Coming February 6, 2024 . . .
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
Coming February 6, 2024 . . . MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
If there's one thing media want you to know about Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, it's that he doesn't like the United States
Comments
Demonization of Chavez has been at a low simmer for a while. That should be reconsidered. If we must always have a war going on it would at least be cheaper to have it in our own hemisphere. And this entire hemisphere is unquestionably ours, isn't it?
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 8:26am
And since he now seems to be even more missing than OBL, lying in Cuba in a coma, we can put whatever words we need in his mouth.
But then I think he sealed his irrelevance by saying "better Obama than the other idiot". Barry needs a new foil, someone to play Dr. Evil.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 8:50am
Yep, that's Obama for you, always demonizing other countries to exploit nationalist sentiment while he suppresses the opposition and impoverishes the nation. Too bad we don't have an honest, enlightened leader like Hugo Chavez.
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 2:57pm
Agree with your sarcasm.
The FAIR article lacks as much nuance on the topic as the journalism it purports to criticize, making it sound as if nothing has changed on this topic since the Bush administration, and it's all Bush administration stuff they are bringing up as evidence. The date on the article could be 2006.
And reality is so much more fun. Chavez still has a big crush on Obama , but it is unrequited love, Obama just does his best not to run away whever with this crazy suitor comes near, as is the case with most Western leaders, and at times in the past, quite a few Latin American ones, even his allies. (As far as I know, he hasn't gone as far as some of Gaddafi's love letters to Obama, but it's a fruitful comparison.)
The-Maestro-and-Defender-of-The People-and-All-That-Is-Right-and-True and-Simon-Bolivar-Reincarnated has always demanded: attention must be paid! (As do his Venezuelan opponents, it must be said!) And no one of any consequence will pay him (or them) the proper attention, honor and fealty he feels he is due, except for an odd assortment of dictators and theocrats. So he promenades with them, whatever he can get.
I do challenge Peracles and Lulu to show just one example of Obama using Chavez as a foil! He is the one to run away from, that is all. As Chavez himself said, in my link "Obama recently said something very rational and fair ... that Venezuela is no threat to the interests of the United States." And, as the article says Despite the ideological gulf between Washington and Caracas, both sides take a pragmatic approach when it comes to business, with OPEC member Venezuela remaining the United States' fourth biggest crude supplier. That's not to say all concerned in DC are probably soooo looking forward to a successor, any successor to his Highness Chavez.
by artappraiser on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 4:07pm
In my first comment, the one that drew the sarcastic response inferring that I blamed it all on Obama, the same comment in which I did not mention Obama, I did say that the demonization had been at a "low simmer for a while". That means that it has lessened from what it has been in the past. That sure is being tuff on our Pres alright.
Am I being completely gullible to believe that the U.S. Government took overt action attempting to help oust Chavez? Would that be reason enough for Chavez to not like us? That was the the first example given for why he does not, according to the article. If so, were they singing his praises as they went about their merry duty? Or, do you think there is better evidence that that is a false charge? That there was no interference?
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 5:01pm
Yes, the Bush administration targeted him. And it was a stupid thing to do, because he likes it when that happens. But to present the Chavez story as just another example of why "they hate us for our imperialism "is not getting anywhere near understanding of the current situation but taking you further away from it. Like Michael implies downthread, his game is jingoism, too, he and he needs to play the victim card to do it. Bush is not president anymore and WaPo is not directing Latin American policy
It would be much more helpful if the article made it clear it was talking about history and not implying everything is the same post Bush.
Understand what this meglomaniac does with your sympathies for him as a victim of Imperialist Amerika on the international front (and please, leave the question of his economic performance for the people of Venezuela out of it, I mean as a head of state on the international political front);
from
by artappraiser on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 5:39pm
Venezuela has 3rd lowest poverty rate in Latin America. And lowest Gini coefficient. Demonizing other countries some?
Other indicators here: . Seems Chavez has had some good effect.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 4:08pm
I was thinking of the economy and the inflation rate, but your point is well-taken, and I retract the charge.
Not demonizing, just didn't do my research.
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 5:02pm
No prob. I'm not a Castro fan nor an over critic, and it's easier for Chavez with oil money, but still, there are good reasons he's popular, and he won re-election fairly, which should just make us step back rather than condemning, much less supporting a coup. (We also overthrew Haiti under Bush via a US-trained group that entered via Dominican Republic - shades of Teddy Roosevelt years)
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 5:47pm
it's easier for Chavez with oil money
Precisely. It doesn't take an economic genius to re-distribute some oil profits in a boom market. Doesn't even require socialism or basic human rights, see Saudi Arabia.
