I thought it might be interesting to link to two articles about the same topic. Hugo Chavez.
This first one, from the New York Times, certainly does seem a little slanted. The headline is innocuous, but the text of the article accuses Chavez of becoming the next "Fidel Castro." But the New York Times just seems appalled by the idea that Hugo Chavez has enough money to spend on developing relationships with allies and improving their infrastructures.
This second one is a direct counterpoint to the Times article and it comes from the International Labor Communications Association. I tend to agree more with this one, but I wanted to offer both points of view before I proffered my own opinion of what Chavez is doing below.
I think Chavez is doing the most amount of good for people everywhere that he knows how. Of all the countries and governments in operation, it seems as though what Chavez is doing makes his the most Christian. He has the capital to undermine the damaging enforcement of the IMF and the World Bank and the gall to do it. That's a good thing.
It seems to me as though he's trying to provoke other nations with pointed verbal barbs and Christian deeds into getting them to follow suit. One paragraph in the second article really hit home:
Imagine a Latin America where the U.S. and Venezuela vied in seeing who could provide more doctors for the peasants of Guatemala and Brazil, or who could provide lower-interest loans for water projects in Bolivia or Ecuador. Imagine, for that matter, a Philadelphia where poor people didn't have to depend upon handouts of cheap oil from Venezuela to keep their apartments warm through the winter because of federal cuts in heating oil assistance programs.Perhaps, if more leaders acted as charitably as Chavez has, people would be better taken care of and have the things they need. To me, that's more important than all the money in the world.
Chavez, in my opinion, is a shimmering example of actual Christian values. Not those perverted to justify war and a disregard for the sick and the elderly and the poor.
3 comments:
The NY Times article is not about the giving but about egoism. A great deal of literature on the left is about the evils of the ego. The excuse for the failure of the Soviet Union was Lenin's and Stalin's ego. The excuse for the problems in China's socialized paradise was Moa's ego.
The reason the free market is bad, is because of the petty little bourgeoisie egos. There is a great deal of sillyness in modern liberalism.
As for the labor article. This shows how labor tends to unite with power brokers against the middle.
BTW. I wish you would print out a copy of the article and put it on all of the SUVs you can find with the note: This is where your gas dollar goes!
I'd take the ego of Chavez anyday over the ego of Bush, Cheney, Rove at al.
Green Jenni ...
You need to get a copy of the Black Book of Communism.
Speaking of being Green! It's wanks like Chavez who end up doing the most harm to the environment. If killing large numbers of people doesn't phase you, you should read about the environmental degradation that occurred in the Soviet Block.
PS. Lake Powell, TVA and other similar transform-the-world plans were all considered grand liberal schemes during their day. The Three Rivers Dam is happening in a Communist State!
People need to be careful on where their hate for Bush leads.
Post a Comment