David Aaronovitch Gordon Brown was right not to go to Lisbon at the weekend, but even so, there was something marvellous about seeing Robert Mugabe being Merkelled in the flesh by the German Chancellor. There, impassive, he was forced to sit while Frau Angela told him, in front of 70 African and European leaders, what a shower he was. Whether it improves anything or not, is another matter, but it felt good.
Four weeks earlier there had been a rather similar moment during the Ibero-American summit in Chile. Hugo Chávez, the populist President of Venezuela, had been laying about him with his characteristic lack of restraint. José Aznar, the former Prime Minister of Spain, was, according to President Chávez, a fascist, and, he added, fascists are not human. A snake is more human. When the current Spanish PM - an opponent of Mr Aznar's - objected to this abuse, Chávez continued to shout. It was at this point that the King of Spain, Juan Carlos, leant forward and told Chávez to shut his big, fat, sloppy gob. My Spanish is poor, but it was something like that. JC's admonition has become a popular ringtone around the world.
Though Chávez's Venezuela is not yet anything like Mugabe's Zimbabwe, Mugabe is Chávez's possible future, the 83-year-old former liberation fighter is the former general's Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come.
This symmetry appealed to me because, though Chávez's Venezuela is not yet anything like Mugabe's Zimbabwe, I cannot help thinking that Mugabe is Chávez's possible future, and that the 83-year-old former liberation fighter is the former general's Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come.
Mugabe, like Chávez, took power after elections that were widely agreed to have been fairly conducted. Over time his governing philosophy came to consist of an economic nationalism underpinning a state socialist system, mobilised by exploiting resentment towards a privileged minority (the whites), treacherous elites (journalists) and interfering foreign powers (Britain).
To varying degrees in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, the same national-Left populism is today in power. Industries are nationalised, oligarchies are excoriated, journalists are traitors and behind every reversal and problem is the demonic power of the Great Gringo in the White House. Powers are sought by the populist presidents, which, while they are argued to enhance the power of the people, unarguably enhance the power of the president.
The week before last, by a small margin, the people of Venezuela refused Chávez the extension to his powers that he had sought. Encouragingly, Chávez seemed to concede with good grace. Impeccable grace, actually, saying: I recognise the decision a people have made. A week later and more ominously the President was describing the people's decision as a shitty victory, and our - call it, defeat - is one of courage, of valour, of dignity, adding: We haven't moved a millimetre and we won't. Several times now he has seemed to suggest that the proposals, in some form, will return. This Bolivarian Republic will keep getting stronger, he predicted.
Incidentally it is almost always bad news when the word Republic is preceded by an adjective. Ask those who have dwelt in Democratic, People's or Islamic Republics.
Incidentally it is almost always bad news when the word Republic is preceded by an adjective. Ask those who have dwelt in Democratic, People's or Islamic Republics.
Before the Venezuelan vote there had been a convocation of British Signaturistas lining up behind Citizen Chávez. Exuding a reflexive sigh of admiration for the Bolivarian Revolution were the inevitable Pinters and Loaches, as well as Jon Cruddas, MP, who ought to know better, and Ken Livingstone, who never does. Anticipating a Si! vote, however, and demanding that the international community live with it, these progressives now contemplate the possibility that its is Chávez who cannot live with the result.
Of course, this may turn out to be wrong, but Mugabe suggests the trajectory: start with foreign sequestration, use the proceeds for internal bribery, watch the economy collapse and blame first the outsider and then the traitor. Finally, watch your people starve.
And Mugabe also suggests the trajectory of the apologists. There's a new dawn, shiny new clinics, optimism in each eye, power to the people and expropriate the expropriators. And if there are problems, such as a shortage of powdered milk in Caracas, then, according to Richard Gott, of The Guardian: No one knows for certain if this is the result of opposition manoeuvre and malice, or of government incompetence. Seventy years on and the class traitors are still putting glass in the worker's butter. Possibly.
But, as Julia Buxton, of Bradford University, reminds us, we must not judge Bolivarian democracy by our own lights. According to her there is a difference between popular perceptions of democracy on the ground in Venezuela, and elite' perceptions, articulated by the media and US democracy-promotion' groups.
Venezuela, she explains, cannot be understood through the lens of liberal democracy, because democracy itself cannot be judged through reference to the procedural mechanics of liberal democracy.
Venezuela, she explains, cannot be understood through the lens of liberal democracy, because democracy itself cannot be judged through reference to the procedural mechanics of liberal democracy. The implication here is the superior development of some other kind of democracy.
So Professor Buxton might have added that: It is the people themselves, who are incessantly called upon to participate personally in the decisions, not merely by expressing opinions about them in innumerable popular meetings; not merely by voting for or against their exponents at recurring elections; but actually by individually sharing in their operation. In fact this was Sidney and Beatrice Webb on the Russia of 1936, headed by a Stalin who, in a familiar inversion, the Webbs regarded as being more collegiate than the British Prime Minister. A shrewd and definitely skilful manger, as they described him. Or was that Gott on Chávez?