If successors follow the Chavez plans, it will be interesting to watch how they do as a natural gas glut flows and oil demand continues to go down.
I'm not a Castro fan
Castro is a true believer and egotist; Chavez tends far more to being a meglomaniac nutcase and phony poseur. That he continued to express fandom for Obama while spouting third world revolutionary fervor should tell you something. Like I was embarrassed for Americans that they re-elected George Bush, I am embarrassed for Venezuelans that they re-elected Chavez, that they couldn't find anyone better. That's my opinion of him and I'm sticking to it, I've read enough of his antics over the years to feel that way, and it doesn't look like he's going to get the chance to redeem himself of his past.
by artappraiser on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 6:21pm
Unlike Castro, I don't think Chavez is known for torturing and imprisoning. That should be basic distinction #1. In terms of the structural stuff, there's always hardcore fights between left & right - I'm sure a right-wing government would gerrymander and pack the courts and whatever just as well.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 7:24pm
As the links I posted show, GDP and poverty rates and disparity between rich and poor are better under Chavez than his predecessor. Somehow not completely a phony poseur.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/15/2013 - 2:50am
The only thing that particularly bugs me about Chavez is his authoritarianism--packing the courts, media intimidation, eliminating term limits, etc. My concern is that he has eroded Venezuelan democracy to the point that he will never leave office even if he loses popular support. That may be moot now, since he seems to be on his deathbed, though we'll see what his heirs do.
Of course, there are so many leaders out there far more autocratic than Chavez, most of whom weren't popularly elected, so I don't waste much breath critiquing him. I don't see Obama spending much energy on him either. Bush did, but Bush is an idiot, and Chavez played him as such.
As for the coup, I did condemn it at the time. The U.S. should have done so immediately.
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 6:27pm
Pretty much agree on all.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 7:22pm
I just skimmed the Wiki article on the coup to check U.S. involvement. I didn't remember details, just that I had been convinced at the time that U.S. operatives were in up to their necks. I feel the same way now based on what I have read and remember but I also see that the gov is denying everything. Who would of guessed. But, it's possible they have clean hands and no doubt some people believe their claim. The thing I am getting at is that while you criticize Chavez, and you have a lot to work with, you throw in the caveat that you condemned the coup. Do you have an opinion on our country's involvement in that coup that you are willing to share. I mean, if they did try to encourage and facilitate the overthrow of a popularly elected leader, that is a significant thing.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 8:10pm
There is evidence that the CIA had foreknowledge of the coup attempt but not that it was actively involved. That doesn't mean that it wasn't actively involved, but without evidence, I don't care to speculate.
by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 01/15/2013 - 12:57am
You realize of course that with our controlling the playing field and our verified record of supporting Latin American coups and intrigues over the last 200 years, folks south of the border have good reason to speculate, both from precedent and because it vitally concerns them.
Whether Venezuela voted in a monkey or a wizard, it mostly doesn't affect us, and why our own monkey Bush felt it necessary to comment on their internal choice, beats me. But time and again, we've shown we only care about free elections when our favored candidate wins, such as when we actively pumped up Chamorro over the Ortega brothers in Nicaragua, only to see her go out in disgrace and the Ortegas come back as elder statesmen. All that war, all that "1 day from the Texas border" rhetoric for nothing, only to destroy our credibility.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/15/2013 - 2:49am
I did not mention Obama but it is completely fair to take that as implied. Where that falls short though would be if you thought I was only blaming the current administration. I sure miss Bush. I could really let go on him for this sort of thing and get lots of kudos. That's what I live for.
Maybe I am wrong though about Chavez getting worse press than he deserves. A big majority of his people seem to like him awfully well, but so what. What do they know? He seems to get along with his neighbors pretty well, but so what, what do they know?
Maybe I am confusing him with someone else who was over-sold as a bad guy. Maybe it was Mubarik? No, he was like a friend of the family right up to the end as I recall. Too bad his people thought he was a criminal. What did they know? How about those Saudi guys? I haven't heard our gov bad mouthing them much. They must be okay. Same for the other apparently pretty good despots in most of those countries in the Middle East that we aren't bombing yet.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 4:09pm
Here's a ku (pie) do (ll) for you. Let's keep Lulu alive & kicking.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 4:23pm
There's plenty of more nuanced US coverage of Chavez if you just look for it, like this piece at The Atlantic published today:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/01/what-hugo-chave...
Again, I find the FAIR piece as biased and as simplistic and misleading as what it purports to criticize; it's trying to make a case for biased US coverage from pieces that themselves are necessarily simplistic because they are all attempts at giving shorthand explanations to those who have no more knowledge of what happened in the past
Meanwhile, if you just Google "Obama Chavez" you'll see plenty of evidence that the right winger narrative is that they are one and the same and the best of friends.
