Advertising

  • Advertise here

Blog Awards


  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogrunnerupgroup

  • Sablogrunneruppost

  • JIB

Miscellaneous

« Israel Government Press Office snubbed by Mail & Guardian | Main | Human Rights Delegation Watch »

September 03, 2008

Comments

Dax

I continue to find your posts informative and enjoyable.

Whilst I find Hugo Chavez' position on Israel/Iran disagreeable, I do think that Venezuela is a much better example of democracy than The United States, or many of the other apparently Western/democratic countries.

I don't agree with Chavez' support of FARC etc, but think it would be laughably hypocritical of the United States to criticise him after they have themselves done the same thing countless times. In fact, they tried to oust Chavez himself.

Unlike here, the poor in Venezuela are actually seeing the benefits of government policies. I think SA could learn some important lessons from Hugo Chavez while still remaining 'democratic'.

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Mike,

What you up to? Have you done a runner? You skipped Limmud.

You write:
"That South Africa has been so willing to sell its international reputation for a few gallons of cheap Venezuelan oil once again brings into question the ANC’s support for democracy."

Problem is that SA doesn't have an international reputation that is worth protecting. SA is in the totalitarian/Islamic camp and only wants to steal money from the West for Nepad projects.

Can you list any dictator that the SA govt hasn't dated and slept with?

Ronno Einstein's pet fav is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mbeki is in love with Mugabe etc etc

Chavez is just par for the course.

Dax,
Have you actually visited "democratic" Venezuela?

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Dax,

What planet are you living on? Venezuela is a "democracy" that SA should emulate?? Please read the following...


Human Rights Watch Report. Venezuela 2007

After repeatedly winning elections and referendums, and surviving a coup d’etat in 2002, President Chávez and his supporters have sought to consolidate power by undermining the independence of the judiciary and the press, institutions essential for the protection and promotion of human rights.

State interference in trade union elections has weakened the right to free association. The government has failed to tackle widespread police abuse, and prison conditions remain among the worst on the continent. In 2007 fundamental due process rights, including fair trial rights, were threatened by proposed constitutional reforms allowing the indefinite suspension of rights during states of emergency. The reforms were defeated in a national referendum in December.

Independence of the Judiciary
The governing coalition in the Venezuelan National Assembly dealt a severe blow to judicial independence in December 2004 when it packed the country’s Supreme Court by adding 12 new justices. A law passed earlier that year expanded the court from 20 to 32 members. The law also gave the National Assembly the power to remove judges from the Supreme Court by simple majority, rather than the two-thirds majority required under the constitution.

Since the 2004 court-packing law, the Supreme Court’s judicial commission has fired hundreds of provisional judges and granted permanent judgeships to around a thousand others.

Freedom of Expression
While Venezuela enjoys vibrant public debate on political issues, laws passed since late 2004 have created dangerous restrictions on the media that pose a serious threat to freedom of expression. The Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, which went into effect in December 2004, establishes detailed regulations for the content of television and radio programs. For example, stations deemed to “condone or incite” public disturbances or publish messages “contrary to the security of the nation” are subject to heavy fines and can be ordered to suspend broadcasting for 72 hours. Key terms in the law, such as those quoted above, are ill-defined, inviting politically-motivated applications. The National Commission of Telecommunications (CONATEL) may issue “precautionary measures” that prohibit the transmission of outlawed content.

Government officials have regularly threatened opposition media with sanctions under the Law of Social Responsibility, though no station has in fact been sanctioned to date for its coverage of events or expressing its political views. During student protests in May and June 2007, for example, the Directorate of Social Responsibility (the government body that investigates infractions of the law) warned stations about transmitting messages that incite hatred and law-breaking, and announced that the directorate was in permanent session monitoring media coverage of the protests.

President Chávez has repeatedly responded to critical coverage by threatening television stations that they would lose their broadcasting rights as soon as their concessions expired. In the case of Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), he carried out the threat, announcing at a nationally broadcast military ceremony in December 2006 that RCTV would not have its concession renewed because of its support for the 2002 coup. Neither the accusation about the station’s role in the April 2002 events nor its alleged breach of broadcasting standards were ever proven in a proceeding in which RCTV had an opportunity to present a defense.

RCTV was removed from the public airwaves when its 20-year concession expired on May 27, 2007. Several days earlier, in compliance with a Supreme Court order, the military took control of RCTV’s transmission facilities across the country, enabling them to be used by TVes, a newly created state channel. RCTV has since renewed broadcasting as a cable channel.

The government’s administration of broadcasting concessions lacks transparency and is strongly influenced by political considerations. Other private stations which have requested permission to extend their frequencies and coverage from the government broadcasting authority, CONATEL, have had their requests turned down or ignored for years, while new stations recently created by the state, such as Vive, Telesur, and TVes, have quickly been approved for national coverage.

In March 2005 amendments to the Criminal Code came into force which extended the scope of Venezuela’s desacato (disrespect) laws, and increased penalties for criminal defamation and libel. At least eight journalists faced charges in 2007 for desacato, libel, defamation, and related offenses.

In contrast to its efforts to restrict private media, the government has actively promoted the growth of nonprofit community broadcast media, and has given substantial financial backing to new community media ventures. The regulations include safeguards to protect pluralism and prevent intervention by the government or political parties in community media. In June 2007 more than 270 community radio stations and more than 30 community television outlets were licensed and operating across the country, according to CONATEL.

Freedom of Association
An article of the 1999 Constitution which authorizes the National Electoral Commission (Comision Nacional Electoral, CNE) to organize trade union elections is a serious obstacle to freedom of association and collective bargaining rights. The Ministry of Labor has frequently denied unions the right to represent their workers because of delays in the authorization of elections.

Police Killings
Extrajudicial killings by security agents remain a frequent occurrence in Venezuela. Thousands of extrajudicial executions have been recorded in the last decade. Impunity remains the norm. Between January 2000 and February 2007, the attorney general’s office registered 6,068 alleged killings by the police and National Guard. Of 1,142 officials charged, only 204 were convicted.
Following several egregious murders implicating police agents, a long overdue police reform process began in June 2006 when then-Minister of the Interior and Justice Jesse Chacón convened the National Commission for Police Reform. After months of broad public consultations and debate, in January 2007 the commission published recommendations for remodeling public security institutions and strengthening police oversight. The reforms, however, had yet to be implemented at this writing.

Prison Conditions
Venezuelan prisons are among the most violent in Latin America. Venezuelan Prison Watch (Observatorio Venezolano de Prisiones), a Caracas-based group that monitors prison conditions, reported 370 violent prison deaths and 781 injuries in the first eight months of 2007. With a homicide rate of more than 20 per 1,000 prisoners, the risk of violent death is greater inside than outside prison walls. Weak security and corruption of guards allow armed gangs to effectively control prisons. Overcrowding, deteriorating infrastructure, and poorly trained security personnel contribute to the brutal conditions. Despite much fanfare, government plans to “humanize” the penitentiary system have not resulted in any notable improvements.

