Those who condemn Chavez must acknowledge THIS.

[Ken Burch]

Figures like Chavez and Castro(not that I'm equating the two, because Chavez is clearly less repressive than Castro)have emerged in Latin America, and will continue to emerge there, because the US, under administrations of BOTH parties, has always worked to make it difficult, if not impossible, for the poor there to fight for their rights by pristinely democratic means.

(of course, to a less obvious degree, they've done that here at home as well, but let that pass for now)

And, by the fixation of some with "free trade" and "property rights" the "anti-Chavez" types have actually made life worse for the poor and the working class in Latin America and the rest of the world.

If those who are anti-Chavez here really want to make the Chavez type of leader unnecessary, they need to work to make sure that Democratic administrations, at least,

1) Admit that radicalism in Latin America is driven by the conditions people live under, not "subversion" and "foreign influence".

2) Support redistribution of wealth and political power in Latin America and the rest of the developing world, as well as sustainable development on sound ecological principles, because the stability and peace that social, economic and environmental justice will create will always be more enduring than any "stability" imposed by the coercive mechanisms of the IMF and the brute force of U.S. military might.

3) Abandon, once and for all, the corporate-driven "globalization" strategy that has done nothing, and can do nothing, but increase the immiseration of the majority of the population of this planet.

The reality is, if you won't do the above, you have no right to call on the people of Latin America to reject the Chavezes and the Castros, because, compared to the, you have nothing to offer the people of Latin America and the world.

It's time for Democrats to get on the right side of history.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

1. Oh sometimes Democrats can be as big a rally round the flag

types as conservatives. This was the same thing that happened when Ward Churchill's "When Chickens Come Home to Roost" paper came out. Never mind that Churchill was the only one in the country that was pointing out the egregious nature of our foreign policy and how it oppresses people. He said "Little Eichmann's" he can't talk bad about us like that.

It was truly sad.

[OneBlueSky]

2. Liberation Theology has significantly influenced the democratic . . .

movement in Latin America . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Theology

[Ken Burch]

9. absolutely. Now it need to influence our party.

We need to fight for the global majority.

[burrowowl]

69. Long live Liberation Theology!

We need anothe Pope like John XXIII, not fascist pigs like JP II and Benny XVI!

[zeemike]

3. You are spot on K&R n/t

[brentspeak]

4. What does this have to do with the Democrats?

?????

[rman]

5. US foreign policy under Dems or Repubs differs very little

RW military dictators propped up during Republican government receive continued support during Democratic government.
The NAFTA scam is supported by both the Democratic party and the Republican party.
etc.

- All to the advantage of the large corporate corporate interests that own the US mainstream media and the US government.

[Ken Burch]

7. Agreed. My point is, it has to start differing a lot.

Because in fighting for the status quo as passionately as Republicans do in the developing world, Democrats do a lot of harm and go against what should be their natural global progressive position.

[lostnfound]

11. This is my frustration as well; however, Clinton did restore Aristide

to power, to his credit, which I see as clear respect for the democratic will of the people rather than the 'false democracy of the elites', as Chavez put it.

Republican presidents have tended to be more intent and bloodthirsty about keeping leftists out of power..Ultimately, placing a high priority on protecting the wealthy from leftwing governments who want to confiscate property and caring not at all about protecting the poor from rightwing death squads. Reagan and Bush were far worse than Carter or Clinton, but sadly, in our history, there are examples on both sides.

[rman]

12. I think Ted Kennedy sums it up accurately:

"95% of Republicans, and 75% of Democrats are corrupt."
He was referring to party officials, not to voters.

Iirc, Clinton had Aristide accept certain pro-"free-trade" conditions that Aristide would otherwise not have accepted.

So yes, there are differences between the Dem party and the Repub party. But neither is even close to helping to realize true justice in this world. Both parties have more in common with one another than either has in common with true representation of The People's interests.

I'm not saying this is reason not to vote Dem, i'm saying a whole lot needs to change in the Dem party before it is truly a progressive party.

