Maria Anastasia O'Grady might be an hawk, but it is difficult to disagree with her last piece. If you do not agree about her claims on 2004 electoral cheating in Venezuela, you can hardly find fault with her condemnation of US polices toward Chavez since then, including present White House tenant. And you have to congratulate her for saying loud what many think secretly, even if you do not agree with her. Refreshing, no?.
-The end-
Showing posts with label o'grady. Show all posts
Showing posts with label o'grady. Show all posts
Monday, July 06, 2009
Monday, October 06, 2008
The post November US
Two articles today allow us to think that the US will not be as tame in its relations with Chavez, no matter which is the new administration. We already know that Obama and McCain have been competing in being the harshest on Chavez and his pals, but what these two articles make us see is that the "anti-Chavez feel", to give it a name, is percolating beyond the presidential candidates circles, an essential condition for a bipartisan policy against Chavez to be implemented.
The first one is an editorial, no less, from the Washington Post. Here the novelty is a clear petition that the US only helps friendly regimes and let the other ones sink in the "XXI century socialism" predictable fiasco. I am not too sure about the hang up about Correa who is weaker than one would expect in spite of winning his referendum in rather scandalous conditions. To begin with he lost in Guayaquil, his home state, thus previewing the rise of a strong opposition much faster than what many will expect. And second the dollarization of Ecuador's economy which will limit his range of action. If Correa dares to leave the dollar zone the backlash could quickly undermine him and create conditions for an early exit. After all dollarization survived the constituent assembly, the ideal time to make such change, and thus Correa might have missed his real chance at controlling all à la Chavez.
But the Post is right on one thing: the satellites of Chavez need more the US than the US needs them and it is simply fair that the US start using its leverage in forcing them to chose once and for all between socialist misery or democracy and a diversified economy. The resources recovered them can be transferred to more reliable partners or allies such as Colombia, Peru and the rest of Central America. Crisis or no crisis, "capitalism" and true democracy have demonstrated historically to be resilient, a re-inventive system whereas autocratic socialism has yet to establish a successful example anywhere in the world. Time is on the US side and Western values and thus it is time that the US starts speeding things up by choosing who to help: the other side will rot even faster.
The other article is from O'Grady at the WSJ. It is a direct warning that the congressional democrats need to put their act together. We do observe indeed a tendency from the House to be too lenient towards extremist groups while refusing to vote the free trade treaty with Colombia. However we cannot help but be dismayed by that congressional ambivalence that does not exist with Obama who is called to become their leader next November (I think it is in the bag for him as I cannot foresee how the GOP will recover in one month from the financial crisis). I suspect that once Obama is in the white House things will straighten up some as it has been clear that part of the ambiguous congressional posturing was for electoral purposes. Freed of that pressure and looking ahead to 8 years of rule the trade treaty with Colombia can be easily voted, in particular with the help of Chavez as he wants nuclear energy. We should not forget that we can always rely on Chavez to offer his enemies the necessary arguments to counterattack him.
If the current summary of Venezuela situation by Ms O'Grady is excellent (includes a video where she stumbles on the word Nuclear), we can still regret that she could not resist the cheap shot of showing Pelosi and Cordoba in chavista red. The picture was taken a year ago, when Cordoba was still not as implied in terrorist activity and before the freedom of Ingrid Betancourt. Since that picture was taken even Chavez publicly broke with the FARC (even if we all know that secretly he is doing anything he can to help them, but that is another story). Probably today Cordoba would not be received anymore by Pelosi. However this partisan moment of O'Grady does not diminish at all the main point she makes: the US Congress will have to chose sides if it hopes to retain any relevance.
-The end-
The first one is an editorial, no less, from the Washington Post. Here the novelty is a clear petition that the US only helps friendly regimes and let the other ones sink in the "XXI century socialism" predictable fiasco. I am not too sure about the hang up about Correa who is weaker than one would expect in spite of winning his referendum in rather scandalous conditions. To begin with he lost in Guayaquil, his home state, thus previewing the rise of a strong opposition much faster than what many will expect. And second the dollarization of Ecuador's economy which will limit his range of action. If Correa dares to leave the dollar zone the backlash could quickly undermine him and create conditions for an early exit. After all dollarization survived the constituent assembly, the ideal time to make such change, and thus Correa might have missed his real chance at controlling all à la Chavez.
But the Post is right on one thing: the satellites of Chavez need more the US than the US needs them and it is simply fair that the US start using its leverage in forcing them to chose once and for all between socialist misery or democracy and a diversified economy. The resources recovered them can be transferred to more reliable partners or allies such as Colombia, Peru and the rest of Central America. Crisis or no crisis, "capitalism" and true democracy have demonstrated historically to be resilient, a re-inventive system whereas autocratic socialism has yet to establish a successful example anywhere in the world. Time is on the US side and Western values and thus it is time that the US starts speeding things up by choosing who to help: the other side will rot even faster.
The other article is from O'Grady at the WSJ. It is a direct warning that the congressional democrats need to put their act together. We do observe indeed a tendency from the House to be too lenient towards extremist groups while refusing to vote the free trade treaty with Colombia. However we cannot help but be dismayed by that congressional ambivalence that does not exist with Obama who is called to become their leader next November (I think it is in the bag for him as I cannot foresee how the GOP will recover in one month from the financial crisis). I suspect that once Obama is in the white House things will straighten up some as it has been clear that part of the ambiguous congressional posturing was for electoral purposes. Freed of that pressure and looking ahead to 8 years of rule the trade treaty with Colombia can be easily voted, in particular with the help of Chavez as he wants nuclear energy. We should not forget that we can always rely on Chavez to offer his enemies the necessary arguments to counterattack him.
If the current summary of Venezuela situation by Ms O'Grady is excellent (includes a video where she stumbles on the word Nuclear), we can still regret that she could not resist the cheap shot of showing Pelosi and Cordoba in chavista red. The picture was taken a year ago, when Cordoba was still not as implied in terrorist activity and before the freedom of Ingrid Betancourt. Since that picture was taken even Chavez publicly broke with the FARC (even if we all know that secretly he is doing anything he can to help them, but that is another story). Probably today Cordoba would not be received anymore by Pelosi. However this partisan moment of O'Grady does not diminish at all the main point she makes: the US Congress will have to chose sides if it hopes to retain any relevance.