Constitutional Reform Proposals
In 2007 President Chávez and his supporters in the National Assembly proposed far-reaching reforms to the Venezuelan constitution. The reforms, which included 69 amendments covering a wide range of issues, would have enhanced executive powers during states of emergency to allow the suspension of due process rights (including essential guarantees like the right to fair trial and the presumption of innocence), removing constitutional time-limits on emergencies, and eliminating the Supreme Court’s power to review decrees that suspend rights.

A positive aspect of the reforms was the proposed modification of the constitution’s nondiscrimination guarantee to include sexual orientation and political views.

The proposed reforms were narrowly defeated in a national referendum in December.

Human Rights Defenders
Although human rights advocacy groups operate in Venezuela without legal restrictions, the government often questions their legitimacy and tries to block their participation in international human rights fora, typically on grounds that their work is political or that they receive US or other foreign funding. In December 2006 the comptroller general wrote to the Organization of American States (OAS) objecting to the publication on the OAS website of a report by the Venezuelan branch of Transparency International about Venezuela’s implementation of the Inter-American Convention against Corruption. Due to government objections, Transparency Venezuela was not allowed to present its report at a meeting of an expert panel of the OAS in June 2007.

Some human rights defenders continue to face threats and intimidation. They include María del Rosario Guerrero Gallucci and her husband, Adolfo Segundo Martínez Barrios, members of a human rights group in the state of Guarico that seeks justice for victims of police killings. The two were shot and wounded by a police agent in April 2006, and reportedly have been subject to repeated death threats. In July 2006 the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered Venezuela to take special measures to protect their lives and physical integrity.

Brett

I have to admit, mt knowledge of Venezuelan politics is significantly lacking but after reading Dax's and BD's posts I am reminded of the great Churchill quote: Democracy is the worst form of government other than every other one we've tried yet. I disgree, but only slightly, the best form of government is a responsible autocracy. Democracy only exists to prevent abuse of power to give (the appearence) of people having a say in their own government. But it is an expensive and often ineffectual system, open to abuse and often resulting in services to the constituents being delayed, poorly provided and at exhorbitant costs (to pay for the beurocracy it creates). If your leader genuinly leads the country with slefless intent to do only good for the citizens then does it really matter if they can't vote - what matters is how the country iss run.

Almost all of what I know about Chavez comes from BD's post, so you would think I would be in agreement with him. But to me it seems Chavez lies somewhere between tyrannical dictator and resposible autocrat. His policies seem directed at maintaining ublic order and service provision. Obviously I am in a tiny minority of people who believe that thr right to freedom of expression is far outweighed but the responsibility to not report or publish harmful material, but then again, the very same people who disagree with me are bound, but that position, to allow me my opinion. Perhaps trade unions are restricted, perhaps this interferes with the right to an honest days demonstration, but then again maybe the economy, and therefor all citizens, may benefit but the increased productivity. Regarding human rights abuses BD himself reports on efforts to curtial this. Perhaps they may not be effective but to catagorize Chavez in the same boat as the like of Mugabe and Achmeden... is inaccurate.

I am not praising Chavez, I am only commenting on BD's post. Simply not believing in democracy does not make you evil, especially if your reasons are selfless.

Regarding SA risking its democracy, SA does not have one. Democracy is fundamentaly based in he idea that the elected officials are bound to do what is best for the electorate because if they don't they will be voted out. Without this premise you have, what I call, an elected autocracy. As long as the vast majority of S Africans will vote ANC, regardless of performance, SA has no democracy

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Brett,
There is no such thing as "responsible autocracy" aka fascism.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And btw, not believing in democracy will make you evil.

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Dax and Brett,

Interesting to reflect on Chavez's antisemitic remarks. Gives his game away.

Perhaps you now get my point that "responsible autocracy" is standard fascism.

And as for Chavez's socialist programme.. remember the Nazis were National Socialists.

Brett

BD, did you hear the joke about the little boy that asks his father the difference between theory and practice? I can't tell it here, its not appropriate, but its a pity because it illustrates my point. In theory, responsible autocracy is the most effective form of government. In practice, as you say, power corrupts. The only successful responsible autocracies that I am aware of are those of the Jewish kings chosen by G-d. But since the days of prophecy ended we have not seen appropriate men rise to power.

I was not suggesting that Chavez is an angel, not even suggesting that he is a good leader. I was merely suggesting that many of your criticisms of him are, in my opinion (and your steadfast commitment to democracy demands that you respect it) not points to necessarily be criticized. As I pointed out - disempowering the labour unions may be a powerful stimulant for the economy, as it was (to my knowledge) in the UK when Thatcher did the same.

BD, we try on this blog to refrain for unsubstantiated sweeping remarks, so I would be much obliged if you could explain why not believing in democracy will make me evil?
Also not that I did not say we should disband democracy, I am with Churchill - there is no better alternative.

Also, yes, perhaps the Nazi's were national socialists, but so were the early zionist and Israel still is today in may respects, as is Canada and much of Scandanavia in the way the government provides services. Implying that national socialism leads to genocide unsubstantiated garbage.

Gary


I am a nationalist first and foremost a Zionist and therefore a nationalist. I also support all movements for national self-determination for every ethnic group. I am against multiculturalism and internationalism .
I support the European anti-immigrant movements that have been dubbed "Fascist" and "Nazi" because they want to keep their country's free of Islamic and Third Worldist domination.

I am against Marxist Communism because `I can think of no other form of government so certain to produce -slowly and steadily, like soil erosion, or the action of the tides-an erosion and corrosion of the human spirit. It cuts man off from all nourishment, from his metaphysical roots, from religious experience, from any feeling of in and as one with the world. It produces a dehydration of the soul , spiritual death.'
But I am open to non-Marxist forms of Socialism such as Peronism and Religious Socialism have a problem with Thatcherites and Libertarians who think that the free market is an absolute to be worshiped as some sort of god.
I am an economic centrist who believes that the economic system of a country must be based on what is good for the nation and the people.
I believe in free markets to create wealth and government intervention to redistribute it more fairly.
I hate Benjamin Netanyahu because his policies have caused Jews to live on the streets and Jewish children to starve in a Jewish state. for ideological and not practical reasons?
Does that make me a 'national socialist'?
More later, I have to go to Maariv and Minyan now.

Gary

I belive what Israel needs is not a free market economy but a social market economy where welth is created by the capitalist sector but social justice is maintained for the people of the nation by government intervention where neccesary.