[dionysus]

34. not to nitpick, but that was Bobby Jr,

unless he was quoting his big bro... ;) Bobby says that all the time on his show

[Ken Burch]

6. Rangle/Pelosi/Hillary and their right-wing anti-Hugo comments

and the anti-Chavez posters that have defended them and still defend "globalization" and "free trade".

[brentspeak]

13. Really? I support Rangel/Pelosi/Hilary, as do most Democrats here

and I don't support globalization and "free trade", either. Rangel and Pelosi sure don't.

So, where exactly are you coming from?

[Ken Burch]

15. I'm coming from the idea that our leaders should NEVER use

right-wing rhetoric and shouldn't be telling people what they do and do not have the right to say in this country.

And most anti-Chavez posters and pundits do end up arguing for globalization, lowering themselves to the "rising tide lifts all boats" arguement. We need to be RFK, not JFK.

It would have been enough to say "Chavez isn't the point. We want to talk about full employment, universal healthcare and ending the nightmare in Iraq".

But they wouldn't do that. They accepted the myth that all they could settle for this year was simply being not quite so far to the right as the GOP.

If you do that with the rhetoric, you inevitably end up doing it with the practical policies. Look what JFK's right-wing rhetoric about Cuba in 1960 led to...The Bay of Pigs and then, in the fall of '62, nearly the end of the friggin' planet in an absolutely pointless nuclear confrontation.

We can't reduce ourselves to JFK in '60 on foreign policy. To do so means abandoning the poor abroad and at home.

[brentspeak]

"most anti-Chavez posters and pundits do end up arguing for globalization"

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

Have you taken a poll on this? Where are you getting this information? I prefer facts over blind assertions.

[Ken Burch]

17. If you don't, I'm pleased and surprised.

What DO you support then?

[brentspeak]

19. Wait. Stop. Rewind.

Go back. You said that "most anti-Chavez poster and pundits" are also pro-globalization and pro "free trade". I asked you how you came up with this theory. You didn't answer that question. And you also didn't explain how it is that Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi, two Democrats who criticized Chavez' speech the other day, are anti-free trade at the same time.

This isn't about me, my views. This is about your thread, and some nebulous criticism of yours about the Democrats that has something to do concerning a leader of a foreign leader (Chavez). You still have not explained what a Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, has to do with the Democratic party of the United States of America.

[Ken Burch]

22. It goes to the question of, as the old labor song put it,

"Which Side Are You On"?

The whole orchestrated Dem attack on Chavez's speech(when they could have ignored the whole thing at no political cost)was about reinforcing the idea that, on Latin America, the Democratic leadership supports the status quo.

In Latin America today, there are two choices.

One is radical democratic populism, of the type Chavez and others represent.

The other is globalization and the whole "pro-business" thing. Which means taking the side of the elite in the mansions and the barracks and telling the impoverished majority to fuck off.

I'm saying that Democrats need to be on the side of the working-class majority at home and abroad, not on the side of the rich and finicky white suburbanites.

It's a question of whether we're on the right side of history or not. Whether we're JFK in '61 or RFK in '68.

[TankLV]

31. Now hold on there!

I am hardly "anti-Chavez" here, and I DO thank GOD that WE have Charlie and Pilosi and Hillary on OUR SIDE - especially more Charlie than the other two.

Please don't go overboard.

Not everybody will agree exactly on everything 100%.

Just a little observation...

But I thoroughly and completely understand your frustration and anger...

[The Magistrate]

42. None Of Those People, Mr. Burch, Are Of The Right Wing

That sort of over the top comment does no good at all....

[Ken Burch]

43. I didn't mean that, overall, they were right-wing people...

I meant(and should have found another way to phrase this)that their response was inexplicably right-wing sounding. Like JFK's gratuitous anti-Castro rhetoric in the 1960 campaign. I don't want us to return to office committed to 1961 Kennedy-Johnson foreign policy. Such a commitment will make it impossible for us to do anything progressive in any area, since it would end up tying up all resources in a neo-Cold War level of war spending(and, let's face it, the only reason the War on Terror was invented was to keep the Cold War mentality going under another label.)

