Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Well, he was inspirational. Just, in all the wrong ways.
I dunno, he was a pretty terrible person, but still, being glad he's dead feels wrong.
Also, I think The Onion killed him.
Well, I'm certainly not sad he's dead. Maybe apathetic. Can't feel sorry for someone who tried to swear himself in office for life. For what it's worth, he managed to hold true to that.
Yeah, I feel like an asshole for saying it, but I did smile a little when I heard the news.
Doesn't daltar live in Venezuela? I wonder how she feels.
I dunno, on one hand he nationalized Venezuela's oil industry, slashed the poverty and unemployment rates, and doubled education and social services funding.
On the other hand, he's pretty much your archetypical dictator (cult of personality, censored media, etc.), was BFFs with Gaddafi for some reason, and was apparently an anti-semetic dickhead.
^^ I exist, you know.
^ The country's oil industry currently sucks because of that. On the other hand the censored media thing is an exageration. Dunno about the anti-semitism.
Not sure what you're seeing in that FB post. Deservedly or not, he was inspirational to loads of people.
Anyhow, things will change. Hopefully for the better.
*back to work*
Oh I forgot about the increasing crime rates since he took power, Caracas is apparantly one of the most dangerous cities in the world.
Didn't he bypass the Supreme Court to get rid of RCTV because he suspected they supported the April 11th coup?
Because I don't see how that's not censorship. >_>
He didn't bypass the Supreme Court, the government simply didn't renew their broadcasting license. Also, "suspected" is putting it mildly.
As in, he was right or...?
As in, he was right. RCTV's contributions to the coup were, well, on TV.
(On the other hand, the guy did twist much of national TV to serve as political ad for him.)
fuck you guys chavez was flawed but was still one of the prime fighters against neoliberalism and I raise my hat to him for that.
Plus, from what I've heard Venezuela definitely seems to be one of the better non-democratic countries on this planet, so I would never outright say that Chavez was a complete dickhead. At the very least, if you're an authoritarian head of government then you could stand to learn a thing or two from him on getting your people to actually like you...
Chavez is very controversial, definitely. And the thing is, for every good policy of his (Like his handling of education), you had shit like the price caps that made food scarce(-r) and I think the fact that he got treated in Cuba before dying says a lot about the healthcare in Venezuela, really.
Archetypical dictator? Really? Really? Yeah he was no perfect democrat, but he was no way near the level of real dictators. He did tamper with the free media, that's true, but even so, despite claims to the contrary, Venezuela still in fact has a free media. Practically all of it is virulently neo-liberalist and anti-Chavez, and this is why he saw himself forced to do something about it - not that it makes that right, of course, but the fact is the free media has been just as monolithically ideological than Chavez' state media, and not diverse at all. And even so this 'tampering' only consisted of playing favourites with media licenses and abusing the public emergency broadcast system. And beyond this one sin, Chavez has never acted as dictator. There are no politial prisoners, there are no laws suppressing free speech, and all his elections were won fair and square, as confirmed by international observers.
Also, anti-Zionism isn't anti-Semitism.
It is democratic. Elections are open to everybody and fair. At best it's an illiberal democracy, but even so only slightly illiberal at best.
Really, in liberal Western media, in 50% of the cases dictator means "leader that we don't like" rather than an actual dictator.
I don't know anything about the state of healthcare in Venezuela (calling Stormtrooper!), but doesn't Cuba have a reputation for having one of the best, if not the best, healthcare systems in the world?
Anyway, Chavez may have called himself a revolutionary, but really, he wasn't. He was more like a radical reformist trying to push his agenda gradually and from top to bottom. Which is really a wrong approach, and unsustainable in the long run.
He was a revolutionary in the literal meaning of the word, though. (As in, he organized a coup de etat and took down Caldera or whoever was in charge back then. He did uphold elections post-facto, though)
And Cuba does have a reputation for a great healthcare system, but IIRC, Venezuelan healthcare is kinda not really good.
