OT: Politial Book Review - Ann Coulter's Treason

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
I love lawyers. I think they're great for society. The prevalence of lawyers means there's lots of business for the courts. And that's good- it shows a healthy judicial system where people feel they have access.

Please tell me you are joking.

[Leimeng]

~ I have lived and worked in Venezuela as well as many other Latin American countries. Unlike most people, I actually do have a clue as to what happens in the rest of the world and I will not take the bait or swallow the hook that the extreme leftwing wishes to present about the world at large.
~ Having studied and dealt with Venezuela (and a large part of the rest of South America), I must say that I am both amused and saddened by those who fall so easily for leftwing propaganda as accurate information on the situation in Venezuela. There are several points to be made on Venezuela, however I will only touch on a few. The first is understanding the political, social, and economic dynamics of Latin American in general, and Venezuela in particular.
In Latin America, authoritarians are brought to power during times of national desperation that often comes from a rejection of the ruling political elite. An authoritarian obtains his legitimacy directly from the popular will to destroy what is widely perceived to be a failed political system. Cuba with Castro, Chile with Pinochet, Brasil with multiple military coups, Argentina and Peron, Peru and Fujimori, and Venezuela under Hugo Chavez Frias are all examples of this. All were brought to power due to a popular rejection of traditional politics and desperation for change. In each of these cases, society demanded rapid and profound political change that could only come from the power of an iron hand. Pinochet, Chavez, Fujimori, and Peron each invoked the will of the people to justify their decision to destroy checks and balances and to concentrate extreme powers in the hands of the executive. The belief that traditional politics had failed and politicians were incapable of resolving the country’s problems leads to the idea that only someone capable of rising above politics, endowed with great powers can bring stability to the country. (This also goes for multiple military leaders in Pakistan, Marcos, Sukarno, Suhuarto, Mugabe and many others.) There is a widespread belief in many third-world nations that traditional politics squanders wealth and prevents economic advancement of the people. They are “caudillos,” the primitive strongmen common to Latin American politics.
The absence of strong, independent democratic institutions of supervision and control, due to the populist nature of most latin governments, contributes to the problem, along with the lack of will of political leaders to fight corruption, since "looking the other way" has generally provided them with an effective means to stay in power. Chavez is no exception to this paradigm.
In Venezuela, Chavez identified a domestic enemy to justify his hard-handed tactics --the “oligarchy” -traditional political parties (AD and Copei), the national labour union that had close ties to the parties, and big business. The oligarchs needed to be rooted out and destroyed, but to do the work efficiently the institutions needed to be cleansed. Capitalizing on the overwhelming rejection of the old political elites, Chavez introduced the national plebiscite to Venezuela, an instrument that did not previously exist. He used the plebiscite as a weapon to demolish all checks and balances on presidential power. Through the referendum, Chavez dissolved congress, the Supreme Court and all other lower level courts.
However, he then packed these institutions with loyalists in order to maximize his power. Though Chavez was elected democratically, Venezuelans understood that they were voting for an authoritarian. Over time, the definition of oligarch, or enemy, has evolved to mean anyone that has sought to impose checks on his power or oppose his rule. In Venezuelan the Chávez government has been in the business of enthusiastically promoting conflict and generating violence.
In most of the places I have ever visited, this holds true but is only part of the situation. A lot of it has to do with the people themselves and their expectations and actions. Patronage and the desire to better the lot of an individual’s own family creates many problems as well. For example, in many places, with nationalized industries especially, when an individual gets a job where they make any sort of decisions for hiring other people, those jobs will go to the individuals family regardless of that persons qualifications or even if their is a job to do. This creates an inefficiency that is only exasperated by non-competitiveness, ill-defined budgets, poor accounting practices, and a host of other factors. An effective democracy controls corruption by minimizing excessive bureaucratic discretionality. Additionally most of the third-world nations are dependent on one or two natural resources for the majority of their national economy. Coffee, sugar, oil, flowers, lumber, gems and precious metals for example. Venezuela has a source of abundant national income, petroleum, which is easily produced and essentially non-earned through hard work or national savings. (Unlike the case of incomes in most industrialized countries.) This easy income has promoted over dependence on the welfare state
This provides a basic backdrop of generalized cultural considerations for this discussion.
Part of understanding Venezuela, requires appreciation that unchecked access to billions of dollars derived from the state controlled oil industry has granted Mr. Chávez the "right" to ignore the demands of the majority that was once his. Other leaders have not enjoyed this luxury and are forced to either negotiate or leave office when confronted with a significant and sustained challenge from a dejected population or parliament. Even though corrupt, there was some transparency in the system. Hugo Chavez however, is obsessed with an offensive campaign to discredit anyone who would dare to speak of his unduly called democratic government.
The generation of employment has been non-existent, to the point that the unemployment rate is today the highest ever in that country. The solution to the problem of abandoned street children is nowhere in sight. Land reform is riddled with fraud and illegal invasions. Improving the social condition of the poor has not gone beyond empty rhetoric while the middle class has been systematically disappearing.
The currency is rapidly getting to be worthless, national debt has reached dramatic proportions, the Central Bank has been terrorized by Chávez, food shortages are the rule, 60% of the companies existing five years ago have folded, international reserves pile up at the expense of a normal economic activity, inflation is the highest in Latin America, petroleum production is 800,000 barrels per day lower than two years ago, the national budget for 2004 shows a deficit of about USD $10 billion that will have to be covered with new indebtedness. How is this for economic performance?
A look at opinion polls shows quite clearly that his mandate to rule with an iron hand has ended. The opposition has abandoned a strategy of mobilization, and has embraced Chavez’s constitution and his recall referendum. The ongoing political crisis represents a radical reversal of fortune for Hugo Chávez. His popularity has dwindled from 80 to 35 percent according to most polls. If Chávez still commands support, it is because the opposition is divided and cannot fill a real gap with a virtual void.
Unemployment, poverty, crime rate, devaluation of the currency, artificial exchange controls, regressive taxation, administrative waste, corruption, social resentment and exclusion, loss of social capital, dramatic drop in the ranking of the Human Development Index of the UN, competitiveness, all of these indices are much more unfavorable today than five years ago.
I also encourage that you visit www.globalcorruptionreport.org and see the tremendous increase in official corruption in Venezuela since Chavez came to power. The results of the 2003 Corruption Index of "Transparency International" ranks Venezuela as number 100 in a group of 133 countries, number 1 being the least corrupt. Last year it was 81. That is a 19-point drop in one year! This is the level of Haiti! It has been in the 60’s in the past. I doubt this radical change in position is due to dramatic improvements in multiples of other countries. The irony of it is that Chavez ran on a platform or anti-corruption!