[The Magistrate]

44. Their Criticisms, Sir, Were Politically Sound

The business of political professionals, after all, is gaining office and maintaining themselves in office. Col. Chavez is, in my personal view, an excellent fellow, who is on balance a good thing for the people of Venezuela. But his statements at the U.N. were of a nature that required leading Democratic politicians to put some distance between him and them, and it is not my habit to criticize or condemn people for doing what it is clearly adviseable for them to do.

[Ken Burch]

45. I respect your opinion, Magistrate.

I hope you understand why my "Oh biblical knowledge, here we go again" alarm went off, though.

I do wonder, though, why anyone would argue that people visiting this country from somewhere else have less right to criticize our political leaders than people who live here. I can see no good that could come from making such a distinction.

[rman]

50. 40 years ago they'd be considered to be RW

They support privatization and subsidizing wealthy corporations where Dems once opposed it.

[robcon]

8. Globalization is THE solution for Latin America.

Free trade will promote interdependence, increase incomes and expand economies.

[Ken Burch]

10. Did you have an arguement to go with that slogan?

Or did you actually mean "the Final Solution For Latin America"?

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. Ideology doesn't need argument

It is also immune to evidence.

[druidity33]

18. free trade is a crock...

Kinda like "free" speech...

FAIR TRADE is where it's at!


Hear what Hugo himself says:

http://www.worldlinktv.org/programming/programDescription.php4?code=chavez&tz=2

[rman]

29. So-called "Globalization" is being exposed for the scam that it is,

as we speak.

All that free-trade-as-we-know-it does, is make the rich and powerful more rich and powerful still, at the expense of the rest of us (which doesn't necessarily include you).

The floodgates are open and the world (including DU) is awash with evidence. You've got to really try hard not to see it.

[Hoping4Change]

32. That is pure bunk. The exact opposite is happening for instance

in Mexico where companies are leaving Mexico because other countries have even lower wages. The only people who benefit by globalization are corporations and their shareholders.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. "Free" trade is a fundamentalist religion

As when The Economist runs a lengthy article about all the problems with globalization and "free" trade, and all the misery it has caused, and then goes on to say that it's the only hope for the Third World and would work great...but with so many preconditions that they're essentially saying that corporate globalization would work great in an alternative universe, not in the universe that we actually live in.

If you argue with a free trader, citing actual cases of misery caused by their policies and counterexamples of countries that have prospered by defying the mandates of the World Bank and IMF, they'll still come back with "But free trade is the only hope for the world's poor."

[Solon]

36. Really? Been down to Mexico lately?

Illegal immigration from there has increased by over 10% since NAFTA was signed, farmers have been driven from their land, unemployment has skyrocketed, and too many other things have happened, and you call it a solution?

Defend your position, I dare you.

[Greyhound]

40. Typical reich-wing, DLC claptrap. Nobody is buying it anymore, and

only a fool keeps trying to win with a losing strategy, but thanks for playing. :think:

[135th]

52. OK, I'll bite. This is for the several responses to #8

What is the economic argument against globalization? I'm not interested in anecdotal evidence, because both sides find such stories and the value is often suspect. What I am asking for is an economic argument explaining why globalization fails to improve peoples lives, or leaves them worse off then they were.

I'm reasonably well versed in both the economic and political aspects of globalization, and have never seen an economic explanation that succeeded in doing this. I don't believe one exists. The closest I have seen is the (Kurth?) position that globalization is bad because it will lead to the end of American hegemonic/military power; an argument hardly based on progressive principles. Even that doesn't claim that globalization doesn't improve peoples lives, so why all the opposition?

[tkmorris]

57. Rather obvious isn't it?

It provides an unfettered incentive for all corporations, particularly those involved in manufacturing, to move those industries as much as they are able to the lowest common denominator region. Jobs are relocated to areas where the wages are lowest, the safety regulations are most lenient, and environmental laws are nonexistent.

It is often argued that the people in those regions need jobs the most, and are better off for them. There is some small truth to this, but do remember that the factories get moved there in the first place in order to exploit the conditions, not improve them. This is an important point, and bears repeating. CORPORATIONS LOVE GLOBALIZATION BECAUSE IT MAXIMIZES THEIR PROFITS, NOT BECAUSE IT HELPS ANYONE. They are not in the business of giving a damn. Their allegiance, if they can be said to have any at all, is to their shareholders and nobody else.