Not only is the demonization of Chavez is a very old story and very much one he himself helped to create, I think he loved every minute of it, as I said, it's all about attention must be paid. And if anything, I believe for the last four years the Obama administration has been trying hard to see he gets less attention, including not wanting him demonized. Because he loves being demonized!
by artappraiser on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 4:25pm
And here's a better summary of what's been going on since 2008:
Now collate that with who the American government has been hanging with in Latin America since Obama was inaugurated.
by artappraiser on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 4:58pm
Maybe that explains further why the demonization has been at a low simmer for a while. Sure glad I did not reflexively blame anything on Obama.
So here are some evocative phrases from this fine analysis. Well, maybe fine, maybe just opinionated or even propagandistic. Or, maybe fair and balanced, you decide.
"Radical revolutionary regimes in Venezuela..." That's a given?
"...a bloc determined to confront the capitalist world, even if that meant increasingly authoritarian government." What is the problem that this writer just can't abide, that the bloc lead by Chavez would confront the capitalist world [I think he might mean the U.S.] or that they have become more authoritarian? More authoritarian than what other governments?
"As Fidel Castro’s favorite son, Mr. Chávez has always been the leader of the radical wing." Not so radical that he imposed any threat to us. Does he threaten anyone else?
"while the Brazilians sneer at Mr. Chávez’s outdated radicalism and chronic incompetence." That convinces me. If this guy says the Brazilians sneer at Chavez because he is radical and incompetent then that is all I need to know. I now poot in Chavez general direction.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 5:30pm
Yeah, right - Google "Brazil economy" and note Dec 2012 descriptions like "stalled", "not what it once was", "loses ground again", "a breakdown of trust".
If these jerks would stop fighting the banana & narcotic wars of the US, reliving our Castro vs. Batista days over and over, and just focus on building up the region...
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 5:53pm
The right-wingers get in the news quite a lot with their various narratives. They make a lot of noise. They are influential. A lot of them get elected while others pump out whatever they pump out. I would say its mostly B.S. Were those right-wingers praising Chavez while comparing him to Obama and saying they were great pals? Or, were they painting him as several kinds of bad? Could any of what they put out be called "demonization"?
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 6:37pm
I just found it amusing that you attacked America's calculated martial jingoism while linking to an article that rationalizes Venezuela's calculated martial jingoism.
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 5:10pm
From the article
Maybe Chavez studied our American history on how we could stir up nationalism to rally a nation, to support our objective of conquest?
Just a thought and a possible scenario Chavez worried about; but did we ever find out who sunk the Maine; an incident that led to the Spanish American war?
Maybe Chavez, figured he too would be blamed for an incident, he knew nothing about; so as to not be blindsided, he sounds a constant alarm?
by Resistance on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 3:39pm
The Spaniards probably sank the Maine. Most of the survivors said they heard two explosions, and at least two people who weren't on the ship SAW two explosions. In 1911 a guy said he had warned the American consul that the Spaniards were going to attack the ship.
The Rickover team's account of the sinking was screwed up. They made at least one technical error, refused to consider the likely possibility of a low intensity explosive, and ignored the fact that the ship had alarms to detect fires, which pretty much nixed their spontaneous combustion theory.
by Aaron Carine on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 9:16pm
Thank you, I had heard or read somewhere, that the sinking was intentional, so that America could declare war on Spain.
by Resistance on Tue, 01/15/2013 - 12:19am
The FAIR article was rather tendentious, declaring as a fact that Washington tried to overthrow him when the evidence isn't that conclusive(they didn't give a source for their assertion that the U.S. embassy was conspiring with the plotters).
People have some good reasons to dislike the U.S. government, but if they also praise worse people, as Chavez does, then their anti-Americanism isn't rooted in moral feelings.
by Aaron Carine on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 8:26pm
The Haiti coup was also tendentious, but following indications, it's pretty easy to surmise we were knee deep in both.
I consider much of Chavez's bloviating just twisting the tiger's tail when the tiger tries to twist his. Yeah Depardieu declared Putin some kind of democrat as well, all over a tax emigrant issue. Shame considering Putin's sordid record on freedoms, confiscations, corruption, destroying Chechnya. But people will seek allies where they find them.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/15/2013 - 2:28am
One of my most common gripes which I bring to Dagblog refers to propaganda by our government which is often, I would say usually, mindlessly and unquestionably passed on by various media outlets and which is propaganda aimed at our citizens for the purpose of garnering support for things which I believe they would not otherwise support.
Another example:
"It's Blame Iran Week"
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/01/its-blame-iran-week.html#more
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 01/15/2013 - 2:48pm