-The end-
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Let's not forget: the company they keep
On occasion still some PSF dare to thread these waters. Thus I know they keep reading this blog in the vain hope of finding one day a chink in the armor. So far, so bad.
So, for you all PSF that on occasion glance through these pages, this interview of Armando Valladares by Maria Anastasia O'Grady. You can say all what you want, that she is a paid agent of Bush, that Valladares sold out, that Raul is a nice guy, but the facts are the facts, no matter when in time they happened. As long as you do not at least acknowledge some of these facts, any of your pro Chavez arguments, usually nothing more than a cryptic anti US posturing, will have a woeful lack of credibility. Or, if you prefer, since according to you O'Grady and her subject today are guilty by association, so is Chavez, you must agree.
Deal with it.
-The end-
So, for you all PSF that on occasion glance through these pages, this interview of Armando Valladares by Maria Anastasia O'Grady. You can say all what you want, that she is a paid agent of Bush, that Valladares sold out, that Raul is a nice guy, but the facts are the facts, no matter when in time they happened. As long as you do not at least acknowledge some of these facts, any of your pro Chavez arguments, usually nothing more than a cryptic anti US posturing, will have a woeful lack of credibility. Or, if you prefer, since according to you O'Grady and her subject today are guilty by association, so is Chavez, you must agree.
Deal with it.
-The end-
Monday, June 02, 2008
The FARC files, Cuban bloggers, a Super Nova and Yves Saint Laurent
Interesting press review this morning.
Maria Anastasia O'Grady peruses old computer files.
The WSJ through the pen of Maria Anastasia O'Gady starts going deeper into the Reyes Laptop files. that is, beyond the infamous first page attention grabbing pages, she starts looking at what all these files actually mean, what they do reflect about the long terms goal of the FARC. Her major conclusion of interest for readers of this blog is that indeed Chavez is deeply involved in sustaining the FARC sagging fortunes and deeply committed to overthrow the Colombian government. No surprise here, but now we red it in a cold and dispassionate article that ends with this perfect line:
Alek Boyd returns from a Cuban not-vacation
Alek Boyd of Vcrisis fame is successfully reinventing himself. Last time we heard of him he had left London for sunny Spain while silly PSF working for "red" Ken, the infamous London mayor and Chavez agent would have liked us to believe that Alek was running away, scared by them on some judicial pretense. Amen of the failure of Red Ken to recover his seat in London which means that many of these sycophants such as Calvin Tucker are out of a subsidy and will need to find new ways to make a honest living. And to add insult to injury on these people, we see that Alek is coming back strong. He has understood one thing, that Vcrisis did go as far it could go in its anti Chavez crusade and that after the closing of RCTV and the FARC debacle he has little to say anymore: the whole world knows the truth on Chavez and Alek helped a lot. As far as Alek was concerned his job was done and he needed to explore new horizons. Thus Alek is becoming some sort of international human rights agent. His latest mission brings him to Cuba from where he brought us an interview with noted and award recipient Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez.
It seems that Alek has a future whereas the PSF sycophants do not not. Then again we all knew where the creative forces have all been all the time.
Yves Saint-Laurent is dead
After a long illness Yves Saint Laurent died this week end at 71. This might be weird for readers to read coming from me, but I was raised during the high years of Yves Saint Laurent and of all the "couture" folks he is the only one that I sort of followed through the years, not to mention that I often use Opium for men. Besides, I cannot always write about Venezuela and Chavez, no?
A Super Nova for you
It is unfortunately too rare that a scientific event makes it to the editorial section of a newspaper. Today we are in luck as the New York Times tells us about the first Supernova caught live, and the scientist that I am is elated, no better way to start a week for me than a good science report. So finally we see the hard proof of what all scientists knew long ago. It is nice and it is once again an illustration on how science works (and what a cooperative effort it is in the end as there are 42 names associated with the published Nature article). I wonder what creationists and other intelligent design folks are going to do with that information. Probably the same as PSF do: duck their head under the sand. Because PSF are like these creationist: we keep feeding them all the information on how the economic policies of Chavez will fail in the long run, on why he is just a terrorist, and yet, faced with FARC files and a rampant inflation they still come up with faith arguments. Birds of a feather.
-The end-
Maria Anastasia O'Grady peruses old computer files.
The WSJ through the pen of Maria Anastasia O'Gady starts going deeper into the Reyes Laptop files. that is, beyond the infamous first page attention grabbing pages, she starts looking at what all these files actually mean, what they do reflect about the long terms goal of the FARC. Her major conclusion of interest for readers of this blog is that indeed Chavez is deeply involved in sustaining the FARC sagging fortunes and deeply committed to overthrow the Colombian government. No surprise here, but now we red it in a cold and dispassionate article that ends with this perfect line:
In other words, there is no peace agenda. Only plans for a circus designed to undermine Colombia's democracy. The rest of the region's governments ought to worry about who is next.Now, if we had in Venezuela a truly brave press, such article should be immediately translated and published front page to challenge the new fascist "patriot" law Venezuelan style. We'll see.
Alek Boyd returns from a Cuban not-vacation
Alek Boyd of Vcrisis fame is successfully reinventing himself. Last time we heard of him he had left London for sunny Spain while silly PSF working for "red" Ken, the infamous London mayor and Chavez agent would have liked us to believe that Alek was running away, scared by them on some judicial pretense. Amen of the failure of Red Ken to recover his seat in London which means that many of these sycophants such as Calvin Tucker are out of a subsidy and will need to find new ways to make a honest living. And to add insult to injury on these people, we see that Alek is coming back strong. He has understood one thing, that Vcrisis did go as far it could go in its anti Chavez crusade and that after the closing of RCTV and the FARC debacle he has little to say anymore: the whole world knows the truth on Chavez and Alek helped a lot. As far as Alek was concerned his job was done and he needed to explore new horizons. Thus Alek is becoming some sort of international human rights agent. His latest mission brings him to Cuba from where he brought us an interview with noted and award recipient Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez.