Now, is that wrong you may ask? Well, I would argue that it is, but let's leave that aside for now. Let's just say that we have corporations who have tunnel-visioned, profit driven motivation and decide what to do about that. I would argue that it is tremendously unfair to ask workers who live in an area with minimum wage laws, unemployment compensation, worker's compensation laws, government mandated workplace safety to be forced to compete with workers who have none of those things.

Let's isolate the problem to make it more clear. Let's just take the United States and Mexico for example. If we want to open trade up so that corporations can do business in either location without any penalty than it is imperative that the laws governing labor in those two nations be comparable, lest all the jobs flow downhill. That is not currently the case now is it?

Corporations will always look to maximize profits at the expense of any other considerations. That is a truism which should be beyond argument. If workers are to be protected in any way it is up to the governments they live under to regulate those corporations. So called "Free Trade" is not fair when the governments protection of labor is not fair. Labor protection laws comparable to our own here in the US should be a mandatory prerequisite to opening trade barriers with any nation. If they are not, well, "Do ya hear that giant suckin' sound?".....

[135th]

62. Corporations don't have to try and help anyone.

That is the point of capitalism, no one has to try and help anyone and in the process everyone is helped. The system works on the mutual drive for self intrest. In the process more is produced cheaper, faster, and better.

Mexico and the US are engaging in free trade (though this is arguably false, as both states have some vested interests they refuse to allow the market to deal with) and the end result is simply smoother market action. The only "sucking sound from the south" was Ross Perot's presidential bids. The jobs that did disappear were jobs that would have been lost either way, barring massive protectionism that would have done far more economic damage then good.

I do agree that there are downsides to globalization. I don't think much of the world has truly realized how to deal with profit driven non-state actors, i.e. multi-national corporations, and that this is the reason we see such a backlash against globally linked economics. I also think weak or undemocratic governments are liable to sell their countries short from time to time, either through ignorance or malice. It is important to remember that even in these cases, the benefits which occur almost always outstrip the costs. Even if workers are paid dirt (and they quite often are), if they are being paid above the level they would otherwise receive they are seeing their standard of living rise.

Everyone has heard the stories of the poor people locked inside Nike factories being beaten when they ask to sleep. I don't doubt such things happen. However, one must ask oneself if they believe such treatment is any worse then the norm in the places where this occurs. Again, as long as workers are being compensated beyond what they would otherwise expect, their standard of living is rising. If not, the cramped dark factories would be hard pressed to find pretty young village girls to oppress.

Another important benefit of globalization is the peace brought about by interdependence. Nations with strong economic ties almost never engage in military conflicts with each other. The economic damage such a disruption would create eliminates the benefits war would bring. It is no big puzzle why the US was able to invade Iraq and ignored Suadi Arabia. The US had virtually no tires to the former, and most of the world was tied to the latter. Which nations fought hardest to stop the war? France and Russia, two of the nations with the most to lose in the economic disruption of regime change.

[ieoeja]

64. What are you? A teenager?

"That is the point of capitalism, no one has to try and help anyone and in the process everyone is helped."

That sure sounds pretty. But the reality has proven quite otherwise.

I happen to favor globalization. It *can* do all the bullshit you claim it *will* do. But it will not do so on it's own. Things do not "just happen" that way. They happen because someone makes it happen.

Fact: the US experienced an economic depression every 12 to 15 years before the New Deal and zero economic depressions in the 70+ years since. Now you want an economic theory to explain that? I could come up with quite a few. And you could come up with a lot of theories saying why my theories are wrong. But what you can not do is dispute that fact. And I refuse to get hauled into an argument against naive theories based in academia when real life has proven time and time again that those theories do not work.

[135th]

65. Cute header, it hides the lack of an argument.

The fact is, things do just happen that way. It does take someone to make that happen; in the case of globalization that someone is the combination of multi-national corporations and willing labor producing, governments making free trade possible, and consumers buying and fueling future production. The end result is increased living quality for all involved.

