relation to the minimum wage, which include a lot of lower-level employees, but the pressure on other wages will be limited to an indirect pressure.

For that matter, even, say, McDonald's won't see too high of an overall price rise. States with significantly higher minimum wages don't have significantly more pricy fast food. The greatest difference comes in with the cheapest items, which have the lowest profit margins and so are most likely to see a significant price increase to maintain marginal profit. But pricier items have more of a profit margin, less cost associated with labor, and so therefore are less sensitive to wage increases. Meanwhile, better-paid and better-compensated employees are less likely to sabotage, conduct day-to-day resistance, come in sick and infect everyone, rob the store after being fired, or cut corners on safety procedures!

[Sandman]

But that sounds like socialism, and we can't have that.

[adr]

man what

Chavez was a big improvement for Venezuela (and, indeed, most of South America) compared to how things were before. Still not perfect, did some things wrong and some things not good enough, but in many fields, big steps in the right direction setting a foundation for future improvements. You mentioned mortality, but also poverty is way down, education is way up, participation in government is significantly improved, and more.

Crime is the most notable exception, but even that must be a more complex story than "chavez bad" (consider it was already pretty bad when he was elected, and is nasty throughout much of the continent), but I don't understand the whole situation so can't talk about details.


But anyway, the propaganda would always paint him with a bad guy brush. They seem incapable of saying anything positive without adding in a negative or at least scare words like "controversial" or "divisive".


If Barack Obama died, I guarantee you the headlines wouldn't say "Will death of controversial American president, called a dictator by some, open the door to warmer relations with the international community?"

It'd be technically true to say those things: there's a lot of controversy about Obama, and some do call him a dictator. But it is kinda silly to point it out all the time.

Same thing with Chavez. But that didn't stop the news from saying it over and over again, and that colors people's perceptions of him. It is a kind of monkey see, monkey do: we observe that everyone else makes a point of Chavez's flaws, so I will too, lest I look like some kind of fringe weirdo.... but in doing so, the narrative gets skewed and the truth lost.

[Glass Fort MacLeod]

Did they complain about the Cesar Chavez on Google being an affornt to Chrisitans and EAster too? I've heard there are secret Liberal Obama ties ot that as well... so its probably conspiracy worthy.

[phongn]

Did they complain about the Cesar Chavez on Google being an affornt to Chrisitans and EAster too? I've heard there are secret Liberal Obama ties ot that as well... so its probably conspiracy worthy.

Nope. They have occasionally complained about Google not doing a doodle for certain holidays like Memorial Day or Veterans Day in the past (and noticed that Bing tends to do them) but nothing crazy.

[Big Orangutan]

Chavez was a big improvement for Venezuela (and, indeed, most of South America) compared to how things were before. Still not perfect, did some things wrong and some things not good enough, but in many fields, big steps in the right direction setting a foundation for future improvements. You mentioned mortality, but also poverty is way down, education is way up, participation in government is significantly improved, and more.

In the wake of his reign the Venezuelan currency has inflated drastically and outside of the oil industry the rest of the economy has atrophied quite badly, with under investment in a breaking down power grid, more food imported than before, and the unintended consequences of the public medical works in the slums hollowing out the regular hospitals. Many things have objectively gotten better for the underclass but is this sustainable in the long run after after Chavez passed away, leaving behind less endearing and driven successors?

Crime is the most notable exception, but even that must be a more complex story than "chavez bad" (consider it was already pretty bad when he was elected, and is nasty throughout much of the continent), but I don't understand the whole situation so can't talk about details.

There's many factors involved in Latin American crime and America is behind a lot of it, however Chavez's regime had a hand in drug cartel related crime ramping up in his backyard:

Marco Werman: One of the biggest issues facing the next president of Venezuela is the country’s soaring crime rate. Shootings and kidnappings have become commonplace in Caracas, and the number of murders in the country is now twice what it was when Hugo Chavez first became president back in 1999. In fact, according to the UN, Venezuela now has the fifth-highest homicide rate in the world. Jeremy McDermott is with InSightCrime, a think tank that studies organized crime in the Americas. He’s in Medellin, Colombia. Jeremy, what’s led to these high statistics in Venezuela?

Jeremy McDermott: There are several different elements which came together during President Chavez’s administrations which have led to this epidemic that we have, not just in murders and kidnappings, but also drug trafficking. And that’s perhaps the big change. Up to 200 tons of cocaine is believed to transit Venezuela on its way to the United States. This has led to an increasing involvement of corrupt elements of the Venezuelan security forces. This is the national guard, the army, and the various different police forces. We call them ‘the cartel of the suns.’ The suns refer to the stars that Venezuelan generals wear on their shoulders. Now this is obviously going to have a massive knock-on effect because if the people who are supposed to be fighting organized crime are also involved in it, well, then impunity and toleration of criminal activity is going to become widespread, and that’s what we’re seeing.

Werman: But Hugo Chavez himself was a soldier. How did he allow the murder rate and this crime rate to just gallop away under him? He was a populist with a strong arm. It seems he’d have kept his eye on such basic human needs as public safety.

McDermott: He first of all politicized the military in an enormous way, and indeed, the constitution that he introduced in ’99, any promotions to lieutenant colonel or above had to be signed off by the president. You will find either serving or ex-military officers in almost every organ of the state. So he couldn’t really challenge the military.