It seems that Alek has a future whereas the PSF sycophants do not not. Then again we all knew where the creative forces have all been all the time.
Yves Saint-Laurent is dead
After a long illness Yves Saint Laurent died this week end at 71. This might be weird for readers to read coming from me, but I was raised during the high years of Yves Saint Laurent and of all the "couture" folks he is the only one that I sort of followed through the years, not to mention that I often use Opium for men. Besides, I cannot always write about Venezuela and Chavez, no?
A Super Nova for you
It is unfortunately too rare that a scientific event makes it to the editorial section of a newspaper. Today we are in luck as the New York Times tells us about the first Supernova caught live, and the scientist that I am is elated, no better way to start a week for me than a good science report. So finally we see the hard proof of what all scientists knew long ago. It is nice and it is once again an illustration on how science works (and what a cooperative effort it is in the end as there are 42 names associated with the published Nature article). I wonder what creationists and other intelligent design folks are going to do with that information. Probably the same as PSF do: duck their head under the sand. Because PSF are like these creationist: we keep feeding them all the information on how the economic policies of Chavez will fail in the long run, on why he is just a terrorist, and yet, faced with FARC files and a rampant inflation they still come up with faith arguments. Birds of a feather.
-The end-
Monday, April 21, 2008
In my mail box: Pacifism and Raul Castro
[Update: written fast this morning, I finally got around to turn it into more acceptable English]
Mail boxes are a good source of material when one has writer's block. Fortunately I receive enough "suggestions" to find one that on occasion is worth posting. Even more so when it strangely matches those received from newspapers summaries in one's e-mail.
The first item comes from American Thinker where a certain David Bueche wonders about the uselessness of pacifism as applied to Tibet. Truly a "Free Tibet " bumper sticker will not produce much results. I object, though, to the quotes from Gandhi about the Jews such as "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife". At the time Gandhi said that, his unique pacifist liberation of India had been successful; but a then aged Gandhi probably did not realize that the world he had known in the XIX-XX century transition was undergoing an even major transition where blunt violence was becoming sophisticated violence. David Bueche might be right in rejecting pacifisms as useless but he fails to realize that any oppressed group must go through a pacifist period to establish its moral superiority over its oppressor. Sad but true.
We saw it in Venezuela, all proportions guarded. In 2002-2003 the Venezuelan opposition was justified in trying to throw out Chavez. When everything is said and done, since 2003 Chavez has done much worse to undermine Venezuelan democracy than what Carmona promised for a brief 6 months period. Since this last one did not last 48 hours we will never know whether Carmona would have fulfilled his promise to a return to full democracy within 6 months. But the state control achieved by Chavez since 2002 has demonstrated to be more extended and more pernicious by far than whatever the loonies that accompanied Carmona intended to do. In case somebody forgot, in 2002 there was still decentralization and genuine autonomy on some matters for State Governors. The Judicial system was already somewhat compromised but still retained enough independence to produce the famous August 2002 on the "power vacuum". The media and the press where not forced into self censorship. The economy had still the possibility to rebound through the private sector. The extraordinary military spending that came later was not even imaginable then. Corruption did not seem to be any worse than whatever it had been. Electoral results were still respected by all.
All of this is over now as Chavez has successfully created a one man state where as expected economic woes are slowly setting in place in a permanent fashion and where corruption has reached unimaginable levels for the 2002 sycophant of whichever side. This has been made possible as the outside world looked at the violence of the 48 hours Carmonada as representative of all Venezuelan opposition and gave the necessary blind eye to Chavez power abuses that followed and led us to today critical situation. Our pacifist credential building period, to give it a name, finally came in 2006-2007 when the Reelection of Chavez was accepted and thus the man became careless and finally exposed his violent nature to the world by shutting down TV and repressing peaceful student protests. By the time Chavez openly supported the FARC he was done anyway, that support being the last nail in the coffin for international opprobrium. What comes next, more pacifism or more active resistance, is anyone's guess. But certainly if force is needed this time it will be better understood outside.
The other item that made me think some is a new OpEd by Maria Anastasia O'Grady from the Wall Street Journal. She does not buy the recent measures of Raul Castro to allow Cubans to buy cell phones they cannot afford to begin with, nor to allow them to get into tourist hotels by another door than the employees door. After all, once inside the hotel if they are not consuming they will be promptly shown the way out. For her it is all a matter of gaining time while Raul gets his new economical elite securely in place to make sure that no serious challenge to its power comes. In a way Raul Castro is expanding this now truism, the gatopardian principle: something must change to make sure that everything remains basically the same.
Raul Castro is of course aware of the bad image that Castro has gained since his opposition does not come from Miami alone. With the Women in White and the new wave of political prisoners of the recent years, even the mighty Castro of lore is finally tarnished among some of his most faithful international supporters... Fidel also understood that, but he just could not bring himself to make the first cosmetic changes; and even today he tries from his death bed to chastise his wanna-be successors who probably look on his missives with indulgent smiles. They know that things are changing in the hope that they remain the same in Cuba, and Castro can get a nice mausoleum.
The article of O'Grady is also interesting as it is a reflection of the strategy of Chavez. We could indulge in saying that Chavez is changing a lot to be able to go back to square one, a gatopardian exaggeration. But square one for Chavez is the XIX century caudillo with a coterie of faithful who made their fortunes courtesy of the good will of the caudillo. In that Chavez has probably been the model for Raul (as Putin and China are for both). Giving up on efficiency and productivity but understanding that in the XXI century a democratic fig leaf is necessary Chavez is set on creating a new economical gentry of people devoted to him because they will know that they owe it all to governmental favors, and from a government who can take it all away with a snap. Putin is an expert on that and in Venezuela already Chavez has shown to be willing to get rid of former allies who helped him reaching power. I expect that soon we will see one of this nouveau boliburgues rich bite the dust to remind the other accomplices of Chavez power.