An economy should never be based on ideology whether Marxist or Thatcherite.
It should be based on what is good for the nation and it's people.
Those who argue for privatization should argue on how it will benefit the economy but never argue for the sake of privatization based on ideological dogma.

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Brett,

My point really was that political leaders who don't believe in democracy will inevitably end-up"evil". The latter is a word that you initially chose and I wouldn't have rushed to select it. You can believe in what you like, as long as you don't run for political office on a platform of "responsible autocracy".

Re national socialism. I might be pushing the point, but it seems that Chavez has fascist inclinations. Antisemitism is usually an inherent part of fascist ideology. and as Mike has pointed out, Chavez subscribes to it.
Chavez's attacks on the media, judiciary and trade union movement are also indications that he has gone down the fascist road. This has not happened in Israel, Canada or Sweden. They are all multi-party democracies. They are not Nazi style national socialist states.

Thatcher, unlike Chavez, believed in multi-party parliamentary democracy. She might have attacked the trade unions but she was not an antisemite. She was not a fascist, even though many left-wing opponents labelled her as one.

Brett

BD

Thats exactly my point. I'm not defending Chavez as a ;eader. I am just saying that attacking trade unions and placing media restrictions (within reason) are potentially commendable. My post was a dig at those who hold democracy above all else, not a defense of those who do not hold it at all.

Gary, overall I agree with, I do however have to disagree on the Netanyahu aspect. He held the economy stable throughout the intafada - 4 years of what should have decimated the economy, the shekel, international investment, and he was the man in charge. Obviously if you can't see the hand of G-d in that you're just intellectually dishonest, but you have to give Netanyahu credit as the shaliach. Yes, he cut welfare, but as a measure to encourage work. As much as I am close to many chareidi communities, the sector that felt his cuts are those that chose to be unemployed. We are obviously digressing and entering major hashkafic territory.

But yes, on the whole I agree with limited and responsible governmental redistribution of wealth. But at the end of the day, contrary to what democrats might have you believe, you need to keep the rich rich, because if you take away their money (even if you define it as excessive) they won't have incentive to earn more and the wealth creation side of the plan fails.

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Brett,
Whether any restictions should be placed on the activities of trade unions in a liberal democratic society is a moot point. In The UK, for example, the police are not allowed to strike and most people would agree that this is reasonable.

However, I cannot agree with you that some restrictions on the media are reasonable. A free press is the cornerstone of a healthy democratic society. Politicians should be treated as inveterate liars unless they can prove that they are telling the truth. It is the job of the media to hound them relentlessly. Of course this does not mean that libel laws should be disregarded. But that is the job of the courts to enforce. It is not for politicians to decide what stories should, or should not, be reported.

I have to conclude that you are extremely unwise to make " a dig at those who hold democracy above all else." Without democracy, there is nothing except cruelty and injustice. With democracy, there is at least a fighting chance that such outcomes can be avoided.

Steve

Brett,
I have to go with BD on this one. Must say that you have all expressed your opinions very coherently - it's been a pleasure to read.

It's fine to have an opinion that there is a limitation on some rights but Chavez is certainly a poor choice of context to use as a platform for this discussion.

I also disagree with you when you say SA does not have a democracy. The democracy may not be strong and vibrant, but there is still a democracy.

Just yesterday Judge Davis issued a landmark ruling against Telecommunications Minister Ivy Matsepe Cassaburi regarding operations in the telecommunications industry. Govt fought tooth and nail, but ultimately lost to Altech. Duncan Mcleod has described it as one of the most important development in SA telecoms in our history.

So the judiciary, whilst being threatened, is still independant.

I have to therefore agree with BD, we are risking our democracy and threatening it, but to say that we don't have one anyway is farcical.

Are you suggesting that any country where the majority population vote for a single party is not a democracy? Its a weak democracy, but a democracy nonetheless.

They may control what the SABC broadcasts - but they have not control over what journalists in the MG, Sunday Times, Carte Blanche, e-news et al say.

Gary, if you lived in the State I guess you'd have to vote for Obama?

Gary

Steve wrote

"Gary, if you lived in the State I guess you'd have to vote for Obama?"

In fact not because Isrel and the War on Terror are thge two most important issues and if the USA does not win the war on terror the world will be overwhelmed by Islamo-Nazism.
Obama is weak on terror, and McCain may be the next Churchill.
So although I disagree with Republican ideology on economics, I suport MCCain as the champion in the planets gtreatest struggle for survival since World War II, and of course Israel's surivival and safety and security is the issue closest to my heart.

Gary

Also make no mistake, I do believe in a market based economy i.e a capitalist economy, I just dont think it should be an absolute as Thatcherites and Libertarians think.

Gary

Sorry I meant Israel and the War on Terror are thge two most important issues TO ME.
To most American voters they are not, including to most American Jewish voters, which is why most Jewish voters are backing Obama.

Also I am "socially conservative": I in the defence of life and traditional familiy against the crime of abortion, gay marriages and the adoptions by homosexual pairs.

Gary

Anthony, while autocracies always have the threat of descending into tyranny and mass murder, this is not always the case.

I believe in democracy but not all autocratic governments have been evil.

for example in the 1020s and 30s the Christian Socialist Dolfuss in Austria, was a brave man who courageously opposed both evil systems of Communism and Nazism.
Dolfuss chose a benevolent form of authoritarianism in order to combat the totally ruthless and genocidal totalitarianism, before being murdered by the Nazis who took power in that country.

the Salazar government in Portugal was the best thing that ever happened to that country. Salazar was anti-Communist, anti-Fascist and anti-Nazi.
He saw little difference between Communists, Fascists and Nazis, all of whom were wedded to the totalitarian ideal "to whose ends all the activities of citizens are subject and men exist only for it's greatness and glory'.
The Salazar administration disassociated itself from Nazi anti-Semitism, welcoming Jewish refugees fleeing their oppressors.

Franco in Spain kept that country stable and provided a high standard of living to his people.
A society which flourished.
If he had not taken power from the Marxist dominated- Republic Spain would have certainly been another Communist dictatorship with hundreds of thousands perishing.
Franco was a good leader and good for Spain.

The Perons in Argentina (who were NOT anti-Semitic contrary to propaganda) gave the people what they needed, and although labelled 'Fascists' did more for the poor in their country than any communists or ideological-leftists ever did.

And the Shah in Iran (although a monarch is not the same as a dictator) presided over a prosperous and peaceful society where women had more rights than in any other Moslem country (strange reading about that when we look at Iran today).

Sometimes we are faced with the choice of a more moderate autocracy and a more vicious authoritarianism.

Chavez however is VERY dangerous, he is an ideologue, I see a combination between Gaddafi and Stalin in that one.

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Gary,

Who do you think will win..Obama or McCain?