The other day I was asked if, given what had happened since, it had been wrong to support the Lancaster House agreement that led to majority rule in Zimbabwe. The problem was, of course, that it came too late. Mugabe was partly made possible by the conditions that created him: racism, colonialism and tribalism. So in South America the conditions for Latin Mugabeism were partly created by rampant exploitation, racism and the support given by the US to our bastards.
The alternative to Mugabeism will not be a return to the status quo ante, but - as in Chile - the painful and compromising development of good old, boring old, liberal social democracy. You know, with votes and MPs and stuff.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/11/2007 10:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
Roger reviews RedactedRenditionthat other damned antiwar movie, whatever it's calledIn the Valley of Elah and, in the process, advances an interesting hypothesis which could explain much moonbat behavior.
I came to this movie the tale of a retired military policeman (Tommy Lee Jones) in search of the murderers of his son, who had gone AWOL on return from Iraq - expecting to be put off by its antiwar message. But I was even more put off by the ineptitude of the film itself, especially the screenplay. . . . The whole enterprise was soporific and my mind kept wandering, only to be pulled back intermittently by intense antiwar screeds given, completely out of context, by various characters, as if we were suddenly plunged into a clumsy agitprop flick produced by the cultural ministry of some former communist country (Albania?). The writer-director apparently did not trust his own story to make his point, although, at the end, it is no more than the old chestnut War is Hell with a special (and entirely predictable) anti-American military fillip. And, for those still awake and with IQs under triple digits who could possibly miss the import of this fillip, [dircetor Paul] Haggis hammers it home with a metaphor more ham-handed than any I can remember in recent cinema. He has the formerly patriotic Jones solemnly raise the American flag upside down over his hometown the last image of the movie.
Although this puerile melodramatic gesture has been commented on in many reviews, few have actually seen it in the theatres. . . . But what fascinates me in this is not the audience disinterest in these turgid antiwar flicks. That was as predictable as the message of the films themselves. What interests me is what happened to the talented Haggis. Where did his skill go? Why did he make lets be honest such an atrocious film out of this material (originally a true story article in Playboy which he, apparently loosely, adapted)?
Haggis, unlike the DePalma of Redacted, was at the top of his career. So we cant ascribe this failure to comeback desperation. . . .
Perhaps its the Kucinich Factor.
What does that mean, you may rightly ask? Well, according to Wikipedia, like Sean Penn, Paul Haggis is a supporter of and donor to Dennis Kucinich.
Now if I were antiwar - which in the case of Iraq I am not, though I was during Vietnam I would run from Kucinich like the proverbial plague. The candidate is a slightly lame-brained, show-off narcissist who claims to have seen flying saucers and dances about like a Dervish, cavorting in any manner necessary to attract the attention of television cameras. Its hard to take him seriously and the public apparently doesnt. See, also, e.g., Cindy Sheehan.
He barely registers in the polls. In fact, I imagine Kucinich hurts the antiwar cause considerably more than he helps it.
A man as subtle and intelligent as Haggis must see this. But he evidently doesnt care. He makes a bigger statement by supporting Kucinich, a statement of a kind of leftist purity. Supporting Kucinich for people like [Sean] Penn and Haggis is more about them than it is about the candidate. So what if the candidate is a loser (who would want Kucinich to be President in real life anyway?)! What counts is that I (capital I in block letters) am for him. I am the true man of the left. . . .
As far as I know, Haggis is in no way an out of control personality like Penn. But the upended flag is clearly in itself a similar form of cinematic infantile hyperbole. If the world were as simple-minded as that metaphor it would be simple indeed like a Dennis Kucinich no strings dance.
And, as with the Kucinich campaign, the auteur of In The Valley of Elah seems more interested in demonstrating or parading his own views than in inducing others to agree with him. It is a form of showing off (like Kucinich) that does not make for great art. As somber, indeed grim, as In The Valley of Elah is, it is not fundamentally serious. Its a self-involved game (again, like Dennis Kucinich). No wonder its so boring.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/11/2007 13:59 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
See also REALCLEARPOLITICS > TWO PRESIDENTS IN THE WHITE HOUSE; + TOPIX > HILLARY IS STILL STRONG WITH WOMEN BUT STILL HAS A LOT OF WORK TO DO [to win 2008].
#2
This isn't a bug, it's a feature. The ability of one person out of twelve to stop either acquittal or conviction forces the jury to slow down and ponder further, something most people don't want to do.
Most people will convict a person because they are ugly, and acquit a person because they are pretty.
Most people are swayed far more by lawyer razzle dazzle than by evidence.
But the bottom line is people lamenting how they have to give up a few extra days, when their decision may put someone in prison for years. Yeah, bullying and being uncooperative isn't nice, but it's a heck of a lot better than putting someone in prison because of a bad complexion and being overweight.
#3
Leftist grassroots movements will doubtless affect future trials in this manner. By indoctrinating potential jurors in views sympathetic to jihadists and other anti-American ideologues, they will be setting the stage for jury nullification on a wider scale in "politicized" cases.
