And I'm a bit embarrassed about it. My wife had mentioned to me that she had read about the recent election returns in Chile. I just passed over it, assuming that the socialists were still in power. Boy was I wrong. A billionaire, conservative businessman, Sebastian Pinera, became the first candidate on the right to become president in Chile since Gen. Augosto Pinochet.
"But while President Michelle Bachelet tried to defuse border tensions with Peru and Bolivia and avoid antagonizing Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Pinera's more nationalistic tone — and friendship with Colombia's conservative President Alvaro Uribe — could make relations difficult."
If politics in the Western hemisphere are of interest to you, then check out Jackson' Diehl's article in the Washington Post which goes into greater detail about the problems Hugo Chavez is having in Venezuela along with more pointed analysis about the election of Pinera.
"Venezuela is "not a democracy," Piñera said during his campaign. He also said, "Two great models have been shaped in Latin America: One of them led by people like Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Castro in Cuba and Ortega in Nicaragua. . . . I definitely think the second model is best for Chile. And that's the model we are going to follow: democracy, rule of law, freedom of expression, alternation of power without caudillismo". Piñera was only stating the obvious -- but it was more than his Socialist predecessor, Michelle Bachelet, or Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has been willing to say openly. That silence hamstrung the Bush and the Obama administrations, which felt, rightly or wrongly, that they should not be alone in pointing out Chávez's assault on democracy. Piñera has now provided Washington an opportunity to raise its voice about Venezuelan human rights violations."
Great. Finally there is another voice on that conitnent besides embattled Alvaro Uribe (Colombia) that isnt afraid to speak out against a tin-pot dictator and to call a spade a spade. I can see Pinera's election as being a good thing for the region, leading to greater stability and freedoms for the oppressed.
24 comments:
Here's hoping.
I think Venezuela's problem is their leadership has become stale. They need fresh blood, new ideas, and less power wrangling.
Thanks for your comment Ginx. Is it me or do we, collectively here in the West, pretty much ignore what happens in Latin America? If oil and gasoline shipments from VE suddenly stopped tomorrow, I bet we'd suddenly sit up and take notice.
America ignores all things non-American.
I'll give you an example: without looking, who is the leader of China? I have no clue, nor do I even know what their title would be (Prime Minister? Leader of the People's Party?). Sure, we owe them billions of dollars, but unless a photographer took pictures of him sun-bathing nude, my bet is that Americans will never find out.
Even when this happens, as it did with Berulusconi (NSFW, saggy naked Italians), most Americans won't pay attention.
Chile and Colombia can teach us a few lessons.
On the other side of the coin, so can Venezuela, an example of how demagoguery and class warfare can bring someone to power who will quickly seize the opportunity to use those same instruments to seize control of the country. It sounds frighteningly familiar.
Comparing Obama to Chavez is honestly comparing apples and wolves.
[Not saying there are no bad apples...]
Funny how MC didnt even mention thE word "Obama" yet you seemed to zero right in on it. Hmmmm
Maybe because some people are capable of reading subtext and context?
Maybe because it is widely accepted that Obama is fond of utilizing "class warfare" to his advantage? I seem to recall another leader with fine oratory skills who used class envy as leverage as well. Nice to see you back GCT.
You mean that it's widely accepted amongst Rethuglican ideologues? Sure, I'd go along with that. Of course, it wasn't class warfare what Bush was doing? And, now you're comparing Obama to whom? Hitler? I'm calling Godwin.
Conservatives use subtlety, metaphors and euphemisms constantly because if they just came out and said what they believed, we would all hate them for the social Darwinists they were. Ironic, since they don't even believe in Darwinism... yet "survival of the fittest" is their policy on poverty.
wasn't class warfare what Bush was doing?
Like....what?
now you're comparing Obama to whom? Hitler?
You should know better GCT. I'm not saying Obama is going to start rounding people up and putting them in camps. I'm only pointing out that both Hitler and Obama are from the Left, and have/had great oratory skills who both used class envy to their advantage. Am I incorrect?
"survival of the fittest" is their (Conservatives) policy on poverty
I would say conservatives are more along the lines of lobbying for personal responsibility and generally do not lend whole-hearted support of certain destructive lifestyles.
Certain destructive lifestyles... like being born in a poor family in a poor area with horrible schools and no future except working two minimum wage jobs until the day you die?
