awesome. that executive order is exactly what I thought of when I read the BfB excerpt.

So, this is how we cure unemployment in Russia!

Why don’t the dems adamantly speak out about this?

Princella’s kinda impatient. The enabling law took effect yesterday. I guess she expected them to have statements already written so they could run out to the steps of the Capitol and read them to the awaiting reporters as soon as the news hit the wires.

This won’t satisfy Princella, but I seem to remember a certain dem saying certain things about a certain Venezuelan president not too long ago.

[I know, I know. “Why is the left silent” is like “um” or “I mean” or “like” for the folks at Blogs for Bush.]

adamantly? Does he realize how rare adamantite is? The Democrats can’t just use it wily nily when they need it fo +4 swords & staves of the magi! Oh, and don’t bother posting about how the new campaigns allow for more. I roll old school ~ AD&D 2nd edition was the pinnacle!

I thought Wolverine used all the adamantine.

Blogues for Bush won’t respond to my emails anymore. I know they pay attention to your every word, Gavin. Could you help me out?

I see. The United States has a huge deficit, large debts, a huge trade deficit, is occupying two countries with home grown insurgencies, a declining reputation around the world, a policy of torturing people (some of them innocent), escalating health care costs, plus a whole wack of uninsured people, a “war” on drugs, a city destroyed by a hurricane, and a President who thinks that the constitution gives him the power to do anything he wants, provided he says, mouths, implies, pantomimes, or can argue that he implied the words “National Security.” That’s just a few of the problems facing America and things the Democratic Congress needs to address, yet Blogs for Bush expects the Democratic Leadership to drop everything what they are doing to denounce what the President of Venezuela is doing? Yup, there’s some real serious priorities people.

Even IF Chavez is a power mad dictator hell bent on destroying the US, treating him like Emmanuel Goldstein is counterproductive. Because in his country, Chavez isn’t viewed as Goldstein… Bush is. Thus a belligerent tone only helps Chavez (if your goal is to remove him). I mean if a hard line works so well, why is Cuba still communist, poor, yet still defiant?

I can’t wait for the right-wing cry of “who lost South America?”

If there is a silver lining to the Iraq mess it is that we do not now have a new set of Pinochets being installed throughout the region courtesy of the CIA.

Princella Smith’s (?) idear only makes sense if you want the United States to continue to be a global empire that must control (in some way, big or small) the actions of every other country. The mere existance of other countries is a sign that we are being disrespected.

Why doesn’t Princella care about America? She must be a member of the Venezuelan American Republican Party who wants the American Democratic Party to make a comment on Venezuela politics. Seriously, why would the Democratic Party care what Hugo Chavez is doing?

Actually, this sounds like another “two wrongs make a right” arguments. The terrorists are murderers so you can’t complain that we want to be even more murderous! Dictators in other countries are bad so you can’t complain that Bush wants to be a dictator.

Even IF Chavez is a power mad dictator hell bent on destroying the US, treating him like Emmanuel Goldstein is counterproductive.

It’s worth recalling that one doesn’t treat someone like Emmanuel Goldstein because one actually wants to get rid of Emmanuel Goldstein.

The real reason not to treat Chavez like Goldstein is that Osama bin Laden is already performing that role quite nicely.

Let Goldstein be Goldstein.

That’s adamantium. Adamantine was a hair product briefly marketed by Malcolm McLaren after the breakout success of Kings of the Wild Frontier.

I think Bush should just issue an executive order declaring himself President of Venezuela. That’ll teach those Mexicanlike commies. They think they got a crazy strongman for a leader now? Hah. Bush’ll show them how you really trash a Presidency.

An earlier promotional stunt meant to revive interest in Dirk Wears White Sox fell flat, as McLaren overestimated the UK public’s familiarity with Ron Kittle.

Between duly elected Presidents of other countries, the AP, small electronic devices, and Hillary, the wingnuts certainly have their pants full lately.

When this kind of stuff comes up, I get so alarmed, I forget how to be snarky.

Hussein – Chavez ’08

Priscilla seems to be employing the “But everyone else is doing it!” argument.

