He left an indelible mark on Latin America.
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/sean-penn-on-hugo-chavezs-death-i-los...
He left an indelible mark on Latin America.
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/sean-penn-on-hugo-chavezs-death-i-los...
Hugo Chavez managed to leave behind improvements in several areas. Access to clean drinking water, education, proper nutrition and healthcare for the regular people all improved under Chavez, and that is a fact.
Compared to the policies of the country's (and continent's)previous dictators--and dictators they were-- at least Chavez' populist government was devoted to making the country's wealth work for the benefit of Venezuela's poor, rather than foreign interests and a tiny aristocratic elite.
Confronting in no uncertain terms the reckless, destructive foreign policy of the Bush Administration made Chavez a Churchillian figure among the masses of the hispanosphere, and abroad. Obviously economics were not Chavez' strong suit. I would recommend the Brazilian model, which integrates sustainable economic growth with gradual social improvement.
But then I always did like Brazilian models. That's a joke, sort of.
There has never been a vicious anti-democratic thug with blood on their hands whose evil the Left won’t manage to overlook, eh Spacey?
Well, I'm not part of anything called "the Left," inasmuch as that means anything nowadays beyond a convenient shorthand for innumerable, often conflicting movements and individuals. And I'm not overlooking any abuses attributable to Chavez' government. Those are a matter of public record. Crimes are crimes. Achievements are achievements. Facts are facts.
I remember another Colonel who ruled a Latin American country who passed away some time ago, a "vicious anti-democratic thug with blood on their hands." Chile's Augusto Pinochet managed to rack up a body count well into the thousands, but he was a darling of the Reagan-Thatcher set during the awful 80's. The overwhelming majority of Latin America's fascist killers stayed in power as a result of foreign, usually American sponsorship.
And yet, as bad as Pinochet was, one would be remiss to ignore the strength of the Chilean economy that resulted from his free-market economics. Again, facts are facts. I would only repeat that the path forward in that part of the world is one that combines the best of both worlds-- an economic policy that nurtures the private sector, while intervening constructively to raise living standards and reduce inequality.
And sometimes you need a radical to push things forward when the status quo is not moving.
We all know that free radicals are bad.
Negs wins!
Daltons chin dimple
Location:
Posts: 12800
Posted: 11 years 5 weeks ago
Well if Sean Penn says so, then it must be correct! Let's see.
- Spunked over £1 trillion of oil revenue but left behind chronic food shortages, little infrastructure with collapsing bridges and potholed roads. Unreliable electricity supply.
- Nationalisation of hundreds of companies, usually announced live on TV by Chavez with little of no consultation, resulting in a criminal controlled black market.
- An environmental catastrophe in some of the worlds most valuable eco systems by Socialist style reckless industrialisation.
- A capital with a murder rate higher than Kabul and Bagdhad combined.
And this is just his legacy rather than his actions. Sean Penn has always just been a 'useful idiot' mouthpiece.