The US has not gone through a depression since the 1930's. There has been many recessions since then, but nothing nearly as serious as the Great Depression. Why? During that time the government began to assert a much greater role in trying to stave off economic downturns. While interesting, this fact has little to do with the topic of globalization. This is just a strawman trying to paint free trade as incompatible with governmental attempts to mediate economic downturns.

There is nothing about globalization that is incompatible with the rest of the issues we value. This is an issue that one of our best presindents, Bill Clinton, supported. Raising global living standards and decreasing war should be something we embrace, not denounce.

[ProudDad]

54. BULLSHIT ALERT

There IS NO FREE TRADE in this world. Equating "Globalization" and something called "Free Trade" displays a stunning lack of knowledge of either!

No freakin' way. It will promote the oligarchies in those countries while further oppressing the people.

It increases the incomes of the very rich while depressing everyone Else's economic health. It expands economies while polluting the earth to build CRAP, mostly CRAP that no one needs.

Interdependence - right, one solid monolithic oligarchy the world-wide. One world under the oppressor.

JESUS, you haven't heard about the deprivations of NAFTA yet?

[Ken Burch]

67. That's why I always put "free trade" IN QUOTATION MARKS.

Because it is an innocuous-sounding euphemism for letting the rich have unchallenged control of the planet.

[ProudDad]

70. Too true

too true

[RangerSmith]

14. It's hard for me to believe anybody who has been to Latin Amercia or Cuba

really believes there has been a redistribution of wealth.

Yes, many of the rich who didn't align politically had everything siezed, but there are only 2 classes.... rich and poor... still to this day.

[Ken Burch]

16. There hasn't been enough of one, yet.

(although in Cuba its better in other places. What Cuba needs is democracy, not capitalism and not the Miami exiles swaggering home like it's their natural right to come back and exploit again).

Clearly, though, the idea of bribing corporations with "free trade" deals in the hopes that a few tiny crumbs might trickle down has failed.

What I'm saying is that Democrats need to make it clear that they won't support that bullshit idea anymore.

Not because it's "red meat" to take the side of the poor, but because it's better policy.

True stability and security can only be built on a foundation of social, economic and environmental justice for all.

Not corporate profits and the 82nd Airborne.

[RangerSmith]

25. I'm not sure I understand

your "No corporate profits" but if it's what I think it is, it's a vote loser for sure and thats pretty much what I'm talking about.

The middle see the folks that rally around Chavez and Castro and champion this redistribution of wealth as being the lefts equivalent of the rights religious fanatics.

How bout prosecute corporate corruption? Business's aren't evil. People from every possible walk of life and from every single belief sure can be, though.

[Solon]

37. I have a point to quibble with you...

You state businesses aren't evil, and you are right, they aren't, however, they aren't good either, they are amoral. Businesses, especially publically traded corporations are BY LAW, only concerned by ONE thing, the bottom line. If Shell has to murder to increase profits, it will do so, and does in some instances(in Africa). This is why strong regulations HAVE to be in place to govern EVERY action corporations MAY take, unfortunately, they seem to have more rights than people, nowadays.

Think about this, EVERY fortune 500 company has at least been convicted of one of these, or more, in the past 5 years.

-wrongful death
-tax evasion
-safety violations
-workplace abuses
-fraud
-extortion
-monopolistic practices
-price fixing
-funding death squads
-enviromental violations
-etc.

Now, personally, I believe in a 3 strikes and you're out rule for corporations, you violate any laws at most 3 times, and you get your charter pulled, all assets liquidated, and the moneys owed to workers for pensions, individual shareholders, etc. are then redistributed back to all of them. This is after subtracting any taxes and fines owed. In addition to this, any CEOs and/or managers that can be personally held responsible for this type of shit, will be held personally responsible, that includes seizing ALL their assets, and sending them to jail as appropriate.

Note, a few things, the pulling of the corporations charter, or the siezing of its assets doesn't need to be done in a court of law, State AGs already have that power, corporations are given the PRIVELEGE to actually do business, they have no RIGHT to do so. The other things mentioned would require court time, obviously.

[RangerSmith]

41. I've owned my

own business for about 30 yrs now.

I'm betting I have a lot more experience in what most everyday businesses really do than some of this fantasy stuff you have working here... I could be wrong though...

