| |
|
Mamblog Section -
Foreign Policy, Military and War
|
|
Written by Alvaro Vargas Llosa
|
|
Wednesday, 03 June 2009 |
|
Showdown In Caracas
June 3, 2009
Alvaro Vargas Llosa CARACAS, Venezuela—A group of foreign writers, academics and politicians was invited here to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Cedice, a Venezuelan think tank that promotes liberal democracy and the market economy, both of which President Hugo Chavez wants to destroy. The government’s thuggish reaction turned the visit into a public showdown that helped expose what Venezuelans are going through these days. Although there were visitors from three continents, the authorities took aim particularly at those from Latin America. Four of us were detained at the airport, in my case for three hours, and told to refrain from making political comments. We were followed by the secret police—known as DISIP—in cars with no license plates, and a hostile mob was sent to the main venue. Agents masquerading as journalists were instructed to provoke us. The president and his ministers took turns insulting us on TV from dawn to dusk. Once the official welcoming became an international media embarrassment, Chavez changed tactics and invited us to debate him and a group of “revolutionary intellectuals” none of us had ever heard of. The president did not really intend to debate, but we decided to put the ball back in his court. I suggested that novelist Mario Vargas Llosa, my father and the senior figure in our group, debate Chavez one on one. A few of us would accompany him to witness that basic conditions be met: no government mobs in the room, and live coverage on the government-controlled networks. Former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda, Mexican historian Enrique Krauze, Colombian writer Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza, our hosts Rocio Guijarro and Rafael Alfonzo, and others backed the suggestion. We put it to Chavez; as expected, he backed down. The Cedice event and the government’s response helped to convey a simple truth about Chavez—that the emperor has no clothes. Venezuelans had been told that we were imperialists bent on destroying the revolution. But Chavez needs no such help; he is doing a fine job of it himself. Two years after blocking the ability of Radio Caracas Television, the oldest network in the country, to broadcast over open airwaves, the government is going after Globovision, an independent network. Chavez has levelled trumped-up charges against the owner, Guillermo Zuloaga, who also has several Toyota dealerships and has been indicted for “hoarding” vehicles in order to resell them through “usury.” Globovision itself is officially accused of spreading fear for criticizing the authorities’ slow response to an earthquake and disrespecting the president. Chavez has promised to close down the network. Opposition mayors and governors have been stripped of their powers and are being viciously persecuted. Manuel Rosales, mayor of Maracaibo and a former presidential candidate, has received political asylum in Peru. The mayor of Caracas, Antonio Ledezma, who gave our group a welcoming speech, dramatically told us that his country is now “a dictatorship.” Retired Gen. Raul Baduel, a former Chavez loyalist who broke with the president during his first attempt to change the constitution in pursuit of “indefinite re-election,” is now in prison. The Official Gazette, where government decrees are published, has become an ode to theft. On a daily basis, it announces the takeover of local and foreign businesses—rarely with compensation. The nationalizations, often executed through violence, affect all areas of the economy: telecommunications, electricity, oil fields in the Orinoco Basin and oil field services, steel and cement production, banks, metallurgical firms, the food industry and agricultural land. The victims include Venezuelan, American, Mexican, French, Spanish, Swiss, Japanese and Australian investors. Only a few foreigners have been spared—notably Brazilian companies, because Chavez is begging Brazil’s government for money. The corrupt mismanagement of the state-owned oil company PDVSA has seen production drop by one-third. Given the commitments made by Chavez on behalf of the Bolivarian revolution when the price of oil was much higher, the government is seriously short of cash. Chavez knows that his political machinery, based on expensive patronage and intimidation, is in jeopardy. Thanks to Chavez’s overreaction, which gave the Cedice event a wider audience than expected, millions of Venezuelans were able to hear about our different experiences with authoritarian populism. They should take heart in the message that it can be reversed and that they are not alone in trying to prevent a second Cuba in the Western Hemisphere.
Alvaro Vargas Llosa
Send email
Alvaro Vargas Llosa is Senior Fellow of The Center on Global Prosperity at The Independent Institute. He is a native of Peru and received his B.S.C. in international history from the London School of Economics. His weekly column is syndicated worldwide by the Washington Post Writers Group, and his Independent Institute books include Lessons From the Poor: Triumph of the Entrepreneurial Spirit, The Che Guevara Myth: And the Future of Liberty, and Liberty for Latin America.
Full Biography and Recent Publications
© 2009, The Washington Post Writers Group
New from Alvaro Vargas Llosa!