**********TO BE CONTINUED***********

Peace,

Sin Loi

Yi Beng, Kan Xue

Flatulo Ergo Sum –

Finding one of her students making faces at others on the playground, Ms. Smith stopped to gently reprove the child.
Smiling sweetly, the Sunday School teacher said " Bobby, when I was a child I was told if that if I made ugly faces, my face would freeze and stay like that".
Bobby looked up and replied, "Well, Ms. Smith, you can't say you weren't warned."

[Leimeng]

**********Continued from Previous Post**********

Now for some ideas on the coup as reported in suggested piece of propaganda (the film 'documentary' on the coup): There was a national strike by various of unions in Venezuela in December. As the strike started, Chavez blocked private radio and television stations from broadcasting any information about the strike. (So much for a free press, but then again, the left wing has always opposed a free press.) The government of Chavez ordered the military to be put on alert to be (potentially) used against the strikers. The head of the National Guard asks for the military to not be used against the strikers. (How come the left wing seems to think it is ok to use the military against opposition but not in national defense?) Chavez’ ‘Bolivarian’ circles, who have been provided training and weapons by the regime decided to assassinate opposition marchers from the roof of the presidential headquarters with sharp shooters. This situation is unacceptable to the military and the opposition so they staged a coup. The opposition contacted the US Embassy and the US Mil-group in Caracas and asked for support in the ouster of the President Chavez. They were denied and told to hold an election instead.
In fact, just a few weeks ago on November 28, 2003 President Chavez is quoted as saying: “We do not have any evidence, at this moment, … that any country in the world is interfering in Venezuelan internal affairs...” Wow!
So much for the propaganda of the leftwing. So much for the supposed US support of a coup against Chavez. When will the leftwing ever get it right?
A true democracy solves the problems of the people but the Chavez regime has spent almost all of its time in power in clinging to power, not in the tasks of government.
The rhetoric of Chavez and his 5th column were to turn the slums into middle class neighborhoods. But the reverse has happened. The Venezuela of only six years ago had many problems but extreme misery was not one of them. People did not walk around half-naked in the streets without being challenged. Today, almost anything goes in the way of social neglect. Middle class residential neighborhoods are now a huge slum areas, taken over by beggars, drug addicts, abandoned children and, worse, by organized criminal gangs that prey on the citizenry. Filth piles high along the sidewalks, the smells rival those of a Zoo and the general atmosphere of the area is one of tragic social breakdown. Walking through formerly safe areas is both difficult and dangerous.
Before Chavez took power the poverty rate in Venezuela was around 37%. According to recent reports the poverty rate in Venezuela in the middle of 2003 was about 67%. That is pretty good for a leftist who cares sooo much about his people.
I could go on but the point should be pretty clear. It is foolish to accept the claims from just one source of information. Especially when the sources has a clear bias towards the moronic left.
Continue to discuss amongst yourselves.