Gary

I hope McCain wins but I think Obama will win.

Shaun

Why is criticism of democracy or suggestions of censorship seen as an anathema?
True unbridled democracy should ensure the rights of everyone to do as they see fit, this is also called anarchy.
A country has a responsibility to protects its citizens, sometimes even from themselves.
Had there been no press censorship in June 1944 the papers and news broadcasts of the world would have been flooded with pictures and stories of the thousands of Allied soldiers killed in Normandy. This would have undoubtedly turned the majority of public opinion against the war…
“Bergen-belson was not liberated by liberal hippies and peace activists.”

Religious Fundamentalist 1

I generally tend to prefer minimal government except for a few essentials.

Of more interest though is the free speech discussion. I would recommend anyone considering the issue, and in particular the reasonability of constraints thereon to take a careful read through Ezra Levant's blog. www.ezralevant.com.

Lilly Web

Do you really think that Obama will win, what makes you say that????

Lilly Web,

Because Sarah Palin seems bonkers.

Gary

No, she's not bonkers at all, but too many people are swept up by Oamania to think clearly.

Steve,
With regard to media freedom the ANC seem to be going down the Chavez route...

http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page215461?oid=223119&sn=Detail

The following Jesse Duarte quotes are taken from the above.

“When asked what the agenda of these media could be Jesse Duarte (heads up communications and is the spokesperson for the ANC) replies that she cannot speak on behalf of the likes of The Saturday Star, Business Day, Citizen or Sunday Times. Adds Duarte: “What we all don’t want is for the media to influence the agenda of the ANC and this is a very real concern. We do believe that they do at times try to do this, particularly when it comes to the issue of media stories written citing unnamed sources.”

However why shouldn’t the media try to influence the agenda of The ANC? In democracies, papers of different political persuasions always try to influence government agenda. Why is The ANC so scared? They are, moreover, a ruling party who has already secured victory at the next election. Seems like they want MORE than their cake and just eating it.

Duarte also says: “We believe that there are journalists who are exceptionally hostile to the ANC and there are those who are objective and do their job. Our analysis shows that those who are not objective are the most hostile towards the ANC.”

Surely it is reasonable that there are journalists “who are exceptionally hostile to the ANC”. Isn’t that at the core of a free press? Do journalists have to be”objective” when they criticize the govt?

Dax

I've enjoyed the well articulated responses. I always learn a lot when I make a contentious comment. Rather than rehash what has already been said, I would like to add a couple more sticks to the fire...

Regarding free speech: It's obviously a good thing and people should be allowed to think and say what they want (although that also is subject to certain restrictions), however it seems that when it comes to people who have influence, we expect them to be moderate in the things they say and for good reason, because they can influence large numbers of people. For me, I think there is a big difference between the media and free speech. The media is a powerful tool, you can find many studies on the ability of TV to influence people. It can shape something to look one way when in fact it is nothing like that. For this reason I am actually quite supportive of media censorship. Obviously the challenge is going to be who decides what should be censored?

The other point I wanted to mention was this idea of capitalism, rich people, government interference etc. I have no problem with wealthy people being wealthy and becoming wealthier. The problem is this, who pays the price? When I see the directors of a company becoming wealthy because they aren't prepared to spend money cleaning up pollution, I think that's not right. When I see directors becoming wealthy through fixing the price of food and milk, staples of the poor, I think that's not right. When I see directors paying themselves huge bonuses but their workers not able to afford to feed their families, I think that's not right. This is why we need government intervention.

On democracy, the problem is that you need the voters to understand what the impact of their vote is. That is not the case in SA and in most countries actually. The other problem is that elected parties are only in power for a short time, then they have to worry about elections again. Many policies need to be in place for a long time to have effect and sometimes the policies hurt, so when it comes to election time the people are upset and they vote in the person who says they will take the hurt away. Environmental policies are an example of this. The earth is in serious trouble but we will not be able to do anything about it unless it is reactionary.

Enough for now. I look forward to your responses.

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Above comments from me.

Gary,
I am not an Obamaniac but I am not sure about Palin.

Steve

Regarding Duarte's comments, I find them unacceptable. So yes, the ANC does seem to want to take us down the Chavez route. They have lost control of their many heads (cosatu, yl etc).

Is the new National Democratic Revolution compatible with what we consider a Western democratic ethos?

When you consider the way the ANC wants to allow corruption to reman hidden, the way they want to disband the scorpions and the recent comments regarding the press, you have to conclude that our weak democracy is under threat. But yesterdays ruling against the worst telecommunications minister ever and the recent thwarting of the land expropriation bill are a sign that the institutions are just managing to keep their heads above water...its like the fat ANC cat is sitting ontop of them slowly trying to drown them.

Dax, you make valid points. Still, when people become wealthier the overall pie grows. To me its that simple. And we need people to get rewarded for their brilliance - otherwise they will follow the bucks. Gary has put it well, the problem is with ideologues. We want people to be able to create wealth but we don't want to ignore responsibility to the rest of the country.

I see Tito just got a 28% increase - that sounds outrageous to me. Not as outrageous though as the Eskom salaries. Still, its too easy to sit back and criticise big increases without having done too much research on the topic - and I dont have the skills to analyse tito's performance.

Brett

I think Shaun's example of D-Day illustrated the necessity of media restrictions. Take a more recent situation. During the second Lebanon war the Israeli press was reporting information that seriously risked the lives of Israeli civilians and soldiers. Troop movements, unit names, numbers, means of intellegence gathering were all being broadcast on public televsion in the name of free press. On newspaper printed a photo showing how close a Katyusha had landed to a Haifa power station, designating its exact point of impact. So now all the monkey on the other side of the border needs to do is a small calculation and next time he'll be on target. The press, as Dax said, is dangerous, and freedom of speech is not a blanket licence to report on anything regardless of the consequences. The press will never be responsible, they have too much money and power invested in reporting whatever they can. They need to be restricted. Granted, the mere allowance of restrictions is open to abuse, but is this abuse worse than the abuse the press already does of free speech?

Regarding rich people. A friend of mines gardener said to him a few years back. "You know, in apartheid we had seperate hospitals, and yours was much better than mine. Now we have the same but they are worse than mine was under apartheid". What is important is not the gap between rich and poor, what is important is the overall improvement of the status of the poor. If the average standard of living for the poorest segment of the population is increased 10% what does it matter if the rich got richer by 15%? To argure that hat 15% could be spread accross to everyone is called communism and I think history has proven how good that is

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Steve,
I agree with your contention that "our weak democracy is under threat."

And let me reiterate.. without democracy, South Africa will witness more cruelty, more poverty, more death and more destruction.

It is sad, if not pathetic, that more people do not understand this.

Brett

BD

I'll assume your childish insult was directed to me. So I'll answer.