The Che Guevara Myth and the Future of Liberty
Nearly four decades after his death, the legend of Che Guevara has grown worldwide. In this new book, Alvaro Vargas Llosa separates myth from reality and shows that Che’s ideals re-hashed centralized power—long the major source of suffering and misery for the poor. Learn More »» |
 Be first to comment this article |  Add as favourites (3) |  Quote this article on your site | Views: 15
|
|
|
Mamblog Section -
Rape, Sexual Assault and Abuse
|
|
Written by James Landrith
|
|
Monday, 01 June 2009 |
|
Cara of The Curvature on University of the Pacific Says Date Rape is Not Rape: I want to point out is not why this man is an asshole, or why students definitely need to get SAFER on their campus — it’s how the general rhetoric surrounding rape upholds this man’s views. It’s why I frequently put the "date" in date rape in scare quotes. Because I believe it’s a shitty phrase. I think that in some ways, the phrase "date rape" has indeed been useful, in the sense of getting out the idea that there’s more than one rape scenario, and it’s not all men jumping out of bushes. And I also know that some survivors, including a close friend I had once, find it comforting and prefer to use it, rather than just the term rape. And I have no interest in taking away people’s right to identify and name their experiences as they wish. But far too many people have taken the concept that there is more than one "kind" of rape and twisted it into a hierarchy. Yet again, we’re back to the concept of "real" rape and the idea that most rapes don’t deserve the label. Now, we have two different classes popularly accepted in society — date rape and rape. Or, it could be said, date rape and real rape. After all, the "date" modifier is there for a reason.
Cara is responding to ridiculous and unnecessary comments made by Richard Rojo, a spokesman for the University as reported by Recordnet.com: Pacific spokesman Richard Rojo said Thursday that the school does not consider the incident to be a rape. "We would call it date rape," he said. Rojo said the university considers "outright rape" and date rape to be different, in that date rape does not involve "a rapist jumping out of bushes and attacking people randomly." He said, "These are people who knew each other. ... It's a social situation and unfortunately an all-too common problem at universities. "It doesn't make it right. It's a sexual assault, and that's why the university took action in this matter."
Rojo is clearly downplaying the seriousness of the rapes by using deliberately weaker language while simultaneously trying to appear to take the matter seriously. It is a transparent and repugnant display and one the University needs to address immediately. Why is this arbitrary distinction so desired and important that Rojo felt the need to elaborate at length? The woman who raped me did not jump out of the bushes. She used a spiked drink to subdue me, and then employed blackmail to keep me compliant once the effects of the drugged drink wore off. Given that I met her earlier in the evening, I guess that just makes it a "social situation" and not "real rape", regardless of the outcome. Ugh. Somedays I really just hate people… Relevant Links: Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (38) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 493 |
|
|
Mamblog Section -
Economics and Financial Services
|
|
Written by James Landrith
|
|
Monday, 01 June 2009 |
|
For several years I worked at America's Community Bankers in the Government Relations department. Aside from the daily work assisting the EVP, I was assigned project management responsibilties for several annual programs, publications, projects and special events. One of the projects I helped to coordinate involved the establishment of a community bank index for NASDAQ. My main contribution to the project involved many, many, many hours of scouring community bank, savings institution and holding company information from multiple sources in order to identify qualifying NASDAQ members for the index. When the American Bankers Association and America's Community Bankers announced their merger, I was concerned about the survival of some of my pet projects, publications I helped edit and other efforts that I spent seven years helping to construct, expand and improve upon. I am happy to see that the ACB NASDAQ Community Bank Index (ACBQ) was one of the projects to survive the merger. While the name has changed, the purpose and selection criteria seems to have stayed the same. So, the new members of the ABA NASDAQ Community Bank Index (ABAQ) added as of today are: California First National Bancshares (CFNB), Irvine, Calif. 1st Century Bancshares Inc. (FCTY), Los Angeles, Calif. Oak Valley Bancorp (OVLY), Oakdale, Calif. The Bank of Kentucky Financial Corp. (BKYF), Crestview Hills, Ky. DNB Financial Corp. (DNBF), Downingtown, Pa. Tower Bancorp Inc. (TOBC), Harrisburg, Pa. Orrstown Financial Services Inc. (ORRF), Shippensburg, Pa.