Peace,

Sin Loi

Yi Beng, Kan Xue

Flatulo Ergo Sum --

[rogue]

Great post and sadly applies to most of the places large sections of my family comes from.

[Nick Forrer]

MP
First of all let me say thank you for taking the time to write a detailed and comprehensive reply to what i wrote. With that in mind let me try and answer some of your points and further clarify some of my own:

'Then why didn't you say that, rather than go on about how the Soviets viewed the Nuclear Missiles?'

I didn’t go on about it. I just highlighted it as something conspicuously absent from your account. Theres no need to be so defensive.

'Ann Coulter actually made a few good points, but her dogmatism (which Chomsky was not so guilty of) carried the day. Is it so bad to be critical of that?'

No. Not at all.

'Why should I not critically think about the things people postulate?.'

You should and I do. Thats why I responded to your post in the first place. But you’ve asked me what the point i'm trying to make is. Let me ask you what your point is in posting these ‘reviews’ on a kung fu forum? Is it to show a bunch of fourteen year old keyboard warriors your relaxed mastery of international politics? Or perhaps you fancy yourself as something of a iconoclastic truth seeker in the best Socratic tradition, effortlessly deconstructing the arguments of the left and right with equal ease. Personally I prefer to wear my political colours on my sleeve rather then sit on the fence with a smug expression on my face. I’m sorry if this sounds harsh but many people have died and continue to die because of what we’re talking about and I don’t like it when people adopt a cavalier attitude to these things or accuse others when they get called up on it of having a ‘bone to pick.’ Your right- I do have a bone to pick, but i'll be honest about it rather then trying to draw someone in to a guessing game about where I sit on the political spectrum. I’m digusted and incensed with what the British and American governments are doing at the moment (see? nothing to hide) and I reserve the right to challenge anyone who trys to defend it particularly with the kind of bogus arguments that pay lip service to abstract, ill defined notions like ‘freedom’ and ‘security’ that are peddled on a daily basis in the mainstream media.

'There was also a tension between Moscow and Castro because Castro thought that once the missiles were removed there would be nothing to stop another invasion either by the US itself or by US trained and armed exiles/mercenaries'

'I agree that this was missing from my comments.'

That’s why I bought it up.

'I think it's perfectly obvious WHY Castro wanted the missiles there. I think the larger question is DID THAT MATTER? I would argue it didn't.'

Maybe not to the US or USSR decision makers at the time. But when it comes to understanding the missile crisis from a historical perspective i.e. the time and place we are at now and in relation to current US policy towards Cuba I think it matters. Depends of course on what your priorities are and what your trying to understand.

'If you were doing analysis of the situation, I'd use this as a little contextual data to keep things interesting.'

You could use it to keep things accurate too.

'While Cuba may have been annoyed, they really didn't have much say. They didn't have much to offer the USSR except geography...and I doubt they'd take that barganing chip off the table considering all the OTHER aid they were getting from the USSR at the time.'

Its worth remembering that the ‘geography’ bargaining chip which you seem so intent on down playing almost ended in the obliteration of us all

'I think it's perfectly obvious WHY Castro wanted the missiles there.'

Sometimes its pays to point the obvious out even if it means russell-ing (sic) a few feathers along the way. An incomplete account can be just as misleading as an inaccurate one.

'a similar justification is used by Israel in relation to neighbouring Arab states for its Nuclear program- In fact A guy called Vannunu is currently serving a life sentence for leaking information of Israel’s secret weapons program to the rest of the world'.

'How is this relevant? I think from Cuba and Israel's perspective this makes a little sense from their respective POV's. I'd be just as concerned in their situations.'