The latest business nationalization wave must also be seen under that light. One of tis aims is to create a new managerial class at the expense of good business practices so that the least mediocre of them will become de facto the owners of the taken over businesses. A novel approach for sure in gentry creation and not the stated goal, but the unavoidable one as chavismo starts aging. The new forms of property advocated in the failed reform have not been discarded in spite of the referendum loss of last December. But that might be a blessing in disguise as Chavez will be able to adapt them to allocate in the future part of the nationalized business to new capital formed out of the revolutionary big piñata. After all, why not form for example a cooperative of capital from several nouveau bolivarian riche and sell them, say, a 20% stake in a nationalized business that needs to raise cash? That way for 20% stake and political support, these people could effectively acquire control of 100% of the said business. Remember, you read it here first.
Be it in Cuba or in Venezuela, the wished for result is the same. Pacifism, moral students, Ladies in White will not matter much when you control all the essential political levers and all the economical important ones. If pressure becomes too intense you can always allow them to buy new trinkets or buy in a rush a few containers of powder milk.
-The end-
Mail boxes are a good source of material when one has writer's block. Fortunately I receive enough "suggestions" to find one that on occasion is worth posting. Even more so when it strangely matches those received from newspapers summaries in one's e-mail.
The first item comes from American Thinker where a certain David Bueche wonders about the uselessness of pacifism as applied to Tibet. Truly a "Free Tibet " bumper sticker will not produce much results. I object, though, to the quotes from Gandhi about the Jews such as "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife". At the time Gandhi said that, his unique pacifist liberation of India had been successful; but a then aged Gandhi probably did not realize that the world he had known in the XIX-XX century transition was undergoing an even major transition where blunt violence was becoming sophisticated violence. David Bueche might be right in rejecting pacifisms as useless but he fails to realize that any oppressed group must go through a pacifist period to establish its moral superiority over its oppressor. Sad but true.
We saw it in Venezuela, all proportions guarded. In 2002-2003 the Venezuelan opposition was justified in trying to throw out Chavez. When everything is said and done, since 2003 Chavez has done much worse to undermine Venezuelan democracy than what Carmona promised for a brief 6 months period. Since this last one did not last 48 hours we will never know whether Carmona would have fulfilled his promise to a return to full democracy within 6 months. But the state control achieved by Chavez since 2002 has demonstrated to be more extended and more pernicious by far than whatever the loonies that accompanied Carmona intended to do. In case somebody forgot, in 2002 there was still decentralization and genuine autonomy on some matters for State Governors. The Judicial system was already somewhat compromised but still retained enough independence to produce the famous August 2002 on the "power vacuum". The media and the press where not forced into self censorship. The economy had still the possibility to rebound through the private sector. The extraordinary military spending that came later was not even imaginable then. Corruption did not seem to be any worse than whatever it had been. Electoral results were still respected by all.
All of this is over now as Chavez has successfully created a one man state where as expected economic woes are slowly setting in place in a permanent fashion and where corruption has reached unimaginable levels for the 2002 sycophant of whichever side. This has been made possible as the outside world looked at the violence of the 48 hours Carmonada as representative of all Venezuelan opposition and gave the necessary blind eye to Chavez power abuses that followed and led us to today critical situation. Our pacifist credential building period, to give it a name, finally came in 2006-2007 when the Reelection of Chavez was accepted and thus the man became careless and finally exposed his violent nature to the world by shutting down TV and repressing peaceful student protests. By the time Chavez openly supported the FARC he was done anyway, that support being the last nail in the coffin for international opprobrium. What comes next, more pacifism or more active resistance, is anyone's guess. But certainly if force is needed this time it will be better understood outside.
The other item that made me think some is a new OpEd by Maria Anastasia O'Grady from the Wall Street Journal. She does not buy the recent measures of Raul Castro to allow Cubans to buy cell phones they cannot afford to begin with, nor to allow them to get into tourist hotels by another door than the employees door. After all, once inside the hotel if they are not consuming they will be promptly shown the way out. For her it is all a matter of gaining time while Raul gets his new economical elite securely in place to make sure that no serious challenge to its power comes. In a way Raul Castro is expanding this now truism, the gatopardian principle: something must change to make sure that everything remains basically the same.
Raul Castro is of course aware of the bad image that Castro has gained since his opposition does not come from Miami alone. With the Women in White and the new wave of political prisoners of the recent years, even the mighty Castro of lore is finally tarnished among some of his most faithful international supporters... Fidel also understood that, but he just could not bring himself to make the first cosmetic changes; and even today he tries from his death bed to chastise his wanna-be successors who probably look on his missives with indulgent smiles. They know that things are changing in the hope that they remain the same in Cuba, and Castro can get a nice mausoleum.
The article of O'Grady is also interesting as it is a reflection of the strategy of Chavez. We could indulge in saying that Chavez is changing a lot to be able to go back to square one, a gatopardian exaggeration. But square one for Chavez is the XIX century caudillo with a coterie of faithful who made their fortunes courtesy of the good will of the caudillo. In that Chavez has probably been the model for Raul (as Putin and China are for both). Giving up on efficiency and productivity but understanding that in the XXI century a democratic fig leaf is necessary Chavez is set on creating a new economical gentry of people devoted to him because they will know that they owe it all to governmental favors, and from a government who can take it all away with a snap. Putin is an expert on that and in Venezuela already Chavez has shown to be willing to get rid of former allies who helped him reaching power. I expect that soon we will see one of this nouveau boliburgues rich bite the dust to remind the other accomplices of Chavez power.
The latest business nationalization wave must also be seen under that light. One of tis aims is to create a new managerial class at the expense of good business practices so that the least mediocre of them will become de facto the owners of the taken over businesses. A novel approach for sure in gentry creation and not the stated goal, but the unavoidable one as chavismo starts aging. The new forms of property advocated in the failed reform have not been discarded in spite of the referendum loss of last December. But that might be a blessing in disguise as Chavez will be able to adapt them to allocate in the future part of the nationalized business to new capital formed out of the revolutionary big piñata. After all, why not form for example a cooperative of capital from several nouveau bolivarian riche and sell them, say, a 20% stake in a nationalized business that needs to raise cash? That way for 20% stake and political support, these people could effectively acquire control of 100% of the said business. Remember, you read it here first.