For more information on the Index, visit: Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (30) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 476 |
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 01 June 2009 )
|
|
|
Mamblog Section -
Foreign Policy, Military and War
|
|
Written by Ivan Eland
|
|
Monday, 01 June 2009 |
|
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict—Why the U.S. Should Care Less
June 1, 2009
Ivan Eland
Hillary Clinton’s blunt public statement that President Obama “wants to see a stop to settlements—not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions” made for good headlines. The Israelis were shocked and upset that their slavish ally had acted slightly less obsequious and engaged in a public spat with them. This ballyhooed baby step came after Obama had raised halting Israeli settlements in the West Bank privately with hawkish Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House—only to get the push back that, at minimum, Israel would have to allow the “natural growth” of settlements to match population expansion. Yet Obama is only one of a string of U.S. presidents, beginning with Ronald Reagan, to press the Israelis to stop such settlement activity. Despite billions in U.S. military and economic aid to Israel, the Israelis won’t even accommodate this seemingly modest U.S. request. That’s because the request is not modest and cuts to the heart of Israeli strategy. With current demographic trends, even many on the Israeli right realize that Israel will eventually have to acquiesce to a two-state solution. If the West Bank and Gaza aren’t jettisoned, Arab population expansion, which is higher than Jewish growth, will eventually make the Jews minority rulers in an ostensibly democratic state—similar to apartheid South Africa. Thus, if democracy with a Jewish majority is to be preserved, the Palestinians will have to be given some sort of a state. That said, the longer that outcome can be delayed, the better for Israel because proliferating and expanding Jewish settlements can continue—thereby grabbing greater amounts of the best Palestinian land and leaving the Palestinians the meager scraps. Any affirmative Israeli response to U.S. pressure to halt settlements would ruin this underlying Israeli strategy of getting more Palestinian land while the gettin’s good. Of course, these continued Israeli salami tactics have weakened the moderate Palestinian leadership, who has nothing to show for its years of negotiation with Israel, and vastly strengthened the more strident Hamas, which does not acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. Thus, Israel may wait too long to accept and implement the two-state solution so that it is no longer possible. Thus, the Israelis will be forced to give up their ideal of a Jewish democracy for an apartheid-style minority rule. But the real question may be why the United States should care. For the U.S., what Israel does is more a domestic issue than a national security concern. After the Cold War, a U.S. alliance with Israel gets the United States very little and merely antagonizes Middle Eastern oil producing nations. Although the United States gives Israel billions in aid every year, Israel is in the driver’s seat in the bilateral relationship because U.S. politicians—both Democratic and Republican—feel they need the support of the powerful Israeli lobby to get elected. The moral claim that Israel is a small, embattled democracy surrounded by Arab dictatorships is nullified by the fact that much of Israel sits on land stolen by force of arms. Prior to the ethnic cleansing of Arabs before and during Israel’s 1948 “war for independence,” Jews owned only seven percent of the land in Palestine. After the ethnic cleansing, Jews possessed more than 70 percent of that land. Thus, like much of the land that is now the United States, even Israel proper was stolen from indigenous peoples and will not be given back. Israel, contrary to the myth of the David among Goliaths, has always been much stronger militarily than the Arabs and will not return Israel proper. So the United States has focused on getting the Palestinians some scrap of land that Israel might someday be willing to give up. But why? On the one hand, the many U.S. presidential administrations—including that of Barack Obama—have pressured Israel to give the Palestinians land, and on the other hand—with huge amounts of military and economic aid and unflinching political support—they have made it less likely that Israel will do so. Albert Einstein said that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is insanity. U.S. policy is therefore insane. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not going to be solved anytime soon and worrying about it deflects the Obama administration’s attention from more important problems. Likewise, Palestinians continue to hope and expect the United States to pressure Israel to give them a state. But given U.S. domestic politics, the U.S. government is incapable of being an honest broker and therefore is unlikely to be of real help to the Palestinians. Finally, massive U.S. aid and knee-jerk political support for Israel merely helps the Israelis continue their dysfunctional policy. If they would give up occupied land and settle the Palestinian issue, they could have much better relations with all of their Arab neighbors. Everyone in the region could get richer together. Thus, U.S. policy toward Palestine is costly, a waste of time, and of no help to the real interests of the Palestinian or Israeli people. The United States should follow the physician’s motto of “do no harm” and withdraw from the field.
 Ivan Eland
Send email
Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and he spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He is author of the books Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq, and Recarving Rushmore.
Full Biography and Recent Publications
 New from Ivan Eland!
THE EMPIRE HAS NO CLOTHES: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed (Updated Edition)
Most Americans don’t think of their government as an empire, but in fact the United States has been steadily expanding its control of overseas territories since the turn of the twentieth century. In The Empire Has No Clothes, Ivan Eland, a leading expert on U.S. defense policy and national security, examines American military interventions around the world from the Spanish-American War to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Learn More »» |
Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (4) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 17 |
|
|
Mamblog Section -
Politics
|
|
Written by Alvaro Vargas Llosa
|
|
Wednesday, 27 May 2009 |
|
Uribe Must Be Stopped
May 27, 2009
Alvaro Vargas Llosa
WASHINGTON—No one who has talked to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe can be surprised that his country’s Senate has now approved a constitutional referendum that would allow him to run in 2010. Uribe thinks that the presidency remains his destiny. There are still some institutional obstacles, particularly the Constitutional Court, but the decision will almost certainly be made by Colombians at the polls. The law requires a turnout of at least 25 percent—almost the same number of people who voted for him when he was re-elected in 2006. For the good of Colombia, Uribe, the most successful Latin American president in a generation, must be stopped. There is no excuse for running again. There are many candidates, including his former defense minister, Juan Manuel Santos, who are perfectly capable of continuing Uribe’s policies based on fighting Marxist terrorists and fostering a business climate conducive to investment. The argument Uribe made the last time he changed the constitution—that progress could be reversed because the enemy was still powerful—is no longer valid. The terms of the Colombian conflict have been inverted: It is now the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), not the state and civil society, that is on the run. The economy, strained by the global recession, is in much better shape than it was. Anyone seeking the presidency will be forced by a critical mass of Colombians to embrace “democratic security” as well as private investment and open trade. But ultimately the reason why Uribe should be stopped has little to do with utilitarian considerations. The rule of law, a fundamental principle of civilization, is at stake. What Uribe is trying to do is what most Latin American rulers have historically done and what the region’s populists continue to do. His nemesis, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, can run indefinitely. Bolivia’s Evo Morales and Ecuador’s Rafael Correa have changed their constitutions for their own benefit; Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega and Honduras’ Manuel Zelaya are attempting the same. No one has ever accused these leaders of standing for the rule of law. But Uribe made the rule of law the linchpin of his presidency. Many of the ugly truths in Colombian society—the umbilical cord linking the paramilitary groups to the establishment, the abuses committed by the armed forces, the widespread corruption originated in drug money—have come to the surface because of policies that facilitated the involvement of judicial institutions in what used to be beyond the reach of the law and because, unlike Chavez, Uribe has not sent journalists into exile or expropriated media outlets. By periodically subjecting the constitution to the vain whims of the president, Uribe is undoing everything he has done for his country. Latin America’s problem was never economic; it has always been political. The failure to achieve prosperity is a byproduct of the weakness of institutions that failed to limit power and protect people’s freedoms and possessions. At the end of the 1940s, Mariano Ospina Perez, one of Uribe’s predecessors, unleashed a civil war that took the lives of 200,000 people precisely because he thought himself bigger than the constitution. In Mexico, the reign of Porfirio Diaz, justified by intellectuals of the French-inspired “positivist” school that thought dictatorship would accelerate progress, led to the Mexican Revolution—a carnage that took a million lives. The “positivist” Brazilians who ruled the country after the fall of the monarchy in the late 19th century turned the military into the dominant institution—and eventually opened the doors of power for Getulio Vargas, a man influenced by fascism. These leaders, and many others, had one thing in common—an inability to understand that progress does not come from twisting the law to fit one’s social blueprint or megalomania, however admirable that blueprint and however justified that person’s high concept of himself. Uribe’s supporters think his triumph has been the near defeat of Marxist leftists in Colombia. His real triumph has been the progress made by the rule of law in many areas; the near defeat of the Marxists was the consequence of that progress. If he goes ahead with the referendum and wins, the rule of law will have suffered and his Marxists foes will have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.
Alvaro Vargas Llosa
Send email
Alvaro Vargas Llosa is Senior Fellow of The Center on Global Prosperity at The Independent Institute. He is a native of Peru and received his B.S.C. in international history from the London School of Economics. His weekly column is syndicated worldwide by the Washington Post Writers Group, and his Independent Institute books include Lessons From the Poor: Triumph of the Entrepreneurial Spirit, The Che Guevara Myth: And the Future of Liberty, and Liberty for Latin America.
Full Biography and Recent Publications
(c) 2009, The Washington Post Writers Group
New from Alvaro Vargas Llosa!
The Che Guevara Myth and the Future of Liberty
Nearly four decades after his death, the legend of Che Guevara has grown worldwide. In this new book, Alvaro Vargas Llosa separates myth from reality and shows that Che’s ideals re-hashed centralized power—long the major source of suffering and misery for the poor. Learn More »» |
Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (41) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 433 |
|
| << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| | Results 13 - 17 of 2699 |
|
|