“How come you won’t let Bush be a dictator? All the other countries are doing it! Your friend Venezuela’s kid Hugo is doing it, and you don’t try to stop him!”

There’s only one way to deal with these people, really:
“Listen, young lady. As long as your boyfriend is inside MY borders he’s going to live by MY RULES. Now you are grounded for two weeks: no Fox News, no Internet–just a copy of the Federalist Papers, Common Sense, and the Lyceum Speeches.”

And next, a spanking!

Even the State Dept flunky for the region shrugged and said Chavez wasn’t doing anything illegal. There’s a weird history here: Latin American countries embraced the principles of the US constitution after independence, and ever since have gone through phases where the potential strength of executive power was embraced, often to ill effect, and then contracted after periods of corruption and/or dictatorship.

But there’s also one of those irregular verbs at work. Furriners rule by decree; the US president issues executive orders. They’re basically the same, no?

It’s worth recalling that one doesn’t treat someone like Emmanuel Goldstein because one actually wants to get rid of Emmanuel Goldstein.

Well the thing about about bogyman is that while there are cynical people who use said bogyman to consolidate their hold on power and/or carry out another agenda, there are plenty of wingnuts who believe in said bogyman. They truly believe that the homexlamufascists such as Chavez are a greater threat than Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Invaders from Mars combined. Not only that, but they are convinced that their hard line measures work against North Korea, Cuba, Iran or Venezuela even when it strengthans the hand of people like Ahmadinejad. Dictators and unfriendly regimes love it when they can portray the country as under attack from American Imperialists, then they can justify all sorts of things using the American Bogyman.

The funny thing is that the wingnuts are usuall the first people to write their congressman if say the Sudan insisted on the US implementing a particularly policy, let alone offered an official position on a who should be president.

Yea, Wolverine’s bones are covered with Adamantium (and Captain America’s shield is a Vibranium and Adamantium alloy). Adamant is an old word for diamond from the same greek root (adamas). There’s also Adamantane, a hydrocarbon formation that is basically a microscopic diamond.

But on the real tip, isn’t it funny that these dipwads immediately reference Castro when Chavez’s grabs for power come up? Anyone care to guess which Cuban dictator was democratically elected, abrogated dictatorial powers to himself by coup and was supported wholeheartedly by the American right (and, to be honest, the establishment left as well)?

Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar.

On the subject of Venezuela and wingnuts, it might useful to keep an eye on this. Brazilian architect Oscar Niemeyer has designed a monument in honor or Simón Bolívar. It would be built in Caracas, pending approval of the Venezuelan government. From El Universal:

“Look, he is aiming at the United States,” Niemeyer told newspaper O Globo when showing the scale model of his work: a 100-meter high inclined triangle surrounded by a water mirror, AFP reported.

“Some found this was an aggressive shape somehow, but for me it is justified because of the moment we are living with Venezuela leading this movement of resistance against (US President George W.) Bush,” Niemeyer, a self-confessed communist, said.

“It is not a weapon. It is a movement, a vector. Architecture has to be surprising, otherwise it is useless, and particularly when the goal is expressing this Chávez’ thing, that is something revolutionary, a change of wind, audacious, courageous.”

El País has a picture of the model.

I imagine wingnuts will go nuts if they find out about this architectural affront.

I imagine wingnuts will go nuts if they find out about this architectural affront.

They’ll no doubt cancel that Venezuelan holiday.

Look, if I may say so, fuck ’em. The Venezuelans elected their boy, they’re stuck with him. I have a hard time working up a care, ’cause we’re stuck with our own nutjob dictator and his stinking cadre of thugs. These assholes are going to have to learn what “democracy” means. You don’t always get the outcome you might hope for – that’s called “the will of the people”. Chavez, Hamas, Amedinajad, Pro-Iran SCIRI Shiites in Iraq, the American Midterms – lots of examples of democratic elections not delivering as reliably as coups d’etat.