Be it in Cuba or in Venezuela, the wished for result is the same. Pacifism, moral students, Ladies in White will not matter much when you control all the essential political levers and all the economical important ones. If pressure becomes too intense you can always allow them to buy new trinkets or buy in a rush a few containers of powder milk.
-The end-
Monday, January 14, 2008
Maria Anastasia O'Grady does Oliver Stone and Hugo Chavez
The point here it is not whether Ms. O'Grady might be a right wing nut in campaign against the US left as some would love to dismiss the WSJ. The point here is that she is so unto this whole hostage fiasco of Chavez, so clear in her evaluation and precise as to how the left in the US could not care less about Colombia or Venezuela that she cannot refrain herself to smile more than once during the WSJ video. A well deserved "gotcha!" moment for Ms. O'Grady. Her article "A Hollywood Yarn Unravels" reads more as a morality play than the actual real and informed news she summarizes. She does not need to emit judgment: the facts are for all to see, that is, for those that are willing to open their eyes.
I am reprinting the article below because sometime the WSJ takes article off the web, with my own highlights as she has choice expressions that are not to be missed.
A Hollywood Yarn Unravels
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
January 14, 2008; Page A12
It was Christmas week in the Colombian city of Villavicencio and the events, as they were set to unfold, had all the makings of a Hollywood blockbuster. If only the "heroes" hadn't been exposed as liars.
A 3-year-old boy, his mother and another woman, all hostages of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), were about to be freed. Credit for their release was to go to Hugo Chávez, president of Venezuela. Former Argentine President Néstor Kirchner had flown up from Buenos Aires to take part in the show. Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone was on hand too, eager to document the Christmas spirit of the revolutionary killers and their socialist sympathizers. The child, as luck would have it, was called Emmanuel.
The part of the villain was bestowed on Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, a U.S. ally who as a matter of policy has refused to give in to FARC demands for Colombian territory in exchange for the release of hostages. Mr. Uribe had also recently announced that Mr. Chávez was no longer welcome as a negotiator in the broader effort to free former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, three American contractors and 41 other politically valuable FARC hostages. He had jerked away the welcome mat after Mr. Chávez tried to bypass him and talk directly to the Colombian military. According to the script, even Mr. Uribe's stubbornness couldn't stop the big-hearted Mr. Chávez from winning the freedom of these three.
For Mr. Stone, an anti-American Christmas miracle was in the offing. His film would portray Mr. Chávez as a humanitarian hero while demonizing Mr. Uribe. But it wasn't to be an obscure foreign film with no American message. It would also complement the assertions of U.S. unions, other trade protectionists and President Bush's political adversaries, all of whom insist -- against the evidence -- that the Colombian president violates human rights.
Of course, the American left's current obsession with Mr. Uribe is not really about concern for human life. It's about the pending U.S.-Colombian free trade agreement, which they want to kill on "moral" grounds. Depicting Mr. Uribe as an intransigent right-winger is critical to their narrative. In this, the protectionists are allies of the rebels. The truth is that Mr. Uribe's restoration of law and order in Colombia has thrown the guerrillas back on their heels, and they are now frantically pulling the levers of international propaganda.
Over Christmas week the suspense surrounding the promised release was building. Mr. Chávez reminded TV viewers daily that his dramatic rescue plan had nothing to do with him and everything to do with his tender concern for the hostages. Mr. Uribe had agreed to allow Venezuelan aircraft to swoop into Colombia to pick up the two women and the child. The FARC had only to say where. But no word came.
The rebels blamed the delay on bad weather and on Mr. Uribe, who they said had mobilized his armed forces in the area. Mr. Uribe denied the charge, as did his top military commander. Mr. Chávez said Mr. Uribe could not be trusted. Meanwhile the Venezuelan minister for FARC relations, Ramon Rodríguez Chacín, made excuses for the rebels, who, he said, had to be ready for Colombian military actions against them after the handover. The guerrillas, he said, should "prepare their retreat strategy and take all the security measures they need."
Finally, on Dec. 31, Mr. Uribe held a press conference to give his "hypothesis" of why the liberation hadn't occurred: The FARC had lied when it said it had the child, and it had been trying to buy time to find him. In fact, the boy was in a foster home in Bogotá. The suggestion was a bombshell, but after DNA tests confirmed the fact, Mr. Uribe was vindicated.
Among the more shocking revelations was the FARC's inhumane treatment of the infant. His mother, Clara Rojas, who had been Ms. Betancourt's vice presidential running mate, was kidnapped in 2002. The child was born in a rebel camp in 2004, and was less than one year old when he was left with a local peasant. After about a month, his humble caretaker realized he could not treat the child's serious illnesses and took him to a local clinic, which transferred him to a hospital.
Press reports say that doctors diagnosed the baby with anemia, malaria, a parasitic skin disease, malnutrition and an arm that had been broken at birth and not treated. "Anyone would have fallen apart before this child, with so many diseases," the hospital director told the Miami Herald. "He didn't raise his eyes. He got toys but did not pick them up. He did not stand but dragged himself on his butt. He cried but no tears came because of the malnutrition."
When the news of the child's whereabouts broke Mr. Stone went away spitting mad, not at his FARC heroes, who had been exposed as child abusers, but at Mr. Uribe and Mr. Bush. Of the FARC he said, "Grabbing hostages is the fashion in which they can finance themselves and try to achieve their goals, which are difficult. I think they are heroic to fight for what they believe in and die for it, as was Castro in the hills of Cuba."
Meanwhile, with Mr. Chávez looking like a fool, the two women were finally freed on Thursday. The FARC had reason to help him try to salvage his image: As this column has frequently noted, it needs Venezuela as its main transit route for cocaine and as a safe haven.
Mr. Chávez tried to paint himself as a neutral, third-party peacemaker but a day later he peeled off his mask. We already knew that a diplomat from Cuba, which has been sowing terror in Colombia for 50 years, accompanied the hostages to Caracas, underscoring the ties between Mr. Chávez, Cuba and the rebels. We also knew that as the helicopter carrying the hostages took off Mr. Rodríguez Chacín called to the rebels, "keep up the fight and count on us!"
