[ceagstuntee]

In words, yes ...

But check your history ... it's never been that simple nor that clear.

Well actually slavery has been a party of human history since the ancient times. From Egypt to Africa to Europe to modern day slavery in Asia/Middle East/Eastern Europe it will unfortunately always be with us. The fact that America placed protections of the individuals in its charter "bill of rights" is a giant break with history and other empires. The Civil War was a culmination of this identity when it was clear America had to rid itself of this abomination. But as any human empire it is not without it's fault.

You can blame lame duck presidents, partisanship and uninterested/uneducated populace. But don't blame the country, which is the greatest this planet has ever seen and most humane. And don't belittle the ideals which all man hold dear.

[ToifvT5S]

I don't belittle them. On the other hand I hold actions much higher than words. Spewing forth platitudes is quite simple. Living up to the principles behind those words is much more difficult -- and seemingly beyond the grasp of many of those who choose to enter the game of leading the people of our nation.

And you can get off your high horse -- knocking down politicians and empty promises is as American as slavery.

[Idonnaink]

And Eugenious, you can quit with the Chavez bashing, because he was democratically elected with an overwhelming majority of the votes and the election was legitimate, unlike Bush. He also has a much higher approval rating than our Texas idiot. So, you can talk about ruling by decree all you like, but here's the truth: Bush is more of an imperialist dictator than Chavez any day of the week.

[oronozopiy]

Last I heard, Bush has not given himself the power to rule by decree (enforced at the point of a gun). Chavez has done that, in the long and hallowed tradition of tin pot latin american dictators (both left and right).

And Eugenious, you can quit with the Chavez bashing, because he was democratically elected with an overwhelming majority of the votes and the election was legitimate, unlike Bush. He also has a much higher approval rating than our Texas idiot. So, you can talk about ruling by decree all you like, but here's the truth: Bush is more of an imperialist dictator than Chavez any day of the week.

[MAKEMONEY]

Bush has not given himself the power to rule by decree (enforced at the point of a gun).

Tell that to anyone living in various parts of Iraq.

[ibupronec]

Last I heard, Bush has not given himself the power to rule by decree (enforced at the point of a gun). Can you say PATRIOT ACT, mikeW?? He did have help from a bullied Congress, of course.

[Gasfghj]

And Eugenious, you can quit with the Chavez bashing, because he was democratically elected with an overwhelming majority of the votes and the election was legitimate, unlike Bush. He also has a much higher approval rating than our Texas idiot. So, you can talk about ruling by decree all you like, but here's the truth: Bush is more of an imperialist dictator than Chavez any day of the week.

All pure bull$%#@. First of all just because he was democratically elected does not give him the right to destroy democracy. Because a large portion of Venezuela's population is poor they like his anti-US and anti-wealthy charades. Venezuela also has a large un-educated under class which Chavez used to grab on to power. Majority of the university students and upper and middle class are against his policies.

And whatever you might say about Bush he was elected by a good portion of this country (even though people might dispute the process). He is the worst President this country has ever had no question about that. But he is a saint when compared to Chavez. Chavez is a pure dictator, Bush is a evangelical conservative there's no question he did a lot of bad things.

Chavez is sitting on heaps of oil and destroying his countries economy with his inflationary measures and giving away Venezuela's money to other countries. Everything he's done for his people has been populist and counter productive. His land redistribution policies have decimated the agricultural sector, and driven food prices through the roof and introduced rationing. His campaign against the free media has closed down the older TV station in South America. His arms purchases have left Venezuela's army without what it actually needs (transports, training facilities etc.) and instead bought useless items such as (fighters, anti tank helicopters).

If Bush is not very smart, Chavez is a plain idiot that's slowly destroying any gains his country has generated through it's history and development of it's oil wealth.

[Jorcelirl]

Viva Chavez!!

[somamasoso]

Manuel Noriega gets out of jail in two months -- after 20 years of imprisonment.

