I am not right wing – I don’t give a flying fuck about petty ideological bickering. I have a vision of ideal governance being a liberal democracy with effective welfare, public institutions, free press, independent judiciary, and human rights and liberties to be universal and protected by constitutional law. Anything that diverges from this is only going to get my contempt and scorn, left wing OR right wing, and Hugo Chavez definitely qualifies. No why don’t you sing a rousing chorus of “Don’t Cry For Me, Venezuela” while they embalm his corpse as a tourist attraction.
I am not right wing – I don’t give a flying fuck about petty ideological bickering.
Oh yes, you go for the really big issues, of course. Like loudly repeating the black propaganda of the British establishment at its most vicious and corrupt.
I have a vision of ideal governance being a liberal democracy with effective welfare, public institutions, free press,
That’s even odder than the claim to not “give a flying fuck” about petty bickering; I seem to remember you joining in the British government-led character assassination campaign against Julian Assange. When did you change to supporting a free press as opposed to trying to shut it down and persecute journalists?
…independent judiciary,…
Like the outstandingly independent Swedish judiciary perhaps?
… and human rights and liberties to be universal and protected by constitutional law.
But not for dissenting journalists, of course. Gotta have limits, don’t we!
As for your risible comments about Hugo Chavez: I don’t care how mean-spirited and callous you are, but your flagrant lying is something else entirely.
Intentional derail, or just your derailed thinking?
Even if – and a big fucking if – you were correct on the Assange issue, disagreement on that single issue does not negate his statement about his own general belief system.
Julian Assange is not a journalist – journalists may well avail themselves of Wikileaks in their research, but Assange exhibits very little editorial process or evidence of fact checking in his activities to constitute journalism. Also, as regards my emphasis on constitutional human rights, I happen to believe that if a person accuses someone of a violation of their person, they should have the right to an investigation and a trial. The rest of your frothing is just a rather sad attempt at deflection.
You may not regard Julian Assange as a journalist but he is at a minimum, a publisher.
I happen to believe that if a person accuses someone of a violation of their person, they should have the right to an investigation and a trial.
So do I.
Can someone guarantee that Assange will actually get to that trial, and if convicted of violating another person, gets to serve out his prescribed sentence? (As opposed to being whisked away on completely unrelated matters?)
Julian Assange is not a journalist – journalists may well avail themselves of Wikileaks in their research, but Assange exhibits very little editorial process or evidence of fact checking in his activities to constitute journalism.
So does the New York Times. Unlike much of the output of that semi-official state outlet, nothing that Assange has released has been proven to be false. That’s the trouble with Assange of course, and that’s why he must be obliterated. (Goddamn those Ecuadorian paisanos!!!)
Also, as regards my emphasis on constitutional human rights, I happen to believe that if a person accuses someone of a violation of their person, they should have the right to an investigation and a trial.
A couple of young women were manipulated or forced to make a spurious allegation against him. They both retracted the ludicrous allegation, but the Swedish prosecutor ignored that fact.
The rest of your frothing is just a rather sad attempt at deflection.
I think anybody who reads this and other conflicts I have engaged in with you can see quite plainly who is lying.
The Cuban terrorist Luis Posada Carriles was denied the right to a fair trial in Venezuela after being accused of participating in several terrorist activities. Why? Because the Americans protected him and refused to extradite him to a country where they claimed he ran the risk of torture.
Funny how all these comments reinforce the diversionary nature of all of the anti comments in this post.
The essence is that Key is being a tool in refusing to go to Chavez’s funeral. Whether or not people agree with Chavez’s world view or his actions he was a respected world leader and Key could do really well for our country’s interests to go to the funeral. It is just a couple of days in his life. Not going is so naif.
I agree wholeheartedly. Many in Latin America will take this as a deliberate insult. Helen Clark did some good work there in raising our profile, while Key has worn a silly hat, ogled the Mexican first lady, and insulted Venezuela. I find it revealing that so many contributors, some of whom I have never seen before, use the discussion on this to attempt an unneeded assassination of Chavez.
He curtailed judicial and press freedoms. Opposition groups and parties were frequently harrassed. Institutions were weakened, and law and order issues and corruption became increasingly disruptive.
Thanks for being big about it, and yes he did a lot in terms of increasing the standard of living for the poor, but with all the weakening of those other institutions, what kind of a future has Chavez left them?
It’s a big question. We’re going to see what internal and external pressures emergy on Venezuela over the next several years. As other people have noted, the true Chavez legacy may not be known for another decade.
My main problem with it is that by making those revisions to the constitution, should a right wing populist get into power there will be little to check them. My main difficulty with populist politics is it tends to reduce the electorate to a Pavlovian entity to be bribed, rather than equals to be reasoned with.
Um, for improving their lot he charged a fairly hefty price in politicising the electoral college and basically giving himself the constitutional power to be president for life – after all you can’t really vote for an alternative if there is no real alternative. That’s like saying National’s tax cuts or Labour’s tax free student loans weren’t bribes.