On Friday, Mr. Chávez went further, arguing that the FARC has a "true" army that "occupies space" and is therefore a "belligerent" -- a term that would give it standing under international law. He demanded that its terrorist status be revoked. Colombia called his speech "off-the-wall" but it knows better. Following the hostage release, this was a calculated move and is only the latest step in what is now Mr. Chávez's war, waged by the FARC, against Colombia.
-The end-
I am reprinting the article below because sometime the WSJ takes article off the web, with my own highlights as she has choice expressions that are not to be missed.
A Hollywood Yarn Unravels
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
January 14, 2008; Page A12
It was Christmas week in the Colombian city of Villavicencio and the events, as they were set to unfold, had all the makings of a Hollywood blockbuster. If only the "heroes" hadn't been exposed as liars.
A 3-year-old boy, his mother and another woman, all hostages of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), were about to be freed. Credit for their release was to go to Hugo Chávez, president of Venezuela. Former Argentine President Néstor Kirchner had flown up from Buenos Aires to take part in the show. Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone was on hand too, eager to document the Christmas spirit of the revolutionary killers and their socialist sympathizers. The child, as luck would have it, was called Emmanuel.
The part of the villain was bestowed on Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, a U.S. ally who as a matter of policy has refused to give in to FARC demands for Colombian territory in exchange for the release of hostages. Mr. Uribe had also recently announced that Mr. Chávez was no longer welcome as a negotiator in the broader effort to free former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, three American contractors and 41 other politically valuable FARC hostages. He had jerked away the welcome mat after Mr. Chávez tried to bypass him and talk directly to the Colombian military. According to the script, even Mr. Uribe's stubbornness couldn't stop the big-hearted Mr. Chávez from winning the freedom of these three.
For Mr. Stone, an anti-American Christmas miracle was in the offing. His film would portray Mr. Chávez as a humanitarian hero while demonizing Mr. Uribe. But it wasn't to be an obscure foreign film with no American message. It would also complement the assertions of U.S. unions, other trade protectionists and President Bush's political adversaries, all of whom insist -- against the evidence -- that the Colombian president violates human rights.
Of course, the American left's current obsession with Mr. Uribe is not really about concern for human life. It's about the pending U.S.-Colombian free trade agreement, which they want to kill on "moral" grounds. Depicting Mr. Uribe as an intransigent right-winger is critical to their narrative. In this, the protectionists are allies of the rebels. The truth is that Mr. Uribe's restoration of law and order in Colombia has thrown the guerrillas back on their heels, and they are now frantically pulling the levers of international propaganda.
Over Christmas week the suspense surrounding the promised release was building. Mr. Chávez reminded TV viewers daily that his dramatic rescue plan had nothing to do with him and everything to do with his tender concern for the hostages. Mr. Uribe had agreed to allow Venezuelan aircraft to swoop into Colombia to pick up the two women and the child. The FARC had only to say where. But no word came.
The rebels blamed the delay on bad weather and on Mr. Uribe, who they said had mobilized his armed forces in the area. Mr. Uribe denied the charge, as did his top military commander. Mr. Chávez said Mr. Uribe could not be trusted. Meanwhile the Venezuelan minister for FARC relations, Ramon Rodríguez Chacín, made excuses for the rebels, who, he said, had to be ready for Colombian military actions against them after the handover. The guerrillas, he said, should "prepare their retreat strategy and take all the security measures they need."
Finally, on Dec. 31, Mr. Uribe held a press conference to give his "hypothesis" of why the liberation hadn't occurred: The FARC had lied when it said it had the child, and it had been trying to buy time to find him. In fact, the boy was in a foster home in Bogotá. The suggestion was a bombshell, but after DNA tests confirmed the fact, Mr. Uribe was vindicated.
Among the more shocking revelations was the FARC's inhumane treatment of the infant. His mother, Clara Rojas, who had been Ms. Betancourt's vice presidential running mate, was kidnapped in 2002. The child was born in a rebel camp in 2004, and was less than one year old when he was left with a local peasant. After about a month, his humble caretaker realized he could not treat the child's serious illnesses and took him to a local clinic, which transferred him to a hospital.
Press reports say that doctors diagnosed the baby with anemia, malaria, a parasitic skin disease, malnutrition and an arm that had been broken at birth and not treated. "Anyone would have fallen apart before this child, with so many diseases," the hospital director told the Miami Herald. "He didn't raise his eyes. He got toys but did not pick them up. He did not stand but dragged himself on his butt. He cried but no tears came because of the malnutrition."
When the news of the child's whereabouts broke Mr. Stone went away spitting mad, not at his FARC heroes, who had been exposed as child abusers, but at Mr. Uribe and Mr. Bush. Of the FARC he said, "Grabbing hostages is the fashion in which they can finance themselves and try to achieve their goals, which are difficult. I think they are heroic to fight for what they believe in and die for it, as was Castro in the hills of Cuba."
Meanwhile, with Mr. Chávez looking like a fool, the two women were finally freed on Thursday. The FARC had reason to help him try to salvage his image: As this column has frequently noted, it needs Venezuela as its main transit route for cocaine and as a safe haven.
Mr. Chávez tried to paint himself as a neutral, third-party peacemaker but a day later he peeled off his mask. We already knew that a diplomat from Cuba, which has been sowing terror in Colombia for 50 years, accompanied the hostages to Caracas, underscoring the ties between Mr. Chávez, Cuba and the rebels. We also knew that as the helicopter carrying the hostages took off Mr. Rodríguez Chacín called to the rebels, "keep up the fight and count on us!"
On Friday, Mr. Chávez went further, arguing that the FARC has a "true" army that "occupies space" and is therefore a "belligerent" -- a term that would give it standing under international law. He demanded that its terrorist status be revoked. Colombia called his speech "off-the-wall" but it knows better. Following the hostage release, this was a calculated move and is only the latest step in what is now Mr. Chávez's war, waged by the FARC, against Colombia.
-The end-
Monday, June 04, 2007
Maria Anastasia O'Grady on video
You know that Venezuela and Chavez are getting center stage again when the Wall Street Journal does a video on Venezuela for its web site. This morning you can watch Maria Anastasia O'Grady talk for 4 minutes on the current situation in Venezuela. As usual she shows us that "she gets it" as she can explain things clearly, dispassionately. Watch this video, you will understand more about what is going in Venezuela more than after reading the pages and pages you read this past week. Unless of course you were reading this blog diligently :)
-The end-
-The end-
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Maria Anastasia O'Grady on Venezuela food shortages
As I have said often enough, Ms. O'grady is the foreign journalists that "gets" Venezuela and chavismo the best. On occasion she might miss some critical piece of data, or exaggerate some, but I will forgive her almost anything because she GETS IT, she gets what is really going on in Venezuela. Her recent article (subscriber only, but readers send me such stuff, thanks Al.Ma.) posted below in full, will explain better than anyone has done why is it that at my Central Maderiense I cannot find some of the regular food items that I took for granted a year ago.
But before you read the whole piece, I want to highlight this particular sentence, something that warms my heart to read from a foreign correspondent, something that Miguel or me have been saying for a long time but which was ignored as perhaps too unbelievable (maybe O'Grady reads certain blogs?).
¡Mas claro no canta un gallo!
(Spanish translation here, hat tip Klaus; full original below after you click)
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
A Circus But No Bread
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
May 21, 2007;
"The characteristic feature of the market price is that it tends to equalize supply and demand."
--Ludwig von Mises, "Human Action," 1949
The Venezuelan government will seize control of Radio Caracas Television on Sunday, finally making good on a threat to silence one of the country's most important independent news sources. It is no coincidence that this is happening at a time when Venezuelans are suffering a shortage of key foodstuffs.
Free-speech protections in Venezuela have been steadily eroding for the past eight years, and most other television stations already practice self-censorship. With the expropriation of RCTV, there is only one other independent voice -- Globovision -- left standing. This assault on free speech has even provoked criticism by the Organization of American States, which has been silent about President Hugo Chávez's many other offenses against democracy.
Having built his claim to legitimacy on the spurious assertion that he presides over a democracy, you can bet that Mr. Chavez would not have gone after RCTV unless he deemed control of TV news vital to his survival. It may indeed be. The reason is because the economy has been so mismanaged that a crisis now appears unavoidable. How it will end, in rationing and hunger or hyperinflationary madness, is hard to say. But when the whole thing comes a cropper, the last thing the president will want is TV images of popular protests that could be contagious.
From the earliest days of his presidency, Mr. Chavez made it clear that he intended to vastly expand the state's economic power. In 2000 he started politicizing the state-owned oil company PdVSA and hollowing out its professional engineering and marketing staffs. Shortly thereafter he took to expropriating farms, factories and apartments. When Venezuelan money began to flee, he slapped on capital controls. More recently, he has forced international oil companies to hand over Venezuelan operations and surrender majority control. He has nationalized the largest telephone company and the most important electricity utility. He is now threatening to take over the banks.
As government takings always do, these assaults on property rights have badly damaged output and investment. Yet the harm has been greatly compounded by three other pernicious policies: price controls, profligate government spending and inflation of the national currency, the bolivar.
Here's how Chavez economics "works." As petro-dollars pour into state coffers, the government takes them to the central bank to get new bolivars printed, which are then pumped into the economy through government spending. Mr. Chavez has also been regularly increasing wages. The result is a consumption boom. Under free prices, too many bolivars chasing too few goods would produce inflation that would show up at the supermarket checkout counter. But price controls make that impossible. Instead, serious shortages are emerging.
Free prices are to an economy what microchips are to a computer. They carry information. As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises explained in his legendary treatise 60 years ago, it is free prices that ensure that supply will meet demand. When Mr. Chávez imposed price controls, he destroyed the price mechanism.
And so it is that the Venezuelan egg is now a delicacy, the chicken an endangered species, toilet paper a luxury and meat an extravagance. White cheese, milk, tuna, sardines, sugar, corn oil, sunflower oil, carbonated drinks, beans, flour and rice are also in short supply.
The reason is simple: Producers have no incentive to bring goods to market if they are forced to sell them at unprofitable prices. Ranchers hold back their animals from slaughter, fisherman don't cast their nets, food processors don't invest in equipment and farmers don't plant. Those who do produce find it makes more sense to take their goods across the border to Colombia or to seek out unregulated (black) markets.
Importers also have little incentive to work these days even though the country needs food from abroad. Some things like wheat are not grown in Venezuela. Other products like milk, sugar and potatoes are imported to supplement local supplies. But the Chávez government has made it difficult to buy a dollar at the official exchange rate of 2,150 bolivars and if an importer has to buy dollars at the market rate of 4,000 bolivars it is impossible to make a profit under price controls. Even imports not subject to price controls can be difficult to find since import permits and licenses, as well as dollars, are hard to come by.
This is putting a crimp in more than just the food supply. According to local press reports, some 40% of the country's air fleet has been affected by delays in getting spare parts and the automotive industry's supply chain is hampered by a lack of access to dollars. Earlier this year hospitals began complaining that the servicing of medical equipment has been delayed because spare parts are not available. Hospitals are also reporting shortages of medicines for diabetics, antibiotics and hypertension drugs. Price controls on construction materials have damaged the reliability of supply.
To stock the state-owned grocery stores called Mercal, the Chavez government goes shopping abroad with dollar reserves. Of course, Mercal shelves are often bare as well. Moreover, some enterprising government employees seemed to have learned something about market economics: The Venezuelan media is reporting that Mercal supplies are turning up for sale just across the Colombian border, where market prices prevail.
Venezuelan policy makers can't be this dumb. The intention is not to feed the country but to destroy the private sector and any political power it might still have. In this environment survival independent of good relations with Mr. Chavez is nearly impossible. In the revolutionary handbook, capitalist producers and importers who buy things from the imperialists will be replaced by socialists living on cooperatives that will feed the country. The only trouble is that that effort is not going well, as Jose de Cordoba reported on the Journal's front page on Thursday. Lack of knowledge, equipment, incentives and organization have left the co-ops "mostly a bust so far."
To end the shortages all Mr. Chavez would have to do is lift the price controls. But with inflation already running above 20%, he no doubt fears the price jump that would follow. Much safer to seize RCTV and accelerate the consolidation of the military dictatorship. When the crisis comes, the chavistas will be ready.
-The end-
But before you read the whole piece, I want to highlight this particular sentence, something that warms my heart to read from a foreign correspondent, something that Miguel or me have been saying for a long time but which was ignored as perhaps too unbelievable (maybe O'Grady reads certain blogs?).
Venezuelan policy makers can't be this dumb. The intention is not to feed the country but to destroy the private sector and any political power it might still have. In this environment survival independent of good relations with Mr. Chavez is nearly impossible.
¡Mas claro no canta un gallo!
(Spanish translation here, hat tip Klaus; full original below after you click)
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
A Circus But No Bread
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
May 21, 2007;
"The characteristic feature of the market price is that it tends to equalize supply and demand."
--Ludwig von Mises, "Human Action," 1949
The Venezuelan government will seize control of Radio Caracas Television on Sunday, finally making good on a threat to silence one of the country's most important independent news sources. It is no coincidence that this is happening at a time when Venezuelans are suffering a shortage of key foodstuffs.
Free-speech protections in Venezuela have been steadily eroding for the past eight years, and most other television stations already practice self-censorship. With the expropriation of RCTV, there is only one other independent voice -- Globovision -- left standing. This assault on free speech has even provoked criticism by the Organization of American States, which has been silent about President Hugo Chávez's many other offenses against democracy.
Having built his claim to legitimacy on the spurious assertion that he presides over a democracy, you can bet that Mr. Chavez would not have gone after RCTV unless he deemed control of TV news vital to his survival. It may indeed be. The reason is because the economy has been so mismanaged that a crisis now appears unavoidable. How it will end, in rationing and hunger or hyperinflationary madness, is hard to say. But when the whole thing comes a cropper, the last thing the president will want is TV images of popular protests that could be contagious.
From the earliest days of his presidency, Mr. Chavez made it clear that he intended to vastly expand the state's economic power. In 2000 he started politicizing the state-owned oil company PdVSA and hollowing out its professional engineering and marketing staffs. Shortly thereafter he took to expropriating farms, factories and apartments. When Venezuelan money began to flee, he slapped on capital controls. More recently, he has forced international oil companies to hand over Venezuelan operations and surrender majority control. He has nationalized the largest telephone company and the most important electricity utility. He is now threatening to take over the banks.
As government takings always do, these assaults on property rights have badly damaged output and investment. Yet the harm has been greatly compounded by three other pernicious policies: price controls, profligate government spending and inflation of the national currency, the bolivar.
Here's how Chavez economics "works." As petro-dollars pour into state coffers, the government takes them to the central bank to get new bolivars printed, which are then pumped into the economy through government spending. Mr. Chavez has also been regularly increasing wages. The result is a consumption boom. Under free prices, too many bolivars chasing too few goods would produce inflation that would show up at the supermarket checkout counter. But price controls make that impossible. Instead, serious shortages are emerging.
Free prices are to an economy what microchips are to a computer. They carry information. As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises explained in his legendary treatise 60 years ago, it is free prices that ensure that supply will meet demand. When Mr. Chávez imposed price controls, he destroyed the price mechanism.
And so it is that the Venezuelan egg is now a delicacy, the chicken an endangered species, toilet paper a luxury and meat an extravagance. White cheese, milk, tuna, sardines, sugar, corn oil, sunflower oil, carbonated drinks, beans, flour and rice are also in short supply.
The reason is simple: Producers have no incentive to bring goods to market if they are forced to sell them at unprofitable prices. Ranchers hold back their animals from slaughter, fisherman don't cast their nets, food processors don't invest in equipment and farmers don't plant. Those who do produce find it makes more sense to take their goods across the border to Colombia or to seek out unregulated (black) markets.
Importers also have little incentive to work these days even though the country needs food from abroad. Some things like wheat are not grown in Venezuela. Other products like milk, sugar and potatoes are imported to supplement local supplies. But the Chávez government has made it difficult to buy a dollar at the official exchange rate of 2,150 bolivars and if an importer has to buy dollars at the market rate of 4,000 bolivars it is impossible to make a profit under price controls. Even imports not subject to price controls can be difficult to find since import permits and licenses, as well as dollars, are hard to come by.
This is putting a crimp in more than just the food supply. According to local press reports, some 40% of the country's air fleet has been affected by delays in getting spare parts and the automotive industry's supply chain is hampered by a lack of access to dollars. Earlier this year hospitals began complaining that the servicing of medical equipment has been delayed because spare parts are not available. Hospitals are also reporting shortages of medicines for diabetics, antibiotics and hypertension drugs. Price controls on construction materials have damaged the reliability of supply.
To stock the state-owned grocery stores called Mercal, the Chavez government goes shopping abroad with dollar reserves. Of course, Mercal shelves are often bare as well. Moreover, some enterprising government employees seemed to have learned something about market economics: The Venezuelan media is reporting that Mercal supplies are turning up for sale just across the Colombian border, where market prices prevail.
Venezuelan policy makers can't be this dumb. The intention is not to feed the country but to destroy the private sector and any political power it might still have. In this environment survival independent of good relations with Mr. Chavez is nearly impossible. In the revolutionary handbook, capitalist producers and importers who buy things from the imperialists will be replaced by socialists living on cooperatives that will feed the country. The only trouble is that that effort is not going well, as Jose de Cordoba reported on the Journal's front page on Thursday. Lack of knowledge, equipment, incentives and organization have left the co-ops "mostly a bust so far."
To end the shortages all Mr. Chavez would have to do is lift the price controls. But with inflation already running above 20%, he no doubt fears the price jump that would follow. Much safer to seize RCTV and accelerate the consolidation of the military dictatorship. When the crisis comes, the chavistas will be ready.
-The end-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)