So maybe the wingnuts oughta quit screaming for democracy and start cheering for out and out dictators. They clearly prefer a Pinochet to a Chavez, so why not come out and say it?

mikey

Bossy can’t wait until Bush gets poked with the Executive Branch.

in his country, Chavez isn’t viewed as Goldstein… Bush is.

Further proof that America hates America–and it’s all the Democrats’ fault!

I imagine wingnuts will go nuts if they find out about this architectural affront.

Well, the carbon blob known as Matt Margolis claims to be an architect. I’m sure he’ll have a post up about “commie terrorist architecture” as soon as he hears about this. Actually, he’ll probably just link to some AP article about it, follow it up with, “This is just further proof of how much the left hates America,” and consider it a hard day’s work completed.

So…has anybody pointed out to Mark Noonan’s Black Friend Princella how similar the power grabs of Chavez and Bush are? If so, how much were they told they hate America?

“Blogs 4 Bush” has inspired me to start my own new blog: Flamethrowers 4 Hindenberg.

The question “why should democrats care about Chavez?” deserves a more serious reply. There are two answers, I think.

1. Because Chavez sells a shitload of oil to the US.

All of the blather you’ll read in part 2 pales in comparison to this. Even this most important reason, however, isn’t really worth much in the way of huffing and puffing, as US governments, both Dem and Repub, seem to have no problem buying oil not only from de facto autocrats, but from actual Kings, too.

2. Because democrats ought to care about democracy.

Chavez was a bit of a hero for a while there on the American left. He was popularly elected, and Republican Americans tried to knock him out of office via the tried and true method of CIA-sponsored coup. Which failed. And led to even greater Venezuelan popular support of Chavez. So now when he takes that popular support and pisses all over it by having himself declared Temporary Dictator (and consolidating control over the army, and floating plans to relocate thousands of the urban poor to the middle of nowhere, do away with term limits, etc) “democrats,” in the sense of those who believe in government by The People, should be angry. Of course, if by “democrats” we mean actual elected official American Democrats, then there’s no story here, as none of them ever voiced any support for Chavez to begin with. And if by “democrats” we just mean unelected American lefties, well, uh, by and large, they are pissed off, even the outright Communist ones, and they’re saying so in their blogs and stuff.

Chavez is a vainglorious monomaniacial asshole who shovels money into the barrio. Bush is a narcissistic monomaniacal idiot who shovels money into the boardrooms. Both were enabled by the losers in their own party. And both look at democracy as an inconvenience, rather than a mode of governance.

Their focus and the sturdiness of the institutions they are trying to wreck the only difference between them.

In other words, I agree with grampaw.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/flecha/apunta/EE/UU/elpepucul/20070201elpepucul_1/Tes
The crescent… the crescent.. the crescent…

Sure, okay, Chavez might be a dick, I don’t really know, but eff ’em. Not our country. What, Princella want the Dems to pass a non-binding resolution calling him a stupid head?
Way I figure, the best way the screw Chavez is to A: stop paying any attention to him and sap his “standing up to the mean USA” machismo and B: Work on some new fuel sources that cut oil out of our economy completely. Or mostly. Not only do we not care about you or anything you say or do, but we don’t even need your resources; piss off.
*shrug* maybe that’s just me.

This is the bestest blog ever! And, as Bertie said “About this I am adamant! And when I say adamant, I mean, well, you know, adamant!”

Sarcastro,
Your geek fu is strong, but I must correct you. Thought it’s often been erronously reported that Cap’s shield was a mix of adamantium and vibranium – even in the Marvel Handbook – it’s not supposed to be. It’s supposed to be a vibranium-unknown steel alloy mix, and adamantium was developed trying to replicate Cap’s shield. I’m embarrased I know all that, but I just read about it recently, so I don’t feel too bad.

And on-topic, I sorta agree with both sides of the argument. Chavez’s actions are disturbing and should be thoughtfully considered. I do disagree with the “he is/was a hero to the left” stroke – because I loathe wide, sweeping generalizations, especially as to who is and who isn’t my “hero” – but he nevertheless has had many cheerleaders in the U.S. I’ve never thought idolization of falible mortals a good idea, regardless of ideological perspective, but that’s another discussion entirely.