Its relevant because both states in the past have substantially relied on the patronage of superpowers far away for military protection from hostile neighbours, as well as economic support. Both also portrayed themselves as being key strategic assets to their patrons in order to maintain continued support. Of course in Israel’s case this holds true to this day. Since you like pre 20th century philosophy heres a quote from plato (you tell me whether its relevant or not) ‘good judgement consists in the ability to see the differences in similar things and the similarities in different things.’

'As the record since then shows the US has confined itself to assassination attempts, industrial sabotage, an internationally condemned embargo (see the interestingly titled ‘Patriot Act’) and other overt and covert forms of warfare rather than risk another all out invasion.'

'Again--what's your point? I don't understand what you are trying to demonstrate - that U.S. administrations are hostile to Cuba? I think that's an indisputable fact.'

But one not fully understood by many people which is why I then wrote:

'In my view America’s hostility to Cuba stems not from the cold war (which has been a handy pretext and ad hoc rationale for almost every American foreign policy excess since the 2nd WW.) but from the nationalisation of foreign assets (i.e. the sugar trade) and what is sometimes called the Domino effect i.e. the danger of Cuba acting as a successful model for other third world countries who might want to copy their example. '

'I would say that's less than half the story. History since the end of WWII is rife with examples of proxy conflict -some armed, some not- between the United States and the USSR.'

To reiterate, I think the standard analysis of two superpowers using the developing world as pawns in a kind of global chess game is woefully inadequate and was exaggerated by successive post war US administrations to justify all kinds of foreign interventions to a scared and indoctrinated population, often with horrendous consequences. Declassified documents (particularly relating to Cuba and Vietnam but also elsewhere) show again that the threat was not from the USSR but from the massive success (comparatively speaking of course) of the cuban social experiment and the danger that other developing nations might follow in their wake (to this day Cuba has probably the best health service of any developing country in the region despite 40 plus years of US policy of the kind I outlined above-compare it to Haiti, another victim of the free market capitalist ideology so often espoused by the US but never actually practiced within its own borders, and an economic basket case by any reliable index).

'The Domino Effect was a clearly documented and articulated theory about how Communism might progress around the world since the Eisenhower administration. However, you are fantastically misunderstanding the Domino Effect theory. '

It wont surprise you to hear that I feel that the fantastic misunderstanding lies on your part

'It had nothing to do with worrying that other 3rd world nations would look to other 3rd world communist dictatorships as successful models.'

They needn’t be dictatorships. I gave you a distinct example (CHILE) of a US backed coups against a democratically elected SOCIALIST leader who came to power by the ballot box- not in a wave of bolshevik terror as you seem to think.

Which is just one reason why I think that this statement

'and everything to do with the primarily Leninist idea of violent revolution as the mechanism by which Communism spread. '

Is hopelessly wide of the mark

(cont.)

[D_Messenger]

Your country is so bad and evil that all I can say about is that it is very very very mean in a horrific way

[MonkeySlap Too]

Nick,
Ironically, I have a bone to pick as well. You are concerned about people dying - look at the track record of the leftist governments...there is nop comparison. Ironically, you would not even have the freedom to speak up against them without being put up against a wall.

For those of us who have seen first hand the devastation wrought by the left in different countrues, and whose families have been ground into nubs under their iron heel, accepting such drivel is not so easy. There is too much to disprove it. Like many demagouges, Chomsky starts with partial truths and extrapolates from there.

Try digging a little deeper. I'd go on more - but I'm busy at work...if this thread is still up next week I'll try to substantiate these comments, as you seem thoughtful and deserve that.

In defense of MP - you do not have to be a fence sitter to make his arguments - he is merely deconstructing the arguments - not taking sides like you and I. Nor is he seeking to convince others of an ideology. He probably hasn't felt the wrath of the b@stards you seem to admire so much.

[fragbot]

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
Or perhaps WMDs are fine as long as it is only America and its allies that has them. Especially since then they would have carte blanche to terrorise any more or less defenceless central american country that dares to implement a social and economic system that benefits its people rather then the corrupt dictators, Mafia casino owners and American sugar companies that washington prefers.

When the Cubans are allowed to see a ballot with more than one candidate on it.

Terrorise Cuba? A show of hands, other than a few old men in charge, is there anyone who thinks Jose Sixpack is more afraid of the US than their own government?

Christ, it's like I've stepped back in time to a 1986 campus discussion.