(If that don't make you feel OLD then I don't know what will ... )

Manny is probably a bit stir crazy after all those years in the joint.

But he doesn't have many friends -- or places to go where they don't want to (1) toss him back in jail or (2) kill him.

Maybe Hugo will open his arms and welcome the Generalissimo back to the sunny tropics ...

[Extinimot]

"Why don't you shut up?" seems right to me. The tone with which it was spoken might tell more. He uses "te" addressing the President of Venezuela. Are they familiar friends, or does this indicate rudeness also, I'm not sure.

[giftplas]

I think the use of the familiar "te" (informal "you") indicates that the King was being dismissive of Chavez. In the video I've see the King basically had his back to Chavez -- and tossed the remark sharply over his shoulder. It wasn't said jokingly.

I'm not envisioning King Juan Carlos / Chavez being good buddies who hang out together

[77rexulceme]

I saw the clip on a Spanish language newscast. Well, there's no doubt he said shut up and it was with quite a scowl. Hilarious.
Chavez has the last laugh with all that oil wealth, God bless him. I love that guy. South American indiginous people had to shut up long enough while Spain had its way, it's about time Spaniards had to listen to a different tune.

Chavez has the hugely overwhelming support of the majority of Venezuelans in repeated elections despite a very loud and dissruptive minority.

He earned his position as leader of his country, moreso than any ridiculous royalty.

[DexOnenlyCymn]

Midtown, once again you show the tendency to support the violent extremist - he must be right if he's against the west. I think you have a Stockholm syndrome where you've become enamored with those tormenting you.

Even left wing papers like the Times have become alarmed by Chavez's censorship, his support for lawless criminality, his inflationary and misguided misuse of oil wealth. You don't have to love George Bush to oppose censorship and violent demagoguery. In fact, the Spanish government is very anti-Bush. But they also realize a danger when they see it - and Hugo Chavez is dangerous.

[68AttendGem]

Vladimir Putin has the support of 70% of his people. Does that mean he's a nice guy and we should just give him hugs and kisses? And by the way, Hitler/Stalin/Ahmadenijad were also democratically elected. This proves that without liberal institutions and safeguards, the mere act of supporting elections doesn't create a democracy. The fact that Jimmy Carter certified it in my view makes it even less likely the election was legitimate given his track record.

Elections are a necessary but not sufficient condition for building a democratic society - you also need rules of law and check and balances. Anyone who hates Bush as much as you seem to out to be able to see that given everything that's gone wrong in the past 6 years.

[Squeernemergo]

Why cant he be a diplomatic leader? So what if he has broken the Elitist leadership of his country and brought the wealth back from the US, does that give him the right to be obnoxious in the presence of his peers? Also he isnt doing his country any favours by making powerful enemies.

[Vokbeelllicky]

It's not just that Chavez is impolite. He's a thug. He's censored oppossition press, eliminated checks and balances, and empowered criminal gangs that intimidate intellectuals in Venezuela. He's a dictator in the making, moving in the same ways Mussolini and Hitler did to create an autocratic society.

And the demise of democratic institutions in Latin America would not be a good thing for indigenous people there - I mean get real.

[maonnjtip]

I think one person, when thinking about democratic institutions, is Fareed Zakaria. His theory is that you need to acquaint people with constitutional liberalism - a free a vibrant press, and active legal system, a system that permits challenges to absolute authority or misuse of police powers - as a first step before building a constitution. And then that constitution needs to describe enforcable measures to prevent the usurpation of powers within the context of a culture that will now allow it to happen.

Chavez did do 1 thing right - he broke the allocation of land to an inherited class that wasn't really helping the country. That's why he's popular. But then he went forward as a demagogue. The problem is there is no mechanims or culture within Venezuela to protect and defend people against dictatorial usurpation of power.

The king of Spain is revered in his country because he used the monarchy to instill respect for democratic government in the people after the demise of Franco. That's why Spain doesn't look like Venezuela. The Spanish king ha earned the right to be heard based on that history.