Still. Chavez is the president of Venezuala. The Democrats in Congress have plenty more shit to worry about that is much, much, much more important than a foreign leader doing basically exactly the same damn thing as our own president is doing. For crying out loud.

On the South American Dictat-o-Meter, Chavez barely registers as “strict”, let alone “totalitarian”. Our government hates him because he’s willing to screw US and multinational corporations, and that just isn’t done.

When you hear about Venezuelan death squads or organized arson by Venezuelan paramilitaries trying to keep people from voting against Chavez, please let the rest of us know. Until than, anyone who didn’t get worked up about far more repressive regimes in Peru, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Argentina, et cetera, can yell at the mirror for a few hours, ’cause nobody else cares.

On the South American Dictat-o-Meter, Chavez barely registers as “strict�, let alone “totalitarian�

True. But the guy just declared himself a dictator, give him time. Maybe he’ll live up to your standards, Doc. It’s just too early to tell.

I have a friend whose entire family was murdered by the junta in Buenos Aires. She received her daughter’s (a former pianist) hands in the mail. I have some Chilean friends whose family members were disappeared by Pinochet. Can it bother me that Chavez has taken these steps now?

Because without your OK, I’m a little worried.

Interesting that the second paragraph of the AP story is not quoted.

Convening in a downtown plaza in a session that resembled a political rally, lawmakers unanimously gave Chavez sweeping powers to legislate by decree and impose his radical vision of a more egalitarian socialist state.

Nor this piece: But the top U.S. diplomat for Latin America, Thomas Shannon, said the enabling law isn’t anything new in Venezuela. “It’s something valid under the constitution,” said Shannon, the assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, told reporters in Colombia. “As with any tool of democracy, it depends how it is used,” he added. “At the end of the day, it’s not a question for the United States or for other countries, but for Venezuela.”

I am not really thrilled with Chavez’s acquisition of more power, but it is tough for me to criticize the decisions made unanimously by democratically elected lawmakers especially when it is constitutionally valid. It’s not my country, so I don’t get to dictate their constitution to them. But that seems to be a foreign concept to some.

I’m more than a little worried, but not about Venezuela.

How about this?

But the guy just declared himself a dictator, give him time.

The Legislature granted him the power to rule by decree for 18 months, just as it has done in the past for Presidents who were much more friendly to the U.S. and who, naturally, were not criticized by the U.S. in the least for their dictatorial ways (which also included stealing huge amounts of the oil money that should have gone to schools, medical clinics, education, health care, etc.). Bush, meanwhile, has had his flunkies announce that he has the power to do anything he wants to do that has anything to do with “national security” or the “Wah on Terra” — Congress and the Courts be damned!

Chavez has been elected twice in elections that were much more honest than the one in the U.S. in 2000, he wasn’t appointed by the Supreme Court, and the Venezuelan press is freer to criticize him than our lapdogs in D.C. (His major opponent in the last election was one of the coup-plotters from 2002.) Yet it’s Chavez who’s the dictator?

What a crock.

MattR,

That’s interesting.

And I basically agree. However, I do disagree that we can’t criticize it, even if it is in their constitution. I think it’s OK to point out that it could go terribly wrong. And one ALWAYS has to be skeptical about any democracy, including and especially our own, when any major decision is made ‘unanimously’.

I AM surprised however, how sanguine the Bushies seem to be over the matter. Maybe they’re taking notes.

I think she meant adamantly as in the manner of 80’s British Pop icon Adam Ant. That would mean dressing in the gab of Native American/Colonial soldiers in the Leatherstocking vein and shouting your opinions in time to some faux tribal rhythms with a danceable beat. One wonders indeed why the Dem have run from this issue with poloponyly like speed. You tell ’em sister.

Basharov,

Why can’t I think they’re both dictatorial? Why can’t I also agree the US didn’t give a shit when it was a right-wing leadership? Why is it either or? If Bush could get away with what Chavez did, I have no doubts he would. And, as it is, he’s bascially doing it anyway.