Let's start with your proof that every Fortune 500 company has been convicted for one of the claims on your list.

Link?

[Solon]

48. Such a list would take a while...

However, I'll give you an overview of the type of stuff many corporations do, at this link:

http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/top100.html

Granted, this isn't an exhaustive list, nor does it cover it all, and it is a little dated(covers the 1990s).

BTW, I made a distinction between PUBLICALLY traded companies and small businesses that are owned by one or a few individuals. Companies owned by one or a few individuals who have majority shares are as moral or immoral as the ones who own them. Those owned by thousands or more individuals are, by and large, amoral by default.

[RangerSmith]

60. Look, we both

know that if ....

"Think about this, EVERY fortune 500 company has at least been convicted of one of these, or more, in the past 5 years."

and let's look at this... You capitalized "EVERY" for emphasis... right?

Is there a cite to back up your claim or is this just a case of you using YOUR own made up facts... ?

Or to be more specific, a simple yes or no, can you prove this claim that is the whole cruxt of your argument?

[Solon]

63. Can I provide cites? Sure...

However, you are asking for 500+ cites, will I take the time to prove my point is the question, I don't think so, a cursory search with google into any of the companies on this list:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/full_list/index.html

Will amply prove my initial point.

The only thing I regret mentioning is the word "convicted", for that implies companies actually DO get convicted of their crimes. More often than not no, SOP is usually out of court settlements with states, and/or "voluntary" changes in business practices. Enron or Worldcom type scandals, that actually lead to convictions and jailtime are exceedingly rare, and in fact, almost unheard of, despite the fact that the PRACTICES of these two particular companies actually isn't that unusual.

I provided the link in my previous post as a random sampling, if you will, however, I you want an EXHAUSTIVE list, then pay me by the hour, and I'll research it for you.

[RangerSmith]

66. No, you used something you

knew was pure bullshit.

It's really that simple.

Being able to make that kind of widespread indictment against ALL 500 Fortune 500 companies could have only come from the prior knowledge that it had actually happened AND been reported somewhere.

Otherwise you would have already done this research you now don't have time for now, right?

You lied.

The whole cruxt of your argument that every single corp is corrupt is based on your own lie.

It's still a lie.

Might play in High School debate, but to quote a wiser man than I, "Liberalism is as badly served by liberal intellectual dishonesty as it is by conservative intellectual dishonesty."

[ProudDad]

56. Those few Venezualen fascists

you call "the middle" are really the chosen few who do the work of the very tiny minority of the very rich.

The rest of the people have been given education, health care and meaningful work in developing a new way in their country.

I sure as hell wish we could get the same opportunities that Pres. Chavez has given the Venezuelan people!

[RangerSmith]

61. No,

I'm talking about the "middle" here in the US.

[Ken Burch]

68. I think that we can assume that OUR "middle of the roaders"

Don't want us giving rhetorical backing to Bush on his drive to force all of Latin American to have right-wing governments.

It would have been better just to say "no comment".

[Joe Chi Minh]

21. Everything takes time, matey. You can hardly criticise their

vanguard in the persons of Fidel and Hugo for deliberately dragging their feet!

[ProudDad]

55. You've been to Cuba?

You've been to Latin America?

Where's your proof?

[Joe Chi Minh]

20. You're absolutely right. Most people are extraordinarily long-

suffering, and it takes a truly awful degree of oppression and wickedness by right-wing governments to prompt them to ignore the "received wisdom" generated by their lying propaganda, and to say, "Enough is enough! You have to be lying!"

[fearnobush]

24. Viva Chavez!

Hugo Rocks, deal with it. The is full of shit.

[ananda]

26. How about..

.. Little Boots as the anti-christ.

He's really worse than the devil because
he says that he has a mandate from God.

[Karenina]

27. Hugo and the *devil

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200609/20060922_transcript.html

Tavis: The first question of this conversation I think has to be your comment calling President Bush the devil. There are some who have labeled your speech at the U.N. just days ago the most undiplomatic speech ever given at the U.N. To the American public, clarify or share with us why you chose to call George Bush the devil.