The debate which I engaged in in this thread was on the vitues, advantages and disadvantages on democracy. To suggest that democracy is a perfect system would be so intellectually dishonest that debate with a person that holds such views I would consider to be futile.

It is obvious that without democracy SA "would witness more cruelty, more poverty, more death and more destruction". Indeed, its seems the country may go that way regardless of the system of government. The modern world and Africa in particular, have shown no indication of the ability to function on a responsible level without democracy, but this does not mean that the system;s negatives cannot be discussed without resorting to childish name calling.

Gary

Brett, democracy at least give a chance for people to deal with their grievances and aspirations peacefully.
Dictatorship leave people no choice.
Do you really think Zimbabwe would not be better off if the people had been freely allowed to choose their leaders?

By the way I do not believe in South Africa is a true democracy at all and I believe that elections have been rigged to give the ANC gargantuan majorities and to steal KwaZulu/Natal in 2004.
Also many people have been killed in the townships for supporting parties other than the ANC.
The ANC are again making threatening noises against the IFP and already several local IFP politicians have been murdered this year in KZN.

Brett

I am talking to the walls??????????????????????

Gary, no, I'm not saying that, where do you people see these things in what I write, you two should write fiction for a living.

I clearly stated that democracy, whislt seriously flawed is the best that we have at the moment. I clearly stated that no place at the moment, not least of all Africa, has the responsibility to survive peacefully under any other system - people are just too open to abuse of power. What I did say was that demcracy is not perfect, it is not the ultimate form of justice and modifications are sometimes necessary, the nature of those modifications would have been interesting to discuss here but between you and BD, you seem to be creating my side of the argument for me.

BTW, BD, re a previous post where you told me I can believe what I want just don't run on a policy of responsible autocracy. Sorry mate - democracy says I can run on whatever platform I wish to run on.

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Brett,
You write:

"BTW, BD, re a previous post where you told me I can believe what I want just don't run on a policy of responsible autocracy. Sorry mate - democracy says I can run on whatever platform I wish to run on."

In the 1933 Weimar democratic election, Hitler run on a platform of "responsible autocracy".
Sorry to put the jack-boot in but "responsible autocracy" is an oxymoron for morons.


Gary

It's the same thing with the Communists. They campaign in every democracy around the world for the end of democracy.
The funny thing about the communists is they always justify excesses by communist (and nowdays Islamist) regimes, but when the Communists are not given full democratic rights themselves (like in Argentina and Chile when they were under the thumb of rightwing millitary governmentes), the communists and Leftists around the world howled to high heaven.

Brett

BD

You either do not read what I write and post your little rants or your are an idiot.

I clearly stated that responsible autocracy is an ideal but in no way practical form of government. I clearly said that the last time there was a succesful autocracy G-d himself chose the leader. I find it interesting that neither you nor Gary have commented on my criticisms of democract but have rather chosen to attack postions I never claimed to hold. Have you been hanging around Judge Davis?

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Brett,

Let's assume that I read what you wrote but disagree with what you have written.

Am I ranting like an "idiot", because I stated that "responsible autocracy" is an oxymoron?

And if it is an oxymoron, is it not reasonable to conclude that people who believe it can exist in the modern world are "morons"?

( Btw, which autocrats did not imagine, when they looked in the mirror in the morning, that they were not divinely chosen?)

And just for the record, how should your so called "responsible autocracies" end? When the "responsible autocrat" dies should his eldest son take over? If so what guarantee do we have that he is also going to be a "responsible autocrat"? A divine guarantee??)

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Brett,

Please correct the typos and explain what you meant by the following..

You write:

"Obviously I am in a tiny minority of people who believe that thr right to freedom of expression is far outweighed but the responsibility to not report or publish harmful material, but then again, the very same people who disagree with me are bound, but that position, to allow me my opinion."

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Brett,

You write:

"What I did say was that demcracy is not perfect, it is not the ultimate form of justice and modifications are sometimes necessary, the nature of those modifications would have been interesting to discuss here but between you and BD, you seem to be creating my side of the argument for me."

Please explain what sort of "modifications" are sometimes necessary.

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Brett,

You write:
"BTW, BD, re a previous post where you told me I can believe what I want just don't run on a policy of responsible autocracy. Sorry mate - democracy says I can run on whatever platform I wish to run on."

Let's assume you run as a "responsible autocrat" in the next SA election. What policies would you put forward?
If you are voted in and we get fed up with you, can we vote you out?

Brett

Maybe if I type in bold you will understand, think of as the visual equivalent of talking slowly.

I DO NOT BELIEVE RESPONSIBLE AUTOCRACY IS POSSIBLE IN THE MODERN WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Essentially I should have nothing left to say since all your points are based on the assumption that I do, but what the hey, let me elaborate.

That that I do not believe it can exist today does not mean I do not believe it is a just and meritorious system in principle. Its downfall fall is that is depends on an absolutely benefocent leader, granted this is a fundamental flaw but if one assumes the possible existence of such a leader, the system in and of itself is a more effective form of government.I am make a theoretical argument, the reason for this applies to your other questions. If one believes that democracy is absolutely just, effective and faultless then there is little to be gained for the discussion. If on the other hand you are willing to accept that perhaps much, if not some, of the poverty, violence and corruption are as a result of faults in democracy, then it is wise to look for these faults, perhaps learn from other systems who,although overall less effective, are stronger in these areas. Perhaps then democracy as a system of government and justice, as opposed to an ideology, can be improved.

Before I continue, let me answer your last question. It is not a question. Let me explain. I stated what I did to point out one f the absurdities of democracy - that someone can use the system to destroy itself and without being unfaithful to the fundamentals of democracy, it cannot be stopped. Under what policies would a responsible autocrat run. he wouldn't. Our sages teach us that the first thing to look for in a leader is that he does not want to lead. Anyone running for office already has been excluded as a possible responsible autocrat. (Once again, this is a theoretical discussion on what can be learned from a system that provided peace and prosperity the likes of which have not since been seen, please do not insult yourself by asking silly questions like :then how can this person come to power? How is irrelevant, we're not looking to implement the system we're looking to learn from it.

Re the first queston: excuse the typos. Essentially, the social responsibility to maintain stability, security, economic growth etc outweighs the right to free speech. The press, in an ideal world, should assess the consquences of reporting a specific piece of information before reporting it. Just because one can publicize something (in that the law can't stop you) doesn't mean that you should. Unfortunately the press is not this responsible and so I believe the government has not the right but the obligation to enforce restrictions (albeit tightly limited to very defined situations) on the press. Yes, this is open to abuse, but with the correct involvement of all parties in government I believe the abuse can be far less damaging than the current abuse of free press. The second part was simply reminding that I have the right, under freedom of speech, to say don't believe in abslute freedom of speech. By the way, we already see such exceptions being enforced. Hate speech (as defined by judge davis as calling anyone a nazi except the Jews)is excluded from the right to freedom of speech. I am simply suggesting an expansion to include national security, economic stability (and if I had my way loshon horah).