With 90% of the ballots counted Sunday night, Chavez has 54.42% of the vote compared with 44.97% for Capriles, according to Tibisay Lucena, president of the National Electoral Council.
Chavez had secured 7.4 million votes and Capriles 6.1 million votes, election officials said.
The country saw one of its highest participation rates in decades, with almost 81% of voters going to the polls, Lucena said.
In fact, some polls were kept open two hours after their scheduled closing because lines of voters were waiting for ballots.
No. The lefties attempt to point out the success of Venezuela under Chavez and the righties attempt to smear Chavez. I couldn’t give a fuck about Chavez the person, I’m only interested in the undeniable success of his change to socialist policies. If scoailist policies managed to succeed even under the weight of a corrupt, dictator then imagine how successful they would be in a modern western democracy? Oh that’s right, we already know how successful they would be, it’s called Scandinavia.
Remember that it’s the weight of a “corrupt dictator” plus all the destabilisation efforts of the US and the traitorous elite inside Venezuela. This makes the successes even more notable. In many ways, Venezuela has been going forwards while countries such as our own have been going backwards.
We criticise Chavez now for highly executive, arbitrary and un-reviewed decision making. But he was a man who knew that things had to change, and not on geologic timescales. And I’m betting you that he relied a whole lot on his cabinet’s creativity and heavy lifting.
Research shows that between 0 and 5 years of age, the prospects of a new person either brighten or dim considerably, in terms of both educational and social achievement. If Chavez had dicked around with white papers and blue papers and green papers, especially after 2 decades of dramatic declines in living standards for most Venezuelans (I mean, we are talking catastrophic poverty levels in 1998) he wouldn’t have got the results seen today. A 70% decrease in outright severe poverty. I mean, that is amazing.
This is one thing which fucks me off about Labour. Every year you waste pussyfooting around with half and quarter measures, you are effectively and statistically condemning thousands of young people to poor whole-of-life outcomes.
As an example, Labour is going to build 100,000 in 10 years. I mean WTF. It seems like a completely arbitrary round number not anchored in any operational detail (and I bet it is a number that someone thought was manageable but wouldn’t depress middle class investment asset prices).
You’ve got 160,000 unemployed people FFS. Build that shit in 5 or 6 years.
I’m pleased key isn’t going because he would embarrass us all with his fakery and I can’t stand him fawning around trying to be the big man. Key is not my leader and not someone I respect, in fact the sooner he fucks off the better.
RIP Hugo and thank goodness you won’t have our slippery snake fake crying when your people say goodbye.
Special on Hugo Chavez from 15:00 in. Interesting point that Hugo Chavez opened the doors for indigenous/black heads of state in Latin America. Where before heads of state were almost invariably white.
CEPR report on Venezuela after 10 years of Chavez rule:
During the current economic expansion, the poverty rate has been cut by more than half, from 54 percent of households in the first half of 2003 to 26 percent at the end of 2008. Extreme poverty has fallen even more, by 72 percent. These poverty rates measure only cash income, and do not take into account increased access to health care or education.
also
Over the decade, the government’s total public debt has fallen from 30.7 to 14.3 percent of GDP. The foreign public debt has fallen even more, from 25.6 to 9.8 percent of GDP
(largely due to Chavez’ nationalisation of oil assets)
Since Yoani Sanchez has been mentioned in relation to Chavez, Cuba, and Brazil, here’s an article about one of the Brazilian politicians who sponsored her trip to Brazil. Sorry that it’s in Portuguese (maybe use a translation tool), but basically he’s telling black militants they should just go back to the zoo.
PS. Everything I have written about Brazil and Chavez in these threads has been approved by and discussed with a Brazilian from Rio Grande do Norte, before posting. These are not just the idle thoughts of some gringo, but a commentary informed by several years working in Rio and São Paulo, in places ranging from the Paulista favela of Paraisópolis to the campus of the Universidade de São Paulo, and by stays of various lengths in places from Florianópolis in the south to Fortaleza in the northeast. If I’m wrong in what I post here, it’s not out of ignorance of the situation.
Murray Olsen Did you spend any time in Curitiba sough of Sao Paolo. I heard a very positive report on the city’s mayor on Radionz from previous Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in 2002 Morgan Williams.
Yep, I spent a little time in Curitiba. It’s one of the most European of Brazilian cities, and the ex Mayor, Jaime Lerner, did a lot for urban development and basic habitation. As governor of the State of Paraná, Lerner and one of his successors, Roberto Requião, did a lot to keep transgenic soy beans out of the state. Even though they were respecting Federal Law by doing this, when they checked all the soy beans being exported through the port of Paranaguá, it caused huge disruption on the roads. Lula’s federal government put huge pressure on them to let the Monsanto rubbish through to the ships.
On the negative side, I did hear anecdotal stories of the Paraná police turning back migrants from the Northeast of the country at the Curitiba bus stations, but I have never seen this documented. Curitiba has a reputation as the most boring city in Brazil
Murray O Boring Curitiba eh, if I was in Syria I would think that was heaven. There is so much pressure on leaders that someone who merely tries to strike a fair course and gets there sometimes is a hero.
I didn’t find it boring, but it didn’t have the lovely chaotic qualities of other Brazilian cities. I have a sneaking suspicion that those who call it boring are a bit jealous.
I remember reading somewhere that Jim Bolger became personal mates with Bush Senior at the State Funeral of either Andropov or Chernenko. The fact that Bolger and Bush Senior were at the funeral of a leader of the USSR shows that the protocol is that if a head of state dies, you attend the funeral, no matter how much you oppose their ideology. Okay, the USSR was a bigger player on the world stage, but Key was already in South America. Sending someone else would only be excusable if Key was busy in New Zealand (as if he is ever busy anywhere). His failure to attend the funeral was a disgrace. He has shamed our nation.
He apparently already had to cut short his visit to Chile, heading to meet President Pinera (son of a minister who served under the Pinochet era government!), just to get some photos and say some nice words for the media and protocol. Pinera is heading to the funeral, despite Chile’s rather conservative government not feeling all that warm towards Chavez and his party.
Indeed almost all of Latin American and Caribbean LEADERS seem to be heading for the funeral:
As Brazil is his next destiantion and President Roussef also supposed to travel to Venezuela, is Brazil going to be taken off the list, and will Key head home early then?
In any case, it looks stupid to have Key make the decision he made. But does anyone really wonder, given his background and actual true agendas and priorities?
At least he could have sent Nathan Guy off to represent NZ there in Caracas, given he is next highest NZ official there at present (in South America).
But do not blame Key, at least he honestly shows his coulours and intentions for a change.
The real shame is that Key is missing out on seeing how a man who championed for the people gets celebrated. It might have had a positive effect on him.
So anyone know who represented NZ at Chavez’s funeral?
To be honest, I doubt that the people of Venuzuela would have wanted Key at his funeral. He is completely against what HC stood for.
Though Labour are no better. There seems to be no acknowledgement of his death on Red Alert or the LP website, given that he was probably more closer to Savage, Fraser, Nash and Kirk than Mallard, Curran and Shearer will ever be.
Its a pity Helen didnt forge any links with the Bolivarian Republic when she was in power/office. An oil for milk powder deal seems to me to be a win/win, and Chavez would have our historical social security system to use as a template.
Shearer wouldn’t have gone. Helen may have. If she’d proposed a milk for oil deal, I can imagine the righties screaming, but selling it for dollars somehow doesn’t cause a peep.
Labour should be ashamed of their 1984 past. Why is it that the front bench seem far more ashamed of what they did before then? I can’t wait for the rest of the left to get big enough that they can be ignored. Or for them to change, but I think that’s the less likely option.
I can’t wait for the rest of the left to get big enough that they can be ignored.
Agree with the sentiment, with the distinction that Labour is not a left wing party: it is a centrist political party sympathetic to the ongoing use of free markets and orthodox economic mechanisms and objectives.
Key hugely over-rates himself. A small-town boy from a small country living off fables from his Merrill days left the Presidents of Mexico and Chile looking distinctly bored, underwhelmed, and disengaged in his presence.
They don’t need a NZ’er to tell them about Merrill.
Key’s lack of empathy and understanding of America Latina was further demonstrated in his gauche response to Chavez’s funeral.
Apart from reports of sales of LAV’s to Colombia, it is starting to look like a diplomatic disaster.
Images of Colombian ceremonial guard in Prussian coal-scuttle helmets leads to questions of who exactly it is that we are dealing with over there.
The trip would otherwise have had the effect of distancing him from the scandal of emails released on the Standard showing that, during the Hobbit “dispute” the Government and others lied to the people of New Zealand to maintain a perception of a crisis.
This must have been the last thing Key’s PR agencies wanted.
Has anyone noted the number of beneficiary-bashing advertisements around ?
There is always Brasil, but don’t hold your breath.
Yeah, that was sloppy of me. However, to the extent that many of the people in Aotearoa in need of left wing solutions still look to Labour, they are still a party of the left. I hope it becomes clearer that this is mainly illusion and wishful thinking, and that parties more deserving of the label become more influential.
I’m not impressed by a pic in the Dom-Post this morning of Key strolling past a Chilean honour guard and not even wearing a necktie. He is an embarrassment to the office of Prime Minister. They are probably thinking ‘What a slob’.
This is a derail.
http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=VE
I couldn’t give a fuck about Chavez the person, I’m only interested in the undeniable success of his change to socialist policies. If scoailist policies managed to succeed even under the weight of a corrupt, dictator then imagine how successful they would be in a modern western democracy?
Oh that’s right, we already know how successful they would be, it’s called Scandinavia.
Did you spend any time in Curitiba sough of Sao Paolo. I heard a very positive report on the city’s mayor on Radionz from previous Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in 2002 Morgan Williams.
Boring Curitiba eh, if I was in Syria I would think that was heaven. There is so much pressure on leaders that someone who merely tries to strike a fair course and gets there sometimes is a hero.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhkxU1in17U