But it's not destructive to earn so much money that your children and their children and their children never have to contribute anything to society except tabloid stories... JD, you are one moral contortionist.
"Like....what?"
Gee, I don't know, maybe persuing policies to widen the gap between rich and poor and deregulate industries, etc.
"You should know better GCT. I'm not saying Obama is going to start rounding people up and putting them in camps."
Oh please. You claim that about Chavez simply because he's "on the left" and now you're claiming that Hitler (a strict authoritarian) was a leftist as well as is Obama. It's more than implied.
"Am I incorrect?"
Yes, as usual.
"I would say conservatives are more along the lines of lobbying for personal responsibility and generally do not lend whole-hearted support of certain destructive lifestyles."
Like Ginx said...
I'll also add like being born gay, with no control over who you find attractive?
Like being born female and therefore looking forward to being paid less than your male counterparts or being told that you can't do math or think scientifically?
Like being born black/brown/hispanic and facing discrimination?
JD, putting the "Thug" back in "Rethuglican."
I would rather see workfare rather than a pertpetual state of welfare.
Furthermore, if one is on public assistance, there should be madatory drug-testing. Why should my tax dollars go to pay for drugs?
Also, once on public assistance, you forfeit your right to vote. All youre going to do is vote yourself extensions and more benefits that the taxpayer has to fund.
I'll also add like being born gay, with no control over who you find attractive?
You wouldnt mind clarifying if this is a fact or speculation, would you?
"You wouldnt mind clarifying if this is a fact or speculation, would you?"
Which part? Oh wait, are you one of those people that actually think gays choose to be attracted to members of the same sex? Really? Do you choose to be attracted to women or are you simply attracted to them? Let me guess, you're the type that thinks Uganda is on the right track, aren't you?
What evidence would you cite re: gays being "born gay"?
Please read this link re: the proposed Uganda law before embarrasing yourself any further. That is of course, unless you condone the heterosexual rape of 3 month old babies by HIV infected perverts.
"What evidence would you cite re: gays being "born gay"?"
The current scientific evidence points to a number of factors in development that pretty conclusively show that it's not a choice. I suggest that you do some reading before "embarrasing yourself any further." Besides, like I asked, did you choose to be attracted to women? (Are you attracted to women? Maybe you are trying to force yourself to be attracted to women and are a closeted gay?)
"Please read this link re: the proposed Uganda law before embarrasing yourself any further."
No need, considering that you don't even know what I'm talking about. It was well documented in the NY Times how a bunch of American Xian fundies went there and influenced the law that was proposed to put gays to death. That they hemmed and hawed afterwards and tried to act as if they didn't know is comical. And, it has nothing to do with heterosexual rape of 3 month old babies oh great king of red herrings. I would think you would be embarrased by being so full of bravado and not being able to back it up or even understand the conversation taking place. I would suggest that you look before you leap next time.
GCT, if you want to back up your assertions, please provide relative documentation to do so rather than relying on "cause I said so".
I doubt you'll even care that I have support:
Royal College of Psychiatrists
"It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice."
<a href="http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;113/6/1827>American Academy of Pediatrics</a>
"The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual."
I predict that you will ignore these sources and continue to think that homosexuality is a choice. Of course, you have yet to back up that assertion, but you think we should simply take your word for it until you've been proven wrong according to your standards. And, your standards are such that you can't be proven wrong, since you abjectly refuse to actually look at the evidence. It's like your refusal to look at the evidence for evolution even after it's been presented to you, simply so you can continue to say that it's false and that your beliefs are true. It's sad really to see someone so closed-minded as you - although I do get a kick out of watching you eat so much crow, even if you don't realize you are doing it.
Oops, broken link. That second link is:
American Academy of Pediatrics
I predict that you will ignore these sources and continue to think that homosexuality is a choice. Of course, you have yet to back up that assertion
So someone's pituatary gland is slightly smaller. BFD. Is everyone who as a smaller pituatary/adrenal gland a homosexual?
If it's so absolutely irresistable that others become homosexual through nature, then why are there literally thousands of individuals that have renounced homosexuality and are now straight? Here's a whole slew of testimonies from just ONE website alone (Exodus International).
Apparently anecdotal evidence counts as more authoritative than the scientific papers that lead to professional conclusions now?
Post a Comment