What sort of modifications are necessary? have partially answered above but the biggest area where modification is needed I have no answer for, I can only point out the problem. Individuals can be intelligent, groups are not. Time and again we see, in the most thriving of democracies, that the winner of an election is not the person with the best policies, it is the best looking, most eloquent, best at public relations and most wealthy person in the race. Policy is secondary. You average person in the street will either vote for someone because the like him (usually for one of the above reasons) or because on one particular point, this person's policies will be good him personally, regardless of the rest of his leadership plan. People do not assess the overall worthiness of a leader just his relevance to him as an individual on the issues he holds dear. This is the essence of campaigning. Find out what people care about and tell them whatn they want to hear on that issue. Furthermore, your average Joe is not capable of assessing a leader's potential based on policy because to this he would need to be an expert on economics, health, sociology, education and many other highly specialized areas. So how is he supposed to chose the best leader?

As I said, I do not have an answer for this, but that does not invalidate the question

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Brett,

Your comments confuse me and I have to conclude that you have littered this blog with a string of contradictions.
If you do not want us to get the wrong idea about your "democratic" beliefs, you should attempt to write much more clearly.
To prove my argument...

You have just written..
"I DO NOT BELIEVE RESPONSIBLE AUTOCRACY IS POSSIBLE IN THE MODERN WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Posted by: Brett | September 07, 2008 at 22:36


But a mere 4 days prior you informed us..

"I have to admit, mt knowledge of Venezuelan politics is significantly lacking but after reading Dax's and BD's posts I am reminded of the great Churchill quote: Democracy is the worst form of government other than every other one we've tried yet. I disgree, but only slightly, the best form of government is a responsible autocracy.Democracy only exists to prevent abuse of power to give (the appearence) of people having a say in their own government. But it is an expensive and often ineffectual system, open to abuse and often resulting in services to the constituents being delayed, poorly provided and at exhorbitant costs (to pay for the beurocracy it creates). If your leader genuinly leads the country with slefless intent to do only good for the citizens then does it really matter if they can't vote - what matters is how the country iss run."
Posted by: Brett | September 03, 2008 at 13:35

In the circumstances, please withdraw your comment..."You either do not read what I write and post your little rants or your are an idiot."

I will leave others to determine whether you are an idiot.

Religious Fundamentalist 1

BD, while you are correct that Brett could express himself more clearly and eloquently, I think the fact that you're not getting his argument and finding contradictions is more due to your failings than his style.

As mentioned before, the more interesting debate revolves around freedom of speech/expression and not democracy. I think Brett places far too much trust in government to give them power to legislate against freedom of expression for matters not covered explicitly by libel, slander or defamation.

Legislation should not replace morality and discretion.

Brett

BD

There is no contradiction. Churchill said democracy is not great but the best we've got, I said its not great but the best we've got at the moment. I then proceeded to elaborate on its shortcomings. Criticizing the system does not mean advocating its removal.

Regardless, I enjoy this blog because, in general, the topics are discussed without personal attacks. You have consistently played the man not the ball. Not only is this counter productive t understanding each others point of view, it is also childish an unintellectual. I am ashamed to say that I have been drawn into you game a number of times in this thread and for this I apologize to you, and in particular to the other members of the blog.

Shaun

BD: The point that is being made is more to do with freedom, than your personal feelings on democracy.
The ultimate problem with any system of government is that it relies too much on people, and as a species with free choice, we are highly susceptible to all forms corruption.
As your numerous blogs have clearly displayed, in an open society we have the ability to say or write whatever we feel without any sense of responsibility.
In this context, perhaps the term “idiot” should refer to someone who sits at a commuter and endlessly blogs their own personal ravings on subject matter that is beyond their grasp.

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

"Brett",
I accept your apologies.

I have not been labelled a "dictator" and "blacklisted" for nothing.

Please bear in mind that I have no knowledge of who you actually are, so I really don't really believe that my attacks can be labelled as "personal".

Just for the record, I respond to most arguments on the internet as if they had been written by the chimps at Joburg Zoo. It is quite possible that they have a komputa and are on the net.


RFI,
You are not the first to think that I have "failings". There were even foolish teachers at school who pointed them out to me. Of course, they were talking out of their...

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Shaun,
Are you one of the chimps at Joburg Zoo?

Brett

There you go again, play the ball BD, not the man

BOB MARLEY

"Mr Brett",

If u no chimp, if Mr Shaun no chimp, proov it man. Let me see a picja or vid ov u typpin ya stuff.

Me play da man wen me kant see da ball.

BOB MARLEY

"Mr Brett",

Dis mite help u and "Mr Shaun",

LATEST NEWS FROM BBC WEBSITE (I kidd u not)..

If you have just had a big falling out with a colleague, there is nothing better than the comforting and consoling arm of a good friend.
Chimps, it seems, feel the same way, according to a study at Chester Zoo.
The research is said to provide the first evidence that consolation in primates, such as hugging and stroking, can reduce stress levels after a fight.
The behaviour could indicate some level of empathy, Dr Orlaith Fraser told the British Association Science Festival.
"We can't actually say what's going on in a chimpanzee's mind; we can only deduce from their behaviour what's going on," the Liverpool John Moores University researcher said.
"Because this behaviour is actually reducing stress levels and it's being offered by a valuable partner, it seems likely that this is an expression of empathy."

Dr Fraser and colleagues spent 18 months observing 22 adult chimps at Chester Zoo.
They watched closely what happened immediately after the animals had a scrap - perhaps a fight over food, a mate or simply where to sit.
In about 50% of cases, the victim in the fight would be consoled by another member of the group. The soothing was always done by a valuable - or best - friend, a chimp with whom the victim would routinely play or share food.


The consolation usually took the form of a kiss or embrace, a grooming session or even play.
The scientists could see that this activity had the effect of reducing stress levels, indicated by the return to the animals' normal activities of self-scratching and self-grooming.
"Sympathetic concern" has also been observed in gorillas, bonobos, dogs and even rooks - but it is the calming effect that it had on the Chester Zoo chimps which is said to be a new observation.
"If these chimpanzees are actually motivated by empathy to console victims of aggression, they must first of all be able to recognise that the victim is distressed and then they must know what to do in order to act appropriately to respond to this distress," said Dr Fraser.
"This is something often thought to be a unique trait to humans, so understanding the link between consolation and stress reduction in chimpanzees is an important step towards understanding whether or not chimpanzees are capable of this level of empathy."
The results of the Chester Zoo study were recently published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

I asked a German friend , now living in Caracas, Venezuela, whether he thought that Chavez is a fascist. I attach his reply and wonder whether there might be any similarities between Zuma and Chavez...