Chavez: Thank you very much for your question. Allow me to make the following comment. In order to come here, some considered my speech undiplomatic. How diplomatic is it to bombard cities? Is it diplomatic to command the killing of thousands of innocent people? I think today some stirred or smiled when I say what I said. I think it was rather a humoristic speech and caused no damage, no aggression. I said I smelled sulfur here. I think people were having a good time. They were smiling.

Now let's go to the bottom of the issue. Is it not a devilish action to order the invasion of a country? Lying to your own citizens? Throwing high-position bombs and highly destructive bombs against houses filled with people? Against entire peoples? You see, it is really an act of devils to use weapons of mass destruction, to use chemical weapons, against entire cities, poisoning the air, poisoning the water. In Fallujah, even the birds died. Cockroaches died. All traces of life disappeared in Fallujah. That's an act of devils.

My words are worth nothing. What matters is the truth and my words only reflect reality. It is nothing personal. It is something coming from ethics and morality. My words are just a cry, a scream, a clamor for justice, for reflection on the citizens that cannot support gross actions conducted by President Bush.

Tavis: Words do have meaning. You know that better than most. Words have meaning. I wonder whether you ever consider that the words may get in the way. That is to say, that the message that you want to convey gets shrouded, covered, by the methodology so that, when you use a use a word like devil, what you really want the American public to hear, they don't hear because of the language, because of the word.

Chavez: Well, that's a perspective. That's a point of view. It's very confusing that what you have said has some value, I might also say. There are words, in this case, one word that says very clearly what we can say with a thousand words and perhaps because it is a strong word, and it is indeed, it might move the consciousness of the people, of some people. But from my perspective, they're a little bit sleepy. They're sleeping.

They are not realizing what is going on or they are confounded and the United States president is supported by a powerful media mechanism or equipment power. It even manipulates in some religious ideas. He said, one, that he was the mandate of God. He considers himself a God and that's a terrible manipulation since this is obeying the interests that are against God. I think he considers himself like God. When I call him devil, it's just to strike a balance.

[Vidar]

28. Well-argued, Ken. K&R.

[geek tragedy]

30. I think very few people here hate or even condemn Chavez.

Rather, it's more a reaction here to the idea that he can't do any wrong.

I mean, we get on Bush for using simplistic language like "Axis of Evil" regarding world affairs but then this place bashes Democrats for taking issue with Chavez calling a head of state "the devil" and using the term 'alcoholic' as an insult?

[Solon]

35. There is a difference between calling nations evil...

and attacking Heads of State Personally. I mean, Chavez is right, Bush is an alcoholic cokehead, who definately does seem to be the devil. Besides, Bush ended up insulting 3 nations that, as of right now, have YET to be attack us with anything BUT words. Chavez, I would think, has MORE justification, considering the US aided and abetted in overthrowing the democratically elected government in Venezuela. That alone gives him justification to call Bush anything he likes.

ON EDIT: No one here is calling Chavez perfect, no politician is PERFECT, yet he's no dictator either.

[geek tragedy]

38. Bush was referring to three governments being evil.

Saddam did and Kim Jong Il does lead up unambiguously evil governments.

But, referring to other states/heads of states as 'evil' is just asinine.

Chavez isn't a dictator, but he does suffer from verbal diarrhea.

[Solon]

39. I don't see why that is a bad thing...

Chavez says that Bush wants to kill him, guess what, he tried already, so is it any surprise that Chavez doesn't mince words when referring to Bush?

The biggest thing is this, Chavez is calling Bush names based on his ACTIONS, names he DESERVES, to be frank about it, Bush, and some Democrats, on the other hand, call Chavez things based on what he says about Bush. Someone is being the hypocrite hit, and it isn't Chavez.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

46. In order:

Speaking as a habitual critic of Chavez:

1) Yes, absolutely. Chavez and Morales have both succeeded due to popular support, in the face of non-trivial foreign hostility and little foreign support.

