Kristof apologizes to Argentina (which he didn't dis), not to Venezuela (which he did)...

[Peace Patriot]

In a recent New York Slimes column, somewhat progressive columnist Nicholas Kristof used Venezuela (and also Nicaragua and Guayana) as an example of a "banana republic," in discussing how the U.S. has become one. He was mainly talking about the increasing gap between rich and poor in the U.S. It is entitled "Our Banana Republic."

I criticized this column because, a) Venezuela, IN FACT, has the BEST rich/poor ratio in Latin America! The Chavez government has reduced poverty by half and extreme poverty by more than 70%, thus earning this big jump in status, as to the rich/poor index--and also they don't export bananas, and b) Kristof FAILS TO MENTION Colombia, a U.S. client state, with one of the worst rich/poor ratios in the region.

Venezuela's government is hated by the U.S. corpo-fascist establishment, and is often reviled in Kristof's newspaper--no matter how many laudable things the Chavez government does, from greatly reducing poverty to running honest, transparent elections. And Colombia is forgiven and courted, for U.S. "free trade for the rich," no matter how many trade unionists and others are murdered by the Colombian military and its death squads, and no matter how miserable its FIVE MILLION displaced peasant farmers, and the rest of the poverty-stricken majority, are.

NOT ONLY THAT, Colombia actually has Chiquita in-country, producing bananas, on corporate farms where many trade unionists have been murdered! (In fact, our own A.G. Eric Holder was Chiquita's lawyer, in private practice, and got Chiquita execs off with a handslap for hiring death squads to take care of their "labor problems.")

Who better qualifies as a "banana republic"? Venezuela or Colombia?

Here's my discussion of Kristof's first column (with quotes of and links to his column and the Venezuelan ambassador's letter in response):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x44480

Now Kristof--who got a lot of criticism for his dissing of Latin American countries--has written a strange apology, in which he acknowledges that ARGENTINA--which he never mentioned in the first column--has a pretty good rich/poor ratio these days, and shouldn't be regarded as a "banana republic." And he utterly fails to apologize to Venezuela or credit Venezuela with being THE MOST EQUAL COUNTRY IN LATIN AMERICA!

And I think he tells an outright lie here, when he says, "The best data series I could find is for Argentina." That is bullcrap. Equally valid data is available for Venezuela, from national, international and even U.S. government sources (the Millennium Project). The Venezuelan ambassador cites the recent United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean report. Kristof just didn't want to admit it--that Venezuela has been determined, by objective parties, to be THE MOST EQUAL COUNTRY IN LATIN AMERICA.

He further insults Venezuela, Nicaragua and Guyana by calling them "historically unstable." He has a lot of nerve saying that about Nicaragua, where Reagan's henchmen slaughtered thousands of teachers, mayors and other supporters of the ELECTED Sandanista government in an illegal and atrocious U.S. war in the 1980s--not to mention the U.S. supported rightwing coup d'etat attempt in Venezuela in 2002. "Unstable"!

Here's his strange apology: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/opinion/18kristof.html

I don't know where Nicaragua and Guayana stand, as to progress on rich/poor ratios, so I can't say what the injustice is there, except that the Reaganites' mass murders in Nicaragua likely retarding their social progress a bit, eh?--and they now have a leftist Sandanista government that is trying hard to close the gap. But since I do know specifically what Venezuela's accomplishments have been, I can state unequivocally that this failure to apologize to Venezuela, and print the truth, was an egregious injustice to Venezuela and a slimy and evasive falsehood.

The Chavez government can do nothing right. Nothing! All their economic and social and democracy gains are for naught, as far as the lying, warmongering New York Slimes is concerned. Even their "progressive" columnists don't dare violate Corporate Ruler policy on Chavez, never to acknowledge his and his government's and the Venezuelan peoples' significant accomplishments.

This kind of disinformation--and black holes where information should be--is disgusting enough from the expectable sources. It is galling in an alleged "liberal" columnist.

[Judi Lynn]

1. It's a pathetic prentension. Apparently this clown ran out of things to say long ago.

He's simply a hired propaganda outlet, a propaparrot who was caught by readers screwing with the facts.

He's not a gracious man, his apology was pointless and empty.

Maybe he should ask his publishers NOT to run his photo. He looks exactly as anal and fatous as he sounds.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com.nyud.net:8090/images/2010/09/16/opinion/Kristof_New/Kristof_New-articleInline-v2.jpg

The great Kristof.

[naaman fletcher]

2. Judging people by appearences

Is not a very progressive thing to do

[Judi Lynn]

3. So nothing of the person is ever revealed in his demeanor, his expressions,

his attitudes, or his words?

Unless you're Helen Keller, you most certainly CAN grasp a great deal of a person's position towards others by grasping his attitude apparent for all to see on his face. If NOTHING of your inner self comes through, there's a term for that, flat affect:

~snip~
Affect, emotion, or feeling is displayed to others through facial expressions, hand gestures, posture, voice characteristics, and other physical manifestation. These affect displays vary between and within cultures and are displayed in various forms ranging from the most discrete of facial expressions to the most dramatic and prolific gestures.<12>

Observers are sensitive to agents' emotions, and are capable of recognizing the messages these emotions convey. They react to and draw inferences from an agent's emotions. We have to note that the emotion an agent displays may not be an authentic reflection of his or her actual state (See also Emotional labor).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affect_(psychology)#cite_note-11

[naaman fletcher]

4. Sometimes

For example, someones demeanor In a speech can say a lot, but you don't do that. You just post stock photos and sneer at them.

[Billy Burnett]

5. Unstable?

I'd say about half of Americans are unstable. :crazy:

Thanks for clearing up what the liberal media is telling us.

:hi: