See, this is why when people say we may one day live for 200 years I shudder. Can you imagine putting up with this douche for another 140 years?
Actually he wasn't as bad as the previous 4 presidents, he was just anti-American which made it seem like he was the devil.
Can someone explain to me why Chavez is considered evil? I hear his rhetoric and it's much more friendly to the people he represents than any rhetoric I hear from U.S. Politicians. With any understanding of CIA/US Foreign policy it would be a no-brainer to conclude that he was in his right to vilify the U.S. and its hegemony over the western hemisphere. So he wanted to create a trade association with other latin countries to undermine US economic dominance and he is somehow an evil person? Has the shoe ever been on the other foot for some of you people? Especially you libertarians who finish far lower than either libs or conservatives on the "caring" quotient.
A not too friendly view of Chavez: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/01/28/130128fa_fact_anderson
I borrowed this quote from someone who responded to another Chavez article linked from your link: "Venzuela is a developing nation of some 24 million people. It is now commonplace to cite the accepted statistics that since 2004 poverty has declined by 50%, extreme poverty by 70%, infant mortality by 35.%, college matriculation has increase by 200%. Similar statistics on the social health, welfare, and education of a once impoverished people can be cited for pages. The country does continue to have horrific problems such as crime and lethal prison conditions, problems with infrastructure, and the centuries old tactic of hoarding (a device in the Latin American business' class' tool box for use against populists who are feeding the poor. We have seen this movie.) What amazes me about the "beat the Venezuelan horse until it's dead" journalistic crowd is their callousness with regard to the physical and social changes for the better brought about for millions and millions of people. They are so jaded, this evades them as historical news: they have no distance or perspective on the subject from a national, regional, or global perspective. They want the trains to run on time, and to see nice shops, forgetting that this is the developing world. What upsets them so is that national priorities have shifted to the most needy and to the most necessary changes for the country. Other things have been neglected. But most journalists have not even begun to wrap their minds or their pens around the magnitude of the historical changes that have taken place in the populace, and which dwarf many of the problems they fret about. Over the long course of things these journalist will be diminished by being penny-wise and pound foolish historically speaking. The violence and the situation in the prisons are exceptions. From what I understand, the government has launched serious programs with regard to both, mainly crime, and these have been ineffective. These problems obviously warrant urgent and top priority for Venezuela. But most journalists show a callous disregard for the bettermant of the vital living measures for the poor and an astonishing indifference to the numerical magnitude of this phenomenon. Analytically, they are unable to intellegntly relate these feats to other problems this third worl country faces. Their reflexive disdain for the subject does not contribute to the intelligence of their analysis."
Did you miss the part about Caracas being an elite city before Chavez and now it's a slum? That would indicate a serious decline in society in general. Like Detroit with the auto makers sucking wind.
Serious answer, no. Do I have to? Do I have to go to Beirut to know it is now in rubbles and it used to be known as the "Paris of the Middle East?"
The decline of the city as opposed to the gain of the populace. A place where bankers cannot afford to finish their buildings as opposed to the gain of the populace.
I care. I care enough to have you help yourself. I also care that you have privacy and freedom to live your life as you choose (with the limit that you not hurt another person).
I really hate when I am glad someone is dead. It makes me feel small and petty. Today, however, I shall rejoice in my smallness and pettiness. Rot In Hell Hugo.
You don't care about all things being equal. Most surely don't as an outcome because it deincentivizes one-upsmanship. But if we were to play an arbitrary game, I bet you'd care if I had an inherent advantage or two or three, especially if the game decided your outcome.
I stand by what I said, yes. But do you think the decline of the city is a good thing as opposed to the gain of the populace? Is it evil to have an opinion one way or another?
You're absolutely right I don't believe in equality of outcome. I do believe--as a cornerstone--in equality of opportunity. I compete against people with more advantages than I have all the time. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. Advantages don't always have to be decisive; many times they can be mitigated through hard work.