Link

And here's what I'm on about some SD.Netters making comments about Chavez that come across as a bit naïve and misinformed, even though he was not exactly Latin Hitler or Latin Stalin, merely a not very good semi-autocratic leader with good PR who made many OK short term improvements that seem to have long term costs:

Yes, for all his faults and strongarming (which is at least understandable, though, seeing he was a victim of almost-successful US backed coup) I feel Chávez tried to make his part of the world a better place. Something that can't be said about Bush, Blair, Cameron and Cheney, who shitted not only over their country, but dozens of others.

Link

[adr]

In the wake of his reign the Venezuelan currency has inflated drastically

On average, inflation was much lower in the 00's than in the 90's. Chavez inherited a mess, and has actually outperformed most expectations of him - the economy has been doing pretty well, despite the doom and gloom promised every year by international observers.

I went looking for some graphs to illustrate this and found a link:
http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2013/03/0 ... er-chavez/

The author takes a look at before and after and compares it to neighboring Colombia. Inflation in Venezuela is higher than I'd want, but it is still better than it was.

Many things have objectively gotten better for the underclass but is this sustainable in the long run after after Chavez passed away, leaving behind less endearing and driven successors?

I expect it will - the working class isn't going to sit idlely by if things start regressing. But, we'll see what happens.

And here's what I'm on about some SD.Netters making comments about Chavez

meh

[Count Chocula]

Chavez was just another SA totalitarian nutteron a continent rife with same. His successor is no different.

Good luck Venezuela! Don't expect Citgo revenue to fill your coffers.

[Big Orangutan]

Chavez's policies and economic direction were not bad on principle, but his execution and methods certainly were. Neighboring countries like Brazil and Chile were able to improve lives for impoverished people to a similar extent without the almost totalitarian media manipulation and explosion in crime worse than even Mexico's (not only does Chavez's military have strong links to gangs and inflation encouraged police corruption, but Chavez unforgivably withheld funding to police units in regions who did not support him).

And nobody mentioned his anti-Semitism...

[adr]

rumor has it baroness thatcher just died

will this be an opportunity for the uk to change toward a better direction away from the totalitarian evils of neoliberalism?

is what none of the major media is going to say

[Aaron]

I doubt its going to be relevant at all.

[Big Orangutan]

Thatcher was popular because Neoliberalism, North Sea oil and banking were two decades away from hitting a wall, there was not much empathy for miners (power cuts) and factory workers (shit cars), plus unlike the current shower of bastards she treated the military and law enforcement with more respect: the current fucking idiots are engineering nation wide revolt and a armed coup.

[evilsoup]

Thatcher was popular because Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism and the Falklands war
anyways all the major parties aim for focus-group-determined variations on her policies, but she hasn't been relevant personally for a loong time so

[Kryten]

is what none of the major media is going to say

You've clearly never heard anyone from the north of england talk about Thatcher. Now if you'll excuse I have a street party to prepare.

[Bakustra]

rumor has it baroness thatcher just died

will this be an opportunity for the uk to change toward a better direction away from the totalitarian evils of neoliberalism?

is what none of the major media is going to say

One of the iconic leaders of the 20th Century. May she rest in peace.

Rest in peace.

She was a true leader, of courage and determination. She led my country out of a number of dark places, I shall remember her well for the good she did.

Rest in Peace, M'am. You were a force for good.

Denis, like all politicians she was a force for good and ill. For the UK IMVHO she was like a dose of medicine, not necessarily pleasant, but necessary at the time.

EDIT: Whatever her faults, and no politician is perfect, before Thatcher people could seriously talk about the UK collapsing as a country, or being the first developed nation to become under-developed. In 1990 when her premiership was over nobody could seriously suggest such a thing happening.

RIP Margaret Thatcher. May we see your like again.

A great leader, the world is better off for her having been here. I feel a bit like she's the person who saved America's best friend.

Dead at the same age as my grandmother and under similar circumstances (Dementia and stoke for my Grandmother).

But on the positive side, she was a lot like my grandmother in spirit: both being strong willed, confident Englishwomen who never backed down.

Truly a living embodiment of Britannia herself in her time on this earth.

I don't buy the simplistic 'Wicked Witch' narrative held by some people. I remember the late seventies as a time where the current way of doing things in the UK, socially and politically, was well and truly broken, the national conversation was all about this and that *something* drastic was going to happen, like it or not. Of course, some of this may have been ramped up by the print media in full-on 'scare mode', but it was real, nevertheless.

I'm willing to listen to anyone who has a plausible 'better' scenario than the OTL one with Maggie in it. However, I can come up with, off the top of my head, a lot of much worse ones, with a lot of civil strife, potentially a quasi-civil war situation, generally ending in some sort of military coup.

Rest... in... peace... Maggie...

[Flagg]

She considered Nelson Mandela a terrorist and didn't mind Apartheid. If there's a hell I hope she's there watching Transformers 2 for all eternity.

[adr]

yea, and what i'm predicting is most the mainstream media will be the same kind of stuff as bakustra's quotes, despite the fact that thatcher is certainly a controversial and divisive figure at home and abroad!

now just like there were a small handful of people who praised chavez (and/or his policies), i'm sure they'll be a few who attack thatcher (and/or her policies) but since she's One of Us and a designated Good Guy they'll be very much in the minority, whereas it was the opposite with chavez

but i might be wrong, i'll watch the cbs news today and check out other news papers later, gotta work right now

[Oxymoron]

I don't know how it is on the other side of the Channel, but apparently here it has become quite usual for common soldiers to not be paid for one or several months, forcing them to get into debts just to continue to feed their families.

A situation which began with the previous, right-wing government(s).



Anyway, I'm curious Chocs : from your point of view, what makes Chavez and his potential successor(s) "Dictators" and not merely your average, run of the mill president of a developing country's democracy ?