But what gets me is the reflexiveness of your argument. I think it’s perfectly rational to be wary of anyone who claims that kind of power.

If in 18 months Chavez is ordering the masses to wear their underwear outside their pants, then you can talk about him as a dictator. Until then he’s no more of a dictator than Bush — plus he’s a hell of a lot smarter and he knows that he owes his power to the people who not only elected him, but by their actions in going into the streets to protest after the coup, forced the army to rescue him. If you want to see real dictators-to-be, check out what the coup-plotters did during the two days Chavez was locked up by American-supported thugs: They dissolved the legislature and the Supreme Court and announced that they did it “to protect democracy.” And who congratulated them on their dedication of democratic principles? Don Rumsfeld, that’s who.

Rent the documentary “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised” and you’ll stop taking tales from the New York Times or the AP for the truth.

Again, what’s your point? That I don’t think Rumsfeld deserves to go on trial for war crimes? That the coup was a good thing? You’d be wrong on both counts, but don’t let that keep you from conflating the issues.

As for this: you’ll stop taking tales from the New York Times or the AP for the truth. Great. So all this Iraq War/Exploding Mosques/Associates [with terrorists] shit Malkin peddles is true! Because, after all, you don’t believe the AP either.

And Sadly, No buys into the establishment. Suckers.

Plus, because I actually know people who work at both the Times and the AP, I MUST be part of the conspiracy too. It’s the perfect crime to discredit Chavez.

Anyway, I liked the way Chavez sold cheap heating oil to the Northeast last year. And I think his bluster is funny, seeing how he’s not turning off the oil taps to North America. But, again, I’m wary of any self-described “democratic” system which hands out unanimous votes.

But I’m sure you’ll translate that into something about my support for Franco.

I don’t understand what your point is, Jay B.

Your own example (the Argentinian Military Junta) does not support stone throwing by those of us in the USA, especially by rightwingers.

With the support of United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger[1], the junta continued the Dirty War, the ongoing disappearance, torture, and murder of thousands of suspected political dissidents and leftists during the junta’s rule; the SIDE secret service also cooperated with DINA and other South American intelligence agencies in Operation Condor.

Furthermore, we now have Iran-contra criminals such as Elliott Abrams and John Negroponte back in our government. Again, we are throwing stones from our glass house.

Might Chavez turn out to be a bad guy who commits atrocities? Possibly, but he hasn’t yet…while we have.

Moving on, why should “the dems”, or the Left, or whoever do what some wingnut says we should? Do these people have any credibility or moral authority?

Right. So let’s stop pretending they do. Our president lied us into a disaster in Iraq. The evidence that he is going to do the same in Iran, only on an even more catastrophic scale, is a more pertinent use of the Democratic party’s attention than responding to diversionary bs from the wingnuts about Chavez.

Might Chavez turn out to be a bad guy who commits atrocities? Possibly, but he hasn’t yet…while we have.

I assume that by “atrocities” you mean things like “Police violence, torture, and abusive prison conditions?”

Yes, grampaw, that is what I meant, and thanks for your link.

Now could you tell me what happened to our moral authority to condemn Chavez, and/or why anyone in this country should be spending time reacting to wingnut demands, rather than trying to stop Bush’s rush into Iran?

ittdgy:

See above, reason #2.

Note that nobody here, nobody, is saying that the Bush administration isn’t doing awful things. You, however, just said Chávez hasn’t done anything comparable. That’s the only point that I and Human Rights Watch would disagree with you on. And where do they get their moral authority, I wonder?

I read your link. It depends on what you mean by comparable, eh?

I am concerned about democracy, first and foremost, right here. Where it is being threatened by Bush. And where I can actually help do something about it.

Tell me again, how does reacting to wingnut screeds about Chavez help my cause?

ittdgy:

Mmm, yes, it’s only an “atrocity” when Bush does it, right? It’s all relative! Like, it’s OK to denounce your own leaders, but not anyone else’s leaders? Because moral authority!

No, reacting to wingnut screeds about Chávez doesn’t do much for your cause, but claiming Chávez is harmless, when he has indisputably done awful things (and appears to be moving in the direction of doing awful things less democratically) actively undermines whatever point you might be trying to make, and thus, potentially, your cause as well.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t pick your battles, but when informed people say “hey, there’s this bad stuff happening over here, too,” you really shouldn’t belittle their concerns and try to shout them down by braying on about your hobby horse, particularly when everyone in the room is well aware of the pet topic you keep flogging.

1) Read your own link. Does this compare to what we have done in South America in the past, or what we are doing right now in Iraq, and are being bumrushed, yet again, into doing in Iran?

2) Understand my point about moral authority. We are going to criticize Chaves for torture? For authoritarianism? How exactly is that going to affect events in Venezuela? Fewer and fewer people overseas are going to listen to complaints like that from us without rolling their eyes. Chavez, himself, can claim legitimately that his government has been attacked by the U.S. We can’t make that claim about Iraq, now can we? Which audience is this campaign against Chavez playing to?

3) …you really shouldn’t belittle their concerns and try to shout them down by braying on about your hobby horse, particularly when everyone in the room is well aware of the pet topic you keep flogging.

Right. My poor little pet hobby horse. Look, you can say everyone in the room knows about Bush. Does that mean Americans aren’t going to be torturing prisoners tomorrow? That we won’t be wrecking havoc on Iraqi civilians tomorrow? That Bush is being hindered in his rush into war with Iran?

I don’t see any reason why I shouldn’t belittle your concerns about Chavez. They pale in comparison to what is happening right here.

grampaw,

Chavez has no authority over municipal police in Venezuela, who have been corrupt and inhumane long previous to Chavez. One of the reasons Chavez was given those temporary plenipotentiary powers was to try to clean out that kind of institutional corruption.

(do away with term limits, etc)

Because any democracy without term limits is no democracy at all? Tony Blair will be upset.

And one more thing…Molly Ivins from her January 11, 2007 column (her last):

“We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war….If you can, go to the peace march in Washington on Jan. 27. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, ‘Stop it, now!'”

What ITTDGY said.

I like to think that Molly Ivins would be pleased about a little happening in my neck of the woods today.

“In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency….”

The term isn’t “gatekeeper,” it’s “commissar“.

Now could you tell me what happened to our moral authority to condemn Chavez, and/or why anyone in this country should be spending time reacting to wingnut demands, rather than trying to stop Bush’s rush into Iran?

This is what I don’t get. How naive does anyone have to be — when have we EVER had moral authority? I mean seriously, Kissinger helped to install Pinochet and the US government was cool with it. He was either the National Security Adviser or the Secretary of State at the time. So Americans had no right to condem Pinchochet?

Our government sponsored right-wing death squads in Central America, from Guatamala to El Salvador to Nicaragua, does that make our opposition to them hypocritical? Seriously. Of course Bush has been an atrocity, and many of us have spent many hours of our lives to rectify his damage as best as we can. But because we live in this country, we’re no longer allowed to express our concern for others in the same position as we are?

You tell me when America and Americans had the “authority” to criticize nacent, potential or actual authoritiarianism based on the moral actions of our government because we’ve always been supporting or propping up some asshole somewhere (and/or considered a significant portion of our population sub-human).

And if you accept that as fact (which means you should have some understanding of American History) — then, according to your bullshit standards, there’s NEVER been a time in our history when Americans could ‘morally’ give a shit about anyone else in the world, because our government wasn’t moral enough to give us authority.

Molly Ivins restores the faith I once had in Mollys but had lost due to the Maguires and the Shannon one, both…

Hi. You never know till you try to reach them how accessible men are; but you must approach each man by the right door. Help me! Looking for sites on: Ticket type – round trip one way, preferred airline – all available, aer lingus, aeromexico, air canada, air france, air jamaica, air new zealand.. I found only this – North carolina kitchen islands. For details, please refer to our customer care section. Compare discounted airline tickets and choose airline tickets to san francisco. With best wishes :cool:, Yosef from Singapore.