"Difficult to say. I think that although showing some fascist
tendencies he is more like the complete outsider without manners who marched from the low fringes of society to the top, a caudillo who never overcame his complexes, very moody and drunk by power, a former underdog with a licence to print money, erratic in his rhetoric but less so in his actions.
He is more a dubious "Maulheld" (nice German word) bigmouth, than a resolute fascist - so far. He might still evolve into an outright fascist."

Dax

Brett, thank you for your comments. I agree with what you are trying to say and for the record find your argument quite easy to follow.

Democracy may be the best option, but the practice is so far from the theory that I wonder if what we see in practice around the world can actually be called democracy.

BO

Dax,

You are obviously a lot sharper than me. Brett totally confused me. His comments could have been written in Japanese as far as I am concerned. But I nonetheless congratulate you.

Putting the "comprehensibility of Brett" to one side, please use your intelllect to address thefollowing questions...

If you can't call it democracy what would you call the system in The USA ??

Are you suggesting that the US election is deeply flawed and undemocratic? If so, what could the Yanks do to enable you to bestow upon them the cherished democratic label?

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Aboveposted by Blacklisted Dictator.

Shaun

While the US and many other countries may be a democracy, this system is deeply flawed.
Many people still recall that during the 2000 election, the majority of US voters cast their ballot for Democratic candidate Al Gore. The election however was won by Bush because he won the larger amount of Electoral regions.
Due to a number of voter irregularities in Florida, The US Supreme Court was asked to rule on the matter, a ruling that would decide the election.
The US Supreme Court is not an elected body of judges, but instead is confirmed by the senate after they are nominated by the president.
The Judges presiding over the case were all appointed and confirmed by the Regan and George Bush (senior) administrations.
I am not insinuating that the Election was stolen or rigged in any way. I am trying to point out that in the "world’s greatest democracy", the will of the majority of voters was cast aside.

Incidentally, if we assume that Democracy is the will of the people, then according to the US Census bureau, http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/004986.html
G.W. Bush is more popular now then when he was elected 4 years ago. Especially with only 36% approval.
My reasoning is as follows
Less than 60% of Eligible Americans voted in the 2004 Presidential Election.
This number was almost 10% more than in the 2000 election.
Roughly translated that means half of the 60% voted for bush, so about 30% of Americans voted for Bush in either or both elections. If bush now has 36% approval, he is doing a far better job than when he was campaigning for real votes.
Again this is not true, but democracy claims it is.

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

"Mr" Shaun,

So....The USA is up to shit.

(Of course, If Obama wins, the average South Africa will perceive it to be much more democratic than if he loses, but hey..that's PC "hypocrisy-democracy" for you)

Which nation on this planet, is the most democratic ?

Dax

Gosh, BD, if your real world persona is anything like your online persona, I hope I never meet you.

I do indeed think that the American system of government is deeply flawed and undemocratic. I don't believe that people having the opportunity to vote = democracy.

I'm not an expert on politics, but it does seem apparent that there are obvious flaws in these so called 'democratic' systems (apart from the flaws pointed out by Shaun above).

Firstly, one has to vote for a party not for individual policies. So while I might agree with some of the policies, I am forced to vote for all the policies of that party even if I disagree with some of them.

Secondly, it seems that parties often come into power on certain policies, yet change them when they are in power. That doesn't seem right.

Thirdly, we seem to think that Chavez is so bad, yet when we look back at how the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq on concocted excuses, which have been show to be outright lies, you have to wonder who the bad one is.

fourthly, the power of corporate lobby totally undermines democracy. Governments looks after the interests of companies, not the people.

My head is actually spinning with the endless list of shortcomings of modern 'democracies', unfortunately I don't have the time to type them all. I'm sure you get the gist of what I am saying. Some others have also been listed in my previous comments.

It seems to me that Chavez is less dangerous than Bush. At least we can see what Chavez is up to, Bush has tricked everyone into thinking he has our best interests at heart so we put up no resistance.

It seems to me that the world is really run by international companies. A sort of 'irresponsible multitocracy' (not sure that's a real word - but you get my meaning) hiding behing a facade of democracy.

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Dax,
I might know you. Were you friendly with Nadiva? Did you used to go to the Bassline in Melville and listen to performance poetry?

Dax

No, that's not me.

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Dax, Shaun, Brett and RF1 might appreciate the following comment posted by "amused reader' on Michael Trapido's blog:

http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/traps/2008/09/08/will-mondli-fire-zapiro/
Mike,
I, like most other readers, really enjoy your blogs, and do not expect an answer to everything i write. You usually are very calm and considered, and respond to the posts that interest you or that you feel add to the debate, a course of action that makes reading your blogs even more enjoyable.

For some reason, BLD, and BLD alone really pushes your buttons and you seem to lose your sense of calm and perspective. He makes the odd good point, but for the most part he is just plain annoying, immature and childish (like the pathetic i wouldn’t sell you a dog thing - honestly!). He was almost certainly spoilt by his mother. People read your blogs for your opinion not his, so why descend to his level at every tiny provocation.

Ignore him, don’t retaliate by saying you wouldn’t sell your dog to him either, it demeans you. Rather focus on more of your excellent and thought provoking blogs.
amused reader on September 9th, 2008 at 10:51 pm

(BLD is the Blacklisted Dictator)
( Trapido, wrote on his blog, that he wants to buy a Jack Russell puppy.)

Gary


So Dax, obviously you think that Islamo-Nazism should be appeased and that bush is a terrible man for fighting against it.
Whereas I believe that Islamo-Nazism is the threat to the world and we need to declare outright war on it.
I therefore think that history will one day recognize President bush as a modern day Churchill. It's pity more people cannot see that he is doing the right thing.
Dax, I presume that you think the Taliban should have been left alone to continue terrorizing their own people and exporting terror around the world, and that Saddam should have been left to complete his genocide of the Kurds and other minorities and threaten Israel and other states in the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction.
If Bush was removing right wing white Neo-Nazi governments, I wonder how many 'anti-war' lefties would still complain?

By the way, BD, I would rather cut off my right hand then go to Melville to listen to performance poetry with all those lefty hippy freaks.

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Gary,
I used to "perform poetry" at The Bassline wearing a gorilla mask.

Gary

Oh, was it your own poetry?

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Yes.

Brett

Gary, in principle I agree with you, in practice, (and not not saying this to be funny), Bus would need to be far more eloquent and inspiring to reach the level of being remembered as a modern day Churchill. Churchill did not just send men to fight evil, he rallied the nation, he was bold and a powerful and unabashful speaker. Bush has the right idea but unfortunately lacks the personality required to finish the job. I am a fan of Bush, I admire his committment to doing what he feels is right, not what is politically correct. If perhaps we could have had the will of Bush with the eloquence of Blair we would have got somewhere.