I wonder if Chomsky still admires the Khmer Rouge.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MutantWarrior
I recently read Al Franken's new book 'Lies & the Lying Lyers Who Tell Them'. He has at least 2 chapters about Ann and her latest book

Franken should have remembered a certain maxim about people in glass houses.

...

I was offering up Hayek's book in ironic juxtaposition to the caliber of the previous offerings. Though, of course everyone should still go read it!

... But I was completely serious about calling MP a commie. He's turned his back on the Right, so now he is apostate. Capitalist Solidarity Forever!!!

[MonkeySlap Too]

Ah, the Khmer Rouge - those champions of the working class - if they left any alive.

The lefty's supported Stalin too, and said the gulags were lies as well....

Ah, that Chomsky, what a humanitarian.

[Mutant]

Originally posted by Christopher M


Franken should have remembered a certain maxim about people in glass houses

... But I was completely serious about calling MP a commie. He's turned his back on the Right, so now he is apostate. Capitalist Solidarity Forever!!!

aahhh, now youre on the offensive and labeling those with differing opinions commies. great tactic; logic such as this certainly gains the respect and admiration <insert sarcasm> of everyone outside your narrow political spectrum. i doubt that you truely believe that, yet you mindlessly parrot the far-right party line. one can be a capitalist (or have other ideals) without being closed minded and tyrannical.

recall that one of the primary principles that this country was founded on was fair consideration of disenting opinions, and its one of the essential contraptions with enables our great political system to function properly.

i will check out the link provided and take the info into consideration with a fair eye. recall that this is one of the abilities that allows ones brain to function properly.

as far as the glass houses comment goes, i never claimed that franken was a saint and always correct, the guys a freakin comedian. i was commenting specifically on his analysis of coulter's god-aweful book, for which he provides (as opposed to her) meticulous research and resources. and while your response is basically 'well he has lied too, see...', that does not negate that fact that her book, one of the most wide-spread pieces of right-wing propaganda currently in circulation, is complete dogsh!t as far as truth, accuracy and academic research go.

when i read a political book (& i don't strictly diet on liberal writings), i don't take every word as gospel and i keep and open mind. franken's book was pretty good and i'd recommend it. one thing he said in his book that was particularly funny was that "conservatives love their country unquestioningly like an 8 year old loves her mommy, believeing that anyone who could disagree with her is bad and that she couldnt possibly ever do anything wrong." thats from memory so may not be exact quote.

bush's romp in the henhouse is almost up, so enjoy it while you still can.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MutantWarrior
aahhh, now youre on the offensive and labeling those with differing opinions commies.

No, I'm the one with an overly dry wit not evident to people who are quick to stereotype.

i was commenting specifically on his analysis of coulter's god-aweful book for which he provides meticulous research and resources. and while your response is basically 'well he has lied too, see...'

No, my response is to cite someone who's gone through and checked up on his 'meticulous research and resources' and found them wanting. Perhaps you should have read it before commenting?

bush's romp in the henhouse is almost up, so enjoy it while you still can.

Four years and some is 'almost'?

[fragbot]

"half the book is devoted to trying to rehabilitate Joe McCarthy, who, she argues, was right about there being Communists in the U.S. government and so, anything else he did was just fine. In essence, the ends justify the means."

He's still widely reviled today, but (from what I can tell) he appears to have been reasonably correct in his premise. Though just showing up in the Venona tapes isn't necessarily good enough. . .

If he was reasonably correct, the argument then becomes whether or not his tactics were too odious for the issue at hand. Dunno. While I guess I have sympathy for someone falsely accused (sheesh, it was, what, a coupla hundred people tops), it's difficult to give a cr*p about someone getting blacklisted who *was* a member of the ACP.

With racism a new Communism, who'd be upset if Tom Metzger or Matthew Hale were publically reviled and couldn't get a job?

It's all a matter of whose ox is being gored.

[Gangsterfist]

You guys should read, The People's Guide to American History, by Howard Zin.

In the book you will read how the U.S.A. at one point almost became a socialist nation. Read about the miners and what they went through, and the poor farmers of the time, and how they wanted to push more towards a socialist society.

Its an interesting read none the less.

[Mutant]

yeah your 'overly dry wit' is a real gem.
i got that, but it was still kind of irritating.

i did check out that website before responding, but i didnt spend the time nessesary to see if its bullsh!t or not. i'm not claiming that one is accurate and the other is all wrong. just that coulter is a complete nutt-case. i'll look at it more after work. well, did you finish reading franken's book before responding?

and relax, i was just having some fun with you.