Like, really, I am averse to him because of various reasons, especially because of the way he dealt with Colombia and often treated a lot of the decisions we had to make out of desperation as love for Gringoland, but I don't think he was half as bad as people outside of Latin America seem to think it is.
That is true, but I was more referring to the fact that he technically still continued working within the framework of the old order and attempted to bring gradual change.
I know, but what I meant is that there is a reasoning behind calling him such and it's not really an arbitrary sort of dealio.
Then again, there are real dictatorships out there. Gaddafi was in fact a dictator, and his death just. Assad is a dictator who hopefully will suffer the same fate. Iran is in fact a dictatorship. And so on. And yet, because those people are politically opposed to the governments of the European World, many far leftists are wilfully blind to that and claim they aren't dictators...
True, that's the other 50%. :P
Meh, he had the hyperbolic rhetoric, the nepotism and the short-term benefits to buy popularity over sustainability in the economic department. If he's not a dictator, he's at least too authoritarian and too obsessed with symbolical over sensible for my taste.
Speaking of South-American politicians, what was the name of that bro-tier teacher-turned-mayor who came up with inventive solutions such as a Ladies' Night and the possibility to voluntarily pay more taxes? He was a very articulate dude, but for the life of me I can't find him.
Funny how people only complain about nepotism when it concerns anti-Western governments. In fact, Chavez took great steps in battling corruption. His rule swept out the previous 'old boys club' and their sleaze which had ruled Venezuela. The way I see it, Chavez was megalomaniac and pathologically hungry for popularity, but he himself at least was not corrupt. I think money meant little to him compared to, hm, glory I guess one could say.
And using oil money to finance election gifts? Yes, surely that's nothing any government in the European World would do... besides do you think without Chavez the oil money would have actually been used to invest into sustainable economical growth in Venezuela? Hahaha, no, it would just have lined the pockets of the rich, and of course of the foreign companies running the business. Now, if it isn't used for long term effects anyway, I'd much rather see it go to the poor than to the rich!
Yeah, I think most people in the US would reflexively condemn him just because he was anti-capitalist.
>not complaining about Western governments
Have you seen the U.S. Politics General? How do you know I do not hold Western gubbermints up to the same standards?
>the lesser of two evils is a good thing even when a third solution(ie, applying moar oil money to subsidies for the necessary life resources instead of fucking it up with price controls, not nationalizing stuff but instead using Russia-style blackmail to obtain more trade concessions without kicking out all the qualified personnel) could have not fucked over the next generation
Probably would have gone wrong in a different way because crisis, but still, what's the use of giving resources to the poor if they dry up after a few years, when you could tweak it a bit so it'll sustain them for way longer?
god it's happening again
the post-anonus-going-to-bed gendershit thoughts
the intrusive thoughts about how much i want to be a woman and how much i hate my body for not being female and hate myself for hating my body
...
why am i allowing myself to whine in this manner
Don't beat yourself up for having feelings. Don't beat yourself up for beating yourself for having feelings. Don't believe you need to pre-emptively disassociate yourself from the Tumblr folks. Your feelings are completely valid, but the sadface part is malleable.
I've found this useful: http://keelium.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/how-to-keep-moving-forward-even-when-your-brain-hates-you/
Heh, this made me smile. But then, the rest of this exchange too, so I guess it's best to think of it as an aperitif before the main course.
That style is a bit passive-aggressive, isn't it?
What I meant is that corruption and nepotism are pretty much inherent to Venezuela (and large parts of Latin America) in general. The previous, pro-'Western' governments were all much worse in that regard. But of course it is only talked about in regards to Chavez. And really, it's a question of what's the appropriate comparison: It would be unfair to hold Venezuela to the same standards as the more developed world, instead it makes more sense to indeed compare Chavez' government to its predecessors in that regard.
Of course you can always do better. But the situation now, that money (even if unsustainably) flows to the poor instead to the rich, is still better than it had been before and than it would be under the political forces now in the opposition. And that is the only appropriate comparison yardstick: How things would have been under the conservative/neo-liberalist forces. In that sense there are indeed only two choices and the lesser evil wins out.