Maybe, but lying during voi dire is not. When you are challenged by the prosecution and the defense, as allowed by the judge, on what you've experienced or what you believe, you must tell the truth. If during deliberations it becomes clear another member of the jury was untruthful, through commission or omission, in that part of the trial process, it's time to call the bailiff and let the judge know that a fraud was committed.
#6
I'm thinking that about the time this Neal asshole said "fuck your opinion" was about the time he needed to be either taken off the jury or punched into the middle of next week. I'm for the latter option, myself.
#8
Today's jury system is nothing but theater anyway. Want real justice ? Then give IQ tests and pick only the smart for the jury, and don't allow the lawyers to have anything to do with jury picking.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich delivered the following remarks to a Jewish National Fund meeting at the Selig Center
I just want to talk to you from the heart for a few minutes and share with you where I think we are.
I think it is very stark. I don't think it is yet desperate, but it is very stark. And if I had a title for today's talk, it would be sleepwalking into a nightmare. 'Cause that's what I think we're doing.
I gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute Sept. 10 at which I gave an alternative history of the last six years, because the more I thought about how mich we're failing, the more I concluded you couldn't just nitpick individual places and talk about individual changes because it didn't capture the scale of the disaster. And I had been particularly impressed by a new book that came out called Troublesome Young Men, which is a study of the younger Conservatives who opposed appeasement in the 1930s and who took on Chamberlain.
Continued on Page 49
#5
Newt is a great thinker, but was piss-poor leader as Speaker of the House. Implementation is not his strong suit and that's the main job of the President.
#9
Ditto, the guy's sharp as a k-bar. Have always loved listening to Newt on H/C, Fox or whatever. He can dissect the problem down to the gnat's ass and articulate it so that even the dumbest drooler can understand.
#13
Mr. Gingrich is not presidential material, as proved by the fact he isn't trying to run. But he certainly thinks well out loud. General Patton never became president, either, Enver Javirt840. Being very, very good in one area most certainly does not guarantee competence in another.
#14
Newt has some dirty laundry, but he is a patriot and a conservative, and he is not drinking the koolaid. I think we could get behind him and put the finger on Islam.
#16
Part of the war we waged on the Soviet Union involved their natural gas supply because we wanted to cut off their hard currency. The Soviets were desperate to get better equipment for their pipeline. We managed to sell them through third parties very, very sophisticated American pipeline equipment, which they were thrilled to buy and thought they had pulled off a huge coup. Now we weren't playing fair. We did not tell them that the equipment was designed to blow up. One day in 1982, there was an explosion in Siberia so large that the initial reflection on the satellites looked like there was a tactical nuclear weapon.
Those who have closely monitored statements issued by Lebanese MP Michel Aoun, especially over the past few days about Lebanese Christians, and a statement by his parliamentary bloc will realize he is towing the Syrian-Iranian line that could propel him to the presidential palace.
He will neither look back nor refrain, at any cost, from agreeing with Syria whom until yesterday he considered his enemy. Overnight he has become a friend of Syria and the latter his master and the master of his March Eight Group on issues of Lebanon. This signals the birth of the Al-Baath Party the ruling party of Syria.
Aoun and his group, after getting support from the Syria-Iran alliance wants to divide the people of Lebanon. If Aoun reaches the presidential palace he will do exactly what his predecessor did take instructions from foreign parties. The majority of the Members of Parliament and the people were unable to do anything after the former president blocked their moves in the government and the Speaker of the Parliament dissolved the Parliament.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
12/11/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Gordon Brown was right not to go to Lisbon at the weekend, but even so, there was something marvellous about seeing Robert Mugabe being Merkelled in the flesh by the German Chancellor. There, impassive, he was forced to sit while Frau Angela told him, in front of 70 African and European leaders, what a shower he was. Whether it improves anything or not, is another matter, but it felt good. 
Four weeks earlier there had been a rather similar moment during the Ibero-American summit in Chile. Hugo Chávez, the populist President of Venezuela, had been laying about him with his characteristic lack of restraint. José Aznar, the former Prime Minister of Spain, was, according to President Chávez, a fascist, and, he added, fascists are not human. A snake is more human. When the current Spanish PM - an opponent of Mr Aznar's - objected to this abuse, Chávez continued to shout. It was at this point that the King of Spain, Juan Carlos, leant forward and told Chávez to shut his big, fat, sloppy gob. My Spanish is poor, but it was something like that. JC's admonition has become a popular ringtone around the world. 
To varying degrees in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, the same national-Left populism is today in power. Industries are nationalised, oligarchies are excoriated, journalists are traitors and behind every reversal and problem is the demonic power of the Great Gringo in the White House. Powers are sought by the populist presidents, which, while they are argued to enhance the power of the people, unarguably enhance the power of the president. 
And Mugabe also suggests the trajectory of the apologists. There's a new dawn, shiny new clinics, optimism in each eye, power to the people and expropriate the expropriators. And if there are problems, such as a shortage of powdered milk in Caracas, then, according to Richard Gott, of The Guardian: No one knows for certain if this is the result of opposition manoeuvre and malice, or of government incompetence. Seventy years on and the class traitors are still putting glass in the worker's butter. Possibly. 