Dax, I am willing to accept that your assertion that the US invasion of Iraq was not justified by the evidence (although I believe there is ample evidence that there were WMB's) but the same cannot be said of Afghanistan. Their reason was clear, they gave an ultimatum, stated a goal and for the most part have been rather successful.

Religious Fundamentalist 1

I wasn't going to weigh in the discussion but this got me:

"Thirdly, we seem to think that Chavez is so bad, yet when we look back at how the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq on concocted excuses, which have been show to be outright lies, you have to wonder who the bad one is.

fourthly, the power of corporate lobby totally undermines democracy. Governments looks after the interests of companies, not the people."

A few fundamental points overlooked by those with (leftist/marxist) agendas and the myopic:

1) The US did not invade on "concocted excuses", it was really a decision on the basis of probability and likelihood, like every decision you make in your daily lives. Don't be fooled into the leftist rhetoric of "bush lied, people died", it's peurile and false.

2) The US's understanding of the situation was not nearly as bad as the media paints and a little proper research on your part (DAX!!!) will reveal that in fact evidence of WMD's and of their removal etc was found. The MSM buried it. If readers don't know the abbreviation "MSM" then there's no reason to explain further.

3) The "corporate lobby" and the "zionist lobby" etc are in no way different from the "marxist lobby", "leftist lobby", "pro-choice lobby", "save-the-whales lobby" and every other interest group. If you're buying into the rhetoric of the "coroprate lobby", then you're buying out of democracy! Lobbying is the hallmark of democracy.

Finally, pragmatically speaking "everyone" can't vote on every issue, hence the need to appoint leaders
(cf "Firstly, one has to vote for a party not for individual policies. So while I might agree with some of the policies, I am forced to vote for all the policies of that party even if I disagree with some of them.")

The idea of appointing a leader is much like outsourcing any other function in society. You choose a service provider, live with the results don't throw out democracy when the leader makes decisions that don't suit your personal agenda and then preach the same when it suits you.

While on topic have a look at Melanie Phillips post for today re Obama and the invidious marxist "community organisation" strategy.


BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

So what do I think about the world, scholars, Zapiro etc

Michael Trapido on Thought Leader writes:
" try and find any criticizm on blacklisted dictator's part against Britain, America, the West or Israel. Compare it then to his response to anyone who says anything against them.

Have a look at his attacks on people (many scholars included). Note a question followed by his interpretation of any answer or no response - then quoting his interpretation as if it is fact. Then he adds to it.

I trust you won’t miss his repeated lambasting of Zapiro because he only does cartoons of Israel never the other side. (Nothing to do with fair comment - just because he doesn’t do the other side) I also want you to look at the people he is lambasting and casting aspersions against simply because they hold a different view or just can’t
be bothered to answer any more. And this list is not exhaustive."

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Venezuela is expelling the US ambassador in Caracas as an act of solidarity with Bolivia.

Interesting to see how the SA foreign office respond.

Gary

The Axis of Evil is growing in Latin America.
What the Communists lost in Europe they are more than making up for in the Third World.
Not that Nepal is now led by the Communist Party and abolished it's century old monarchy to appease the Commies.

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Gary,

If you can believe Blade, it seems tha SA will soon be led by The SACP.

A few years ago, few whites thought that Zuma would take over. But he did.

Now few whites believe that The SACP will take over. Perhaps, once again, they will be proven to be wrong?

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

Chimps, Guys and Dolls,

The question that is rarely asked is.. "What would have happened (say circa 2003-2033) if "Saddam and Sons" had stayed in power?" I know that this question is impossible to answer, but opponents of the "War Criminals" seem to think that everything would have been lovey-dovey if the Hussein dynasty had not been removed by my friends.

Interesting to also consider, in the light of the above blog discussion, whether Saddam was a "responsible autocrat". I am sure that many Islamo/lefties consider him to be one. After all, ruling Iraq cannot have been easy. Perhaps torturing opponents was just par for the "responsible autocrat's" day? What can a responsible autocrat do to stop malcontents insurrecting and upsetting his "responsible state"?? Surely a few electric shocks on the genitals aint so bad?

BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

ChaveZuma?
I wonder whether the SA economy is heading in the same direction as Venezuela's. If it is, it might be an idea to stock up at "Pick n Pay" asap.


The attached is from Wikipedia..
A January 22, 2008 article from Associated Press states, "Venezuelan troops are cracking down on the smuggling of food... the National Guard has seized about 750 tons of food... Hugo Chavez ordered the military to keep people from smuggling scarce items like milk... He's also threatened to seize farms and milk plants..." Associated Press, January 22, 2008
According to the Banco Central de Venezuela, inflation dropped from 29.9% to 14.4%. During 2005, imported goods were cheaper than commodities made in Venezuela; variability in the price of goods was linked to import performance and exchange stability. In the second quarter of 2006, gross fixed investment was the highest ever recorded by the Banco Central de Venezuela since it started tracking the statistic in 1997. However, the BBC reported on February 15, 2007 that Venezuela's inflation rate rose to a two-year high in January, with consumer prices rising 18.4% in 12 months.
While the Venezuelan Government enjoys a windfall of oil profits, the business environment is risky and discourages investment, according to El Universal. As measured by prices on local stock exchanges, investors are willing to pay on average 16.3 years worth of earnings to invest in Colombian companies, 15.9 in Chile, 11.1 in Mexico, and 10.7 in Brazil, but only 5.8 in Venezuela. The World Economic Forum ranked Venezuela as 82 out of 102 countries on a measure of how favorable investment is for institutions. In Venezuela, an investor needs an average of 119 days and must complete 14 different proceedings to organize a business, while the average in OECD countries is 30 days and six proceedings.
Public spending in Venezuela has reached unprecedented highs, as measured by local currency Central Bank debt, which could increase inflation.
Chávez announced Venezuela's withdrawal from the IMF and World Bank after paying back all his country's debts to both institutions; he charged them with being an imperial tool that aims to exploit poor countries, news sources reported. But as of March 2008, Venezuela is still a member of both institutions. In June 2007, the Bank for International Settlements forecast an economic growth of 7% and a 18.9% inflation rate for Venezuela.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this Blog


Contact Us


  • Email_1

Events & Lectures

  • Advertise your event or lecture here

News Feed



Comments Disclaimer

  • Comments on this site are the views and opinions of the persons who write the comments and do not reflect the views of the authors of this blog. Comments are often left unmoderated. Should you feel that you have been personally slandered in the comments, please let us know and we will remove the offensive comment.