Register to leave a comment, or log in if you already have an account
“A benign dictator who recognizes property rights and does not interfere with business would be better for Venezuela.”
Actually, the modern theory on property rights was developed by a Peruvian. They are called de Soto Principles and state basically that ownership of property will allow for borrowing of money to make the property productive.
I agree with Biff to the degree that ‘exporting democracy’ is not a good basis for a foreign policy. I think some people in the US hierarchy believe they are doing that but most don’t. That said all nations act in their own interests when it comes to foreign policy and I don’t think the US is any different from anyone else.
Chavez has decimated the Venezuelan oil industry by replacing the technical leadership at PdVSA with political appointees. Production has declined materially since he became leader.
I agree with Snappy that if Jimmy ran for something very local in BK he would win – I think he aims too high. He needs to be councilman.
I also read that Jimmy wears black gloves due to Agent Orange exposure in Nam ?!?????
I’ll use Vietnam as an example. I’ve mentioned my love for Chomsky. Chomsky is so brilliant and moral. Vietnam is such an extreme example of American (and Canada as junior partner) imperialism (relative to it’s size or something like that, Canada made more money off of killing Vietnamese peasants (who had the nerve to want to choose their own secular nationalist government) than any other nation! Yeah, Canada the “peacekeeper”. I think agent orange (napalm) was invented at McGill University..but don’t quote me, I think I read that somewhere reputable.
Chomsky makes the point that with Vietnam and any other country that doesn’t bow down to the master (as in shows some independence) the fear is of contagion: it’s not that the U.S so badly needs the resources(?!) of Vietnam for itself: of course nothing to do with that: they just had to behave like any Mafia don: if someone doesn’t obey in the neighbourhood, you have to maim him to set an example: you don’t need the 50 bucks he defaulted, it’s about “credibility” of course. In the Middle East it is also about the resources and control of those but for a tiny “nothing” country like Vietnam / Nicaragua / Cuba, it is the threat of a good example: if they can have for example free health care /low infant mortality / free university etc. etc., well then it kinda sends the wrong lesson to the populace of the rich countries.
Chomsky also points out that the U.S. did not “lose” the Vietnam war from the masters’ point of view: they insured (to this day tons of unexploded ordinance, defoilated toxic environments) that their will be no independent economic development in that country of disobediant “insurgents”. They had to be “shown their place.” It is truly horrifying what went on and how little North Americans know of the barbarity of our govenments / military actions in that region: even in the 80’s the U.S would block other countries from sending humanitarian aid to Vietnam. Chomsky calls stuff like that “the culture of terrorism”. It is not paranoia but simply basic honesty to call western dominant culture the “culture of terrorism”: he has one quote which highlights this as well:
Someone asks (I think Carter) in the 80’s or something if he thinks the U.S should apologize for it’s actions in Vietnam:
He said no, as the “destruction was mutual”. Chomsky in his actually Kurt Vonnegutian black humour or yes “Jewish humour” says “yeah you can walk down the streets of Boston today and see the mutual destruction”. Completely barbaric and we live in a culture that cannot let those basic truths out: he says we rightly see it plain as day when our ideaological enemies invade a country: Russia when it invaded Afghanistan, yet to this day no one (in the dominant culture) talks of the U.S invasion of Vietnam.
I remember signing Jimmy’s petition back in 2005 when he was running for mayor. He was sitting at a generic folding table on Nostrand Ave on the corner of Glenwood Rd.
Biff, Chavez is a petty dictator and his friends all reek of corruption. But he’s a product of his country. A benign dictator who recognizes property rights and does not interfere with business would be better for Venezuela.
Of course Biff. So stupid of me not to understand that. It seems it’s working out very well for that country as well. They can’t even afford food now and they are a net exporter of oil. The currency is useless
“A benign dictator who recognizes property rights and does not interfere with business would be better for Venezuela.”
Actually, the modern theory on property rights was developed by a Peruvian. They are called de Soto Principles and state basically that ownership of property will allow for borrowing of money to make the property productive.
I agree with Biff to the degree that ‘exporting democracy’ is not a good basis for a foreign policy. I think some people in the US hierarchy believe they are doing that but most don’t. That said all nations act in their own interests when it comes to foreign policy and I don’t think the US is any different from anyone else.
Chavez has decimated the Venezuelan oil industry by replacing the technical leadership at PdVSA with political appointees. Production has declined materially since he became leader.
I agree with Snappy that if Jimmy ran for something very local in BK he would win – I think he aims too high. He needs to be councilman.
I also read that Jimmy wears black gloves due to Agent Orange exposure in Nam ?!?????
Last night was fun
I’ll use Vietnam as an example. I’ve mentioned my love for Chomsky. Chomsky is so brilliant and moral. Vietnam is such an extreme example of American (and Canada as junior partner) imperialism (relative to it’s size or something like that, Canada made more money off of killing Vietnamese peasants (who had the nerve to want to choose their own secular nationalist government) than any other nation! Yeah, Canada the “peacekeeper”. I think agent orange (napalm) was invented at McGill University..but don’t quote me, I think I read that somewhere reputable.
Chomsky makes the point that with Vietnam and any other country that doesn’t bow down to the master (as in shows some independence) the fear is of contagion: it’s not that the U.S so badly needs the resources(?!) of Vietnam for itself: of course nothing to do with that: they just had to behave like any Mafia don: if someone doesn’t obey in the neighbourhood, you have to maim him to set an example: you don’t need the 50 bucks he defaulted, it’s about “credibility” of course. In the Middle East it is also about the resources and control of those but for a tiny “nothing” country like Vietnam / Nicaragua / Cuba, it is the threat of a good example: if they can have for example free health care /low infant mortality / free university etc. etc., well then it kinda sends the wrong lesson to the populace of the rich countries.
Chomsky also points out that the U.S. did not “lose” the Vietnam war from the masters’ point of view: they insured (to this day tons of unexploded ordinance, defoilated toxic environments) that their will be no independent economic development in that country of disobediant “insurgents”. They had to be “shown their place.” It is truly horrifying what went on and how little North Americans know of the barbarity of our govenments / military actions in that region: even in the 80’s the U.S would block other countries from sending humanitarian aid to Vietnam. Chomsky calls stuff like that “the culture of terrorism”. It is not paranoia but simply basic honesty to call western dominant culture the “culture of terrorism”: he has one quote which highlights this as well:
Someone asks (I think Carter) in the 80’s or something if he thinks the U.S should apologize for it’s actions in Vietnam:
He said no, as the “destruction was mutual”. Chomsky in his actually Kurt Vonnegutian black humour or yes “Jewish humour” says “yeah you can walk down the streets of Boston today and see the mutual destruction”. Completely barbaric and we live in a culture that cannot let those basic truths out: he says we rightly see it plain as day when our ideaological enemies invade a country: Russia when it invaded Afghanistan, yet to this day no one (in the dominant culture) talks of the U.S invasion of Vietnam.
I remember signing Jimmy’s petition back in 2005 when he was running for mayor. He was sitting at a generic folding table on Nostrand Ave on the corner of Glenwood Rd.
Now he’s famous!
Ha ha! Listening to NPR…people calling in and making up names for parties…
“The Bar is Too Damn Low”! Love it.
Biff, Chavez is a petty dictator and his friends all reek of corruption. But he’s a product of his country. A benign dictator who recognizes property rights and does not interfere with business would be better for Venezuela.
Of course Biff. So stupid of me not to understand that. It seems it’s working out very well for that country as well. They can’t even afford food now and they are a net exporter of oil. The currency is useless
Rob, I liked you better when you blogicided.