| | Michael wasn't really being fair in his delivery and tone. If you don't support Chavez, say, "I don't support Chavez," and then get on with it. We all know we take it too far some times -- that he is condescending and prickly at times is such a shock. Not. But hey, who ain't? Blow and bluster, Ted, we all do it. We all like to get up on the hind legs and do the I'm waaaay more right boogaloo . . . any of us can have a perfect thought and a thuggish, boorish and obscuring manner of delivery, at times. It is to your credit that you offer a reprise or coda when your blood pressure has stabilized. I aspire to that.
In any case, Ted, here are seventy-five stories from the last day or so, from the latin press, vian Google News Venezuela.
What I wonder is how common/rare riots (and riot deaths) have been in the last 50 years of Venezuala. It looks like la prensa venezualana has been/is about as free as Hong Kong's. In other words, them as run things tend to run things. Needs no rules or censors. Chavez is in a hurry to run everything (he is a megalomaniac, unlike Castro), so he get nutso pretty quick and has forgotten them quaint rules of thumb, like, oh, history.
I also support Michael's questioning 'leftist dictators' like, oh, Kirschner or, oh, whomever, up thread somewhere (though his delivery was unfortunately snide and obscure).
I said to myself (and asked of William Scott Dwyer), um, WHICH dictators, please, O Randteous Ones? The idea that Kirschner or Lula is an analogue for Castro or comparable in any way to any dictator was just so un-O, I thought to myself, "Holy fuck, are these Objectivists or Bobjectivists or what? Holy fuck. Kirschner is a leftist dictator? My sweet jesus. What does that make Menem, a rightist dictator? What the fuck?"
Anyhow, the blandly hysterical assertions, and the bumptious inability to say oops is general failing of humankind, not an especially O thing, though you would think avowed Big O Objectivists would have more integrity. Ho hum. It's a show, I guess.
*******************
In Rand's hands, invective and hyperbole were a thrill, and still sell millions of books every decade. But she would not make the basic mistake of scope and clarity made upthread, because a root of unreason gives a flower and fruit of unreason, no matter how luscious the odor or sweet the nectar. All of which is my way of saying, if your facts don't line up with reality, any such invective is at best ill-placed and, at worst, demented (if one supposes an O-ist straitjacket of integrity and reason, we gotta lotta Houdinis here, Ted, at times).
Gosh, I like the baby pictures of you and Erica and all. How about a spoofy thread where I am L'il Will and Teresa reverts to the 'No Hair, I Am TWO' look, sorta like Little Archie and Little Betty (I'll be Little Ethel and you can be Little Moose)?
|
|