[CHEAPPoem]

Midtown, once again you show the tendency to support the violent extremist - he must be right if he's against the west. I think you have a Stockholm syndrome where you've become enamored with those tormenting you.

Even left wing papers like the Times have become alarmed by Chavez's censorship, his support for lawless criminality, his inflationary and misguided misuse of oil wealth. You don't have to love George Bush to oppose censorship and violent demagoguery. In fact, the Spanish government is very anti-Bush. But they also realize a danger when they see it - and Hugo Chavez is dangerous. Bull. He's no "violent extremist", he's a tough man who's got anti-democratic forces trying to take him out. Once again you show your tendency to buy into whatever drivel the mainstream capitalist press is telling you to believe. Your citing the Times just proves it. Are you talking about the New York Times? They've been ranting against Chavez since the beginning and I remember their shocking reporting and editorializing when there was the attempted coup. To call the Times left wing is absurd, but then again these terms are all relative.

Hugo Chavez isn't dangerous to anyone except the enemies of democracy and the imperialist vultures who wish they could control the oil wealth of Venezuela.
At least you acknowledge that the land reforms were a good thing. I'm shocked at you.
Another thing, I don't have anything personal against the good King of Spain, but I have nothing but contempt for monarchic traditions. Regardless of individual good deeds, in these modern times I think it's just absurd. Add to that the disgusting and shameful colonial past of Spain and you'd think they'd want to rid themselves of that reeking and stained tradition. If there is a hell, the King's precursors are all roasting in it. Such a gorgeous country, such an unthinkably hideous past.
Let's not even get into the USA's own despicable past in Central and South America. You want to throw the word dictator around, HAH! don't make me laugh. The ones who really WERE dictators, we supported!

That other unfortunate comment you made : "that's why Spain doesn't look like Venezuela" is lowdown even for you. Unworthy of a response, just a really creepy thing to say.

And let me tell you something: Chavez is no dictator. He was democratically elected and enjoys the continuing overwhelming supprt of his people. His policies are good for the people who have suffered in their own ancestral lands. Just because you keep labeling him a dictator doesn't make it so. He's been building schools and hospitals all across the country, why don't you tell me why the hell the opposition bastards, when they were in power, never did that in all these years? Maybe then they'll figure out why a man like Chavez was NECESSARY. Finally in South America indigenous leaders are being elected to power...that bill in Congress last week lumping all of them together with Iran was just disgusting and so typical of Washington. Congressman Jose Serrano's statements on the floor were quite enlightening, you should look for it on the CSPAN website.

The Stockholm syndrome wisecrack...save your 2-cent pseudo-psychological crap for a simpler subject; I'm way beyond you.

[HRCPda7R]

And the demise of democratic institutions in Latin America would not be a good thing for indigenous people there - I mean get real. One more time, read aloud...
he was elected, and Venezuela has never had so much democracy!

[MrGunjMan_]

So, is Iraq a democracy because of the purple thumb election? I'd argue that it isn't, because there is in practice very little rule of law in the country and ethnic criminal gangs who actually run most of the country engage in all sorts of intimidation and censorship. The most singular mistake of the neocon movement is to say election=democracy. It's necessary, but not sufficient - and its not clear it should be the first step if you ask me.

Like I said, if all Chavez had done was redistribute land in a rational way (somewhat like the US did in Hawaii in the 70s through eminent domain) and renegotiated royalties with the oil companies to pay for hospitals, I'd have no problems with that. But he's subsequently made Venezuela a haven for criminals and banned opposition television from broadcasting. In otherwords, the entire conversation we're having right now could land us in serious trouble if we had it in Venezuela, and even if it didn't, we'd be much more likely to be killed by criminals than we previously were.

I don't buy this neocon definition of democracy that an election which isn't build around a foundation of basic human rights, including some property rights and a free press, counts as an advance for liberty. If you're definition isn't a neocon definition, I don't see the difference.