2) Yes, with slight qualifications. I'm far happier about a government taxing the relatively rich steeply and then using those taxes to fund voluntary buy-outs and redistribution of national resources than I am about outright confiscation of e.g. land or compulsory nationalisations, partly because of concerns about the abstract justice of it & respect for private property, but mostly because of what it does to investor confidence, making it usually very counterproductive as a way to alleviate poverty. But I certainly thing that most poorer countries would benefit from more redistributive taxation.

3) Maybe. My grasp of economics isn't reliable enough to form an informed first-hand opinion on this one - economics isn't something one can learn from internet research or similar; it would take several years of formal study to have a sufficient grasp of the subject to be worth respecting. As such, the only opinions I can form on it are second-hand. In general, the people opposed to globalisation agree with me more about things I *do* understand than people supporting it, but its supporters seem on average to have much better understanding of economics, so I don't have grounds for confidence either way.

[Solon]

49. I don't understand your number 2...

Especially in regards to Venezuela. The Land "Confiscations" if you could call them that were of public lands that years ago were "claimed" by the rich in Venezuela. The Government gave them a deadline to SHOW that they LEGALLY owned the property, they wanted to SEE the deeds, all those who DID have deeds were left alone, those that didn't have them, they "lost" the land. This is for Domestic owners only, foriegn owners who didn't bother to maintain the land did have the land confiscated. Then he practically GAVE away much of the public land to poor farmers and farmer co-ops, to change Venezuela to a net importer of food, as it was, to one where they can grow their own food. Some of the land was given to Indigenous peoples, and others were put aside as nature preserves as well.

Another note, nothing NEW has been nationalized in Venezuela since Chavez has been in office, he reversed many privatization schemes that were in the works, notably of PDVSA, the PUBLIC oil company. Then he tried to re-negotiate the contracts PDVSA had with foriegn oil companies, they cried and left, no big deal.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

58. The two cases I'm primarily thinking of

Are Chile (where compulsory nationalisation was arguably a good thing, but still risky), and Zimbabwe, which is a similar case albeit not South American (where it was absolutely disastrous). I'm vaguely aware that there's also a current issue about "eminent domain" in the US, but I know less about that.

[Solon]

59. I don't see how either of those relate to either Chavez or Morales...

As I said, Chavez has neither taken land from legal property owners, nor has he nationalized any industry that wasn't already nationalized, for decades, before he took office. As far as Morales, his country faces a privatization crisis, that he is trying to reverse(at one time it was ILLEGAL to collect rainwater there), same with Chavez. Privatization has been an unmitigated disaster wherever it is practiced, particularly when it relates to water, look up Atlanta, Georgia, South Africa, Bolivia, and numerous other places that tried these types of schemes.

[rman]

53. "better understanding of economics"

(that the globalists supposedly have) - how do you know that if you yourself (by your own admission) don't have reliable grasp of economics? What makes you think globalists have a better grasp of economy? How can you judge it?

Under globalism most economies seem to improve only if you don't look at distribution of wealth. What's happening under so-called free trade in developing nations is very similar to what's happening when Walmart opens shop in a small town: more money is going around in the economy but most of it ends up with big (foreign) corporations while the local population gets to work for low wages and meager benefits - which is an important factor in enabling those corporations to make big profits, which supposedly is good for the economy which supposedly is good for everyone...

If you google NAFTA you'll find far more extensive documentation of it's ill effects than you've ever seen praise of it in the MSM.

[question everything]

47. I am not "anti-Chavez;" have not followed him

but you'd have to agree that you cannot find another instance where someone is a guest at another country, even if the UN is not an official American soil - we do pay for security, right - and throw offensive words at the host.

You would think that there would be plenty of forums for him to have said the same thing.

I think that even Ahmedinijad did not try to offend Bush.

This is what it boils down to and Rangel said it wonderfully: "you come to my country, to my precinct, and you offend my President." He could have added: we do this things fine by ourselves, your help is neither requested nor needed.

Others on DU expressed it beautifully: not every enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Also.. the majority of the voters are still flag waving, patriotic who would be offended by this - where DUers like it or not.

And this is why it was important for at least Pelosi and Rangel to say what they did.

[rman]

51. There is no global forum equivalent to the UN

Now all of a sudden the Warmonger in Chief, the worst president ever, the man who lied us into a war, is "my president". :eyes: