Quotable: Amy Katz on the falsities of the "free" market
"The problem is not the issue of personal choice--it's the doctrine of personal choice. We are constantly being told that change begins with us, that only we can solve our own problems, that we are the authors of our destinies. I believe that these are, in fact, ideological statements, rooted in a free market aversion to collective action. To get ourselves through the next century, we will need to shake off the phantasm of an exclusively personal destiny and couple our individual choices with real, penalty-laden national and international environmental regulations. To get ourselves through the next century, we will need a collective privileging of human lives and futures over corporate profits.
"In other words, we need to make political change, something we can't do as individuals. And something we can't do without challenging, in a serious and uncomfortable way, the existing order. So yes, let's change our lifestyles and reduce our personal impacts on the environment. It will help to nudge us closer to the world we want. But, at some point (and I would argue that point would be now), to prevent a global environmental breakdown, we are going to have to embark on a course of action that questions some of the fundamental tenets of our economic system.
"The logic of the market is destroying the planet. We will not save the planet by turning the free market on itself and buying hybrid cars. We will save the planet by forcing our governments to mandate real environmental regulations. We will save the planet by refusing to allow the requirements of the market to dictate our health, our preferences, our sense of reality and the course of our lives."
--Amy Katz, editor of The Greenpeace Green Living Guide
Remember all those stories about mysteriously dying honeybee populations? Looks like we've got the cause of Colony Collapse Disorder all figured out, kiddies. Or at least, one very unsurprising chief suspect:
Germany has banned a family of pesticides that are blamed for the deaths of millions of honeybees. The German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) has suspended the registration for eight pesticide seed treatment products used in rapeseed oil and sweetcorn.
The move follows reports from German beekeepers in the Baden-Württemberg region that two thirds of their bees died earlier this month following the application of a pesticide called clothianidin.
"It's a real bee emergency," said Manfred Hederer, president of the German Professional Beekeepers' Association. "50-60% of the bees have died on average and some beekeepers have lost all their hives."
Tests on dead bees showed that 99% of those examined had a build-up of clothianidin. The chemical, produced by Bayer CropScience, a subsidiary of the German chemical giant Bayer, is sold in Europe under the trade name Poncho. It was applied to the seeds of sweetcorn planted along the Rhine this spring. The seeds are treated in advance of being planted or are sprayed while in the field.
Well, there's a shocker. Pesticides kill bees! Even if they're used on a crop, like sweet corn, that isn't pollinated by insects (corn is wind-pollinated), the pesticides still end up devastating a lot more insects than those they were aimed at in the first place. The pesticides have a nasty way of getting into the air, the air has a nasty way of getting into the bees, the bees have a nasty way of getting into the hive, and the entire hive has a nasty way of ending up dead as a result.
But guess what, kiddies? The makers of the pesticides refuse to take responsibility for what happens when their product produces something other than the intended result:
The company says an application error by the seed company which failed to use the glue-like substance that sticks the pesticide to the seed, led to the chemical getting into the air.
Bayer spokesman Dr Julian Little told the BBC's Farming Today that misapplication is highly unusual. "It is an extremely rare event and has not been seen anywhere else in Europe," he said.
I find that hard to believe. If anyone hasn't seen it happening, I humbly submit that the just haven't been looking. Why limit one's scrutiny to Europe? All of North America has been suffering from declines in bee populations, both domestic and wild, and the local beekeeper from whom my mom buys her honey has complained about it here, too. And yes, the crops in this region are heavily pesticided. The beekeeper's apiary is right near some local apple orchards, and of course, they spray their apples!
But hey, why take my word for it? I'm just one little resident of Southern Ontario. The scientists know more about it than I do.
Clothianidin, like the other neonicotinoid pesticides that have been temporarily suspended in Germany, is a systemic chemical that works its way through a plant and attacks the nervous system of any insect it comes into contact with. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency it is "highly toxic" to honeybees.
This is not the first time that Bayer, one of the world's leading pesticide manufacturers with sales of ¤5.8bn (£4.6bn) in 2007, has been blamed for killing honeybees.
In the United States, a group of beekeepers from North Dakota is taking the company to court after losing thousands of honeybee colonies in 1995, during a period when oilseed rape in the area was treated with imidacloprid. A third of honeybees were killed by what has since been dubbed colony collapse disorder.
Bayer's best selling pesticide, imidacloprid, sold under the name Gaucho in France, has been banned as a seed dressing for sunflowers in that country since 1999, after a third of French honeybees died following its widespread use. Five years later it was also banned as a sweetcorn treatment in France. A few months ago, the company's application for clothianidin was rejected by French authorities.
So much for it "not having been seen elsewhere in Europe". France, last time I looked, was still in Europe. Right next to Germany, as luck would have it. Zut alors!
But still the company protesteth too much:
Bayer has always maintained that imidacloprid is safe for bees if correctly applied. "Extensive internal and international scientific studies have confirmed that Gaucho does not present a hazard to bees," said Utz Klages, a spokesman for Bayer CropScience.
Hey Bayer, I have some international scientific studies that call you a liar.
How about a French government report? Is that international enough for you? Or how about this one, conducted in the US, that finds no significant increase in crop yields for farmers using this expensive toxin? How about what an international beekeepers' publication has to say (again, about what happened in France)?
I could go on, but you get the idea: When only the company producing this stuff says it's actually safe, you really have to wonder if you're not being lied to.
In this case, the lie's been stung. Hopefully, it will get stung to death before the bees die out altogether.
Che would have turned 80 this year. That's twice as old as he lived to be. So it makes sense that this statue, which will stand in his birthplace of Rosario, Argentina, is twice life-size.
Not, I hasten to add, that he wasn't a towering figure in life, too.
Last Saturday, far-right groups attacked, punched and battered a group of peasants who had come to a stadium in the city of Sucre, where president Evo Morales was to deliver 50 ambulances and several thousand homes to local residents.
About 20 Quechua peasants were humiliated and forced to march semi-naked toward the central square of Sucre, where they were forced to kneel and chant slogans against President Morales.
These violent events left 27 wounded, according to local authorities.
Translation mine. A longer version of the day's events, plus backgrounder, courtesy of IPS, can be read at Bolivia Rising.
Aporrea calls Sucre "the kingdom of the Ku Klux Klan in Bolivia"; a somewhat confusing take, since the ringleaders of this violence are not white but mestizo. It is difficult to tell them apart from their victims just by looking; I could only tell who was who by who was standing and who was kneeling; who was yelling triumphantly, and who was silent and miserable; who wore a shirt, and who did not. That's not a whole lot of outward difference. And yet these mestizos identify more with their white ancestors than their indigenous ones, no matter how much their own appearance says otherwise. In Bolivia, it seems, your socioeconomic status is directly dependent on how much European blood you have. Which explains why the local white oligarchy hates the president so; he's a full-blooded indigenous. In their eyes, he's not a popular, elected leader; he's just a dirty Injun.
Whilst in Lima, I talked to Wilmer Flores, a MAS deputy from the Sucre region who recounted how he had been chased from the public square and cornered by a group of students who stamped on him, beat him, shouting "Kill the Indian. Let's kill them all one by one." It was as one of them started with broken glass to try and scratch his eyes out that a policeman happened to pass and the group escaped. His attempts to find his potential murderers have met a brick wall of complicity and evasion from all Sucre's legal authorities.
Watching TV, I noticed that the brutalised campesinos were kneeling in Sucre's central square, in front of the "Casa de Libertad" (Freedom House) from where Bolivia's independence was declared. It was the same square where Deputy Wilmer Flores was seen, chased and almost lost his life. Similarly in Santa Cruz, various attacks have taken place in its main central square.
The choice of location for the Right's violence is no coincidence. It was here in the heart of Sucre that Bolivia as an exclusive state which marginalized its indigenous majority took shape. It is from key municipal and state buildings in Santa Cruz and Sucre that a coterie of privileged families has led a vitriolic backlash against even the possibility of social justice in Bolivia. In Sucre these families, including Jaime Barron, the Rector of the University and the city mayor Aydee Nava have instigated violence, egged on by a rabid media, in an attempt to stop the constitutional assembly last November.
But the use of the public square for repression and exclusion has an even deeper significance. For up to 1952, indigenous people were not even allowed to set foot in squares like that of La Paz. Now more than 50 years later, with the arrival of an indigenous President, the Right is trying to turn back the clock and through violence make it equally impossible for indigenous peoples to cross public city squares.
The roots and nature of racism in Bolivia are complex and deep, but in essence I believe what I am witnessing is a colonial backlash. A hatred sown in divisions from colonial time, that has persisted insidiously in the structures of all power, and one that has got a grip even in those who have indigenous parents or grandparents. All it took was a change in balance of power and a fear of indigenous leadership to unleash a deeply ugly side to colonised Bolivian society. And there have been enough powerful families fearful of losing their privileges to exploit the already latent sore.
It's sick and ugly, is it not? That a group of mestizo kids--part indigenous--could repudiate and humiliate those whose ethnicity they partly share. That they could feel themselves superior to these other indigenous simply on the basis of a jigger of non-indigenous blood. But what does that say about the indigenous part of them? Do they hate themselves only about 50% or so, compared to the 100% hate they hold for their full-blooded brothers and sisters?
Even more shocking, though, is how the Sucre authorities are turning a blind eye. Buxton's essay hints at why: This is a city with a long and ugly history of institutionalized racism. Of course the authorities would tacitly aid and abet these young thugs in their fascistic autos-da-fé.
And of course those local authorities would also harbor a deep animosity toward the federal government of Evo Morales, whose parliament and cabinet are racially mixed and arguably much more representative, as such, than Sucre's own. Evo has made it clear that his government is about social justice, equality and inclusion. That sort of thing sits very ill with the racists, especially since their racism is directly tied to their socioeconomic status, which in turn is intimately linked to the political power they used to possess. The idea that democracy could rob the richest and whitest Bolivians of their inordinate power is deeply threatening to them; they also stand to lose control of the economy as reforms take hold. The largest landowners, if their estates remain idle or if they abuse the peasants and tenant farmers (who are overwhelmingly indigenous), stand to have their properties confiscated and handed over to indigenous campesinos. That of course would be the crowning insult to these people: Not only do they no longer rule the land outright, they will soon no longer even own the land they used to rule as private fiefdoms! Instead, that land would go back to those "dirty Injuns" from whom it was stolen in the first place. Yes, the same people they used to enslave outright, sexually abuse, and generally treat like dirt.
The idea that no people are dirt, and that no one has the right to treat them as such, scares the living shit out of these big racist landowners. Their whole power structure is crumbling. No wonder, then, that they staged this bogus "autonomy" movement. No wonder they hire these goon squads to beat and strip and humiliate indigenous people in the public squares, and to drive around cars bearing Nazi swastikas in an attempt to terrorize the indigenous majority into submission. Pretty soon, that too will have to end. It can't end soon enough.
See, this is why I call CNN the Chicken Noodle Network:
Anderson Cooper is shocked, SHOCKED to learn that his fellow CNNer, Jessica Yellin, who worked for a time at ABC, was pressured by network execs during her ABC days not to do hard-hitting pieces on the war, the White House, and its scurrying cockroach inhabitants.
Why so shocked, AC? Journalists face this kind of pressure all the time in the corporate media. Remember Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who used to work for FOX in the "hard-hitting investigation" mode? They did a story on the dangers of bovine growth hormone, and suffered tremendous corporate pressure from Monsanto, the maker of the dangerous (and highly profitable--for them) Posilac BGH--first to shut up, then to alter their story, and when that failed, to get the network to take them off the air altogether. That last one did it; it also turned into one hell of a court battle. It was the most visible, and acrimonious, example of how Corporate America effectively silences the media whenever it gets too close to the bone on anything you're not supposed to examine more closely. You're not supposed to read the fine print, Citizen--you're just supposed to buy, eat, and shut up.
Same goes for the war. You're not supposed to know how this war is as bad for the Iraqis as Posilac is for cattle and humans. You're just supposed to buy it, eat it up, shut up--and applaud on Pavlovian cue when the sign lights up.
I'm sure the Chicken Noodles in the network alphabet soup are also shocked by this latest development. Former White House flack Simple Scotty has written a tell-all, and suddenly he's an unperson:
It's hardly surprising the White House attack machine would furiously mobilize to turn Scott McClellan into a pariah. Now that he's off message, he never existed.
Dana Perino, who graces McClellan's old podium, issued a statement calling him "disgruntled" and wondering what happened to "the Scott we knew."
Well, it stands to reason that Moonunit Perino is shocked, SHOCKED, too. She's highly paid to be just that--shocked by the truth, and eager to cover it up (with her trademark high-speed babble) at all costs, lest she, too, end up an unperson like Simple Scotty, the man who probably said "I dunno" more than anyone else in the history of the White House Press Room. Now we know why he said it--it was the only thing he COULD say without blurting out the truth.
You can't tell the truth, Citizen--there's a war on! If you can't stay on message, don't give any message at all, lest you become an unperson, too.
Laptop computers have become treasure troves of evidence for Colombian investigators probing crimes committed by far-right militias and leftist rebels.
So many Colombians were dismayed to learn that prison authorities didn't immediately secure laptops and cell phones belonging to most of the 14 paramilitary warlords who were yanked from cells on May 12 and extradited to the United States to stand trial for drug trafficking.
The mishandled evidence has become a national scandal, and the prisons director only made matters worse when he told Colombia's leading newspaper that he had no way of preventing the warlords from continuing to lead criminal networks from their cells.
Oh, I know. I know! How about bombing the fuck out of paramilitary encampments on the Venezuelan side of the border, where Manuel Rosales (the imperial stooge with whom Chavecito mopped the floor in the last presidential election) is said to be harboring them? Then, I'm sure, we can put to rest once and for all the question of whether there is actually such a thing as a bomb-proof laptop (which the whore media won't ask).
And of course, we could also clean up a LOT of right-wing paramilitary narcoterrorist scum that way.
Oh, I know. I KNOW. It's a modest proposal, but it will never happen. And we all know why.
"In today's America, speech is only 'free' when you are talking down to someone less powerful that you. Speak 'up' — and look out.
"In your work life, they can fire you, as I found out, for quietly saying something that is widely known to be true. Put a lid on it."
--Barry Nolan, who was fired for telling the awful truth about Bill O'Reilly at an awards banquet where the latter was undeservedly honored for being a professional liar
Against the editorial lines from Colombia and Venezuela that claim there is a "close" relationship between the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez Frias, Colombian senator Piedad Cordoba, and the FARC rebels of Colombia, Cordoba confirmed that neither she, nor the Venezuelan leader had known of the death of the historic leader of the FARC, Manuel Marulanda Velez.
"My attention has often been drawn to how they say here that we (Cordoba and Chavez) are the mouthpieces of the FARC, but neither Chavez nor I knew that Marulanda had died...until the last, he did things his own way, he died a natural death," the senator said.
Translation mine.
Did you get that? Neither Cordoba nor Chavez knew that Marulanda had died until after the fact. They had to read about it in the morning papers, same as everybody else. Some "close relations"! I would think that if Chavez had known Marulanda wasn't well, and he really was that close to him, he would have had him flown to Cuba for treatment, no?
This should lay to rest all the media drivel about Chavez financing and arming the FARC, too. Until someone (and not someone pointing to the Magic Laptop, either) can locate the whereabouts of a big chunk of money that disappeared from Venezuela and appeared in Colombia (a large arms cache, ditto), I think it's safe to say that this latest media campaign against the left, like ol' "Sure-Shot" Marulanda himself, has begun to push up the proverbial daisies.
Ah oui, cher(e) ami(e), Tante Bina a trouvé beaucoup d'histoires bien scandaleuses pour toi!
Ahem. En anglais:
Maxime Bernier, our beleaguered and blundering foreign-affairs minister, has finally resigned. The reason? His ex-girlfriend, the erstwhile biker babe Julie Couillard, is in fact something of a security risk--a fact that Bernier and the Harper Tories repeatedly denied. When questioned (very politely) on the matter of her questionable ties by the opposition, the Tories cried salaciousness.
And considering that Bernier left confidential documents at her house, there seems to be some validity to the line of questioning on her potential for security risks. Meanwhile, we find out that somebody bugged her bedsprings.
Now, for a scary thought: I called Bernier on his cowardly putziness regarding torture earlier this year. He's also well known for his out-of-line remarks on Afghanistan. Now I wonder if he and his ex-GF were actually the official conduit for Afghan heroin--the only cash crop Afghanistan is actually cashing in on--to the Hell's Angels. You have to admit Julie's credentials are ideal for the job.
Not a dime's worth, apparently, beyond the fact that the one is federal and the other provincial. The one's from out west, the other's from up north. Our "new Conservative" PM is well known for his penchant for recycling right-wing failures from other hardline Conservative governments-that-failed. Apparently, in Harpoland, the fecal matter falls up--just as in BushCo's Amurrica. And my, how the sewage flows uphill here in Ontario lately--more specifically, all the way from Walkerton to Parliament Hill. Meet the New Tory, same as the Old Tory (not to be confused with the respected Red Tory, now alas a Dead Tory).
A certain failed premier of Ontario is obviously the template for the "new Conservative" Harpo. His latest environmentally dubious recycle? None other than a goober from the late and unlamented Mike Harris regime:
Guy Giorno, a principal in the now-disgraced "Common Sense Revolution" led by former Ontario premier Mike Harris, is moving to the top of the Stephen Harper "org chart". News reports say he is replacing Harper's chief of staff Ian Brodie, who was implicated in the spurious leak about Barack Obama's views on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The leak damaged Obama's campaign for the Democratic nomination for US President.
Giorno is a lawyer expert in corporate lobbying. While working for Harris, he had a reputation as a taskmaster who closely controlled what the premier and his caucus did.
Linkage added.
"Closely controlled what the premier and his caucus did"? Hmmm. Sounds an awful lot like Karl Rove.
Only while Karl Rove was only apparent as a bulge on Dubya's back during debates, this guy outed himself with a blast from the ol' blunderbuss:
In 2002, Toronto's NOW Magazine reported on a meeting in that city by a what proved to be a short-lived industry front group called the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions (CCRES). This organization was formed to oppose the Kyoto agreement on climate change. Giorno worked with lobbying firm National Public Relations, which set up the organization. The CCRES folded less than a year later.
"There were speeches by coalition organizers, and a particularly passionate Ontario energy minister, John Baird, made his anti-Kyoto rallying cry," reported Greenpeace campaigner John Matlow. "Needless to say, the audience was very receptive." Baird went on to get elected federally and to become Stephen Harper's environment minister.
Matlow reported that two days later, Giorno exposed his hand "by sending every MPP at Queen's Park an e-mail suggesting what they might say in op-ed news pieces or letters to their constituents about Kyoto. Then Liberal and NDP members, for whom the missive was obviously not intended, were sent a second e-mail that read, 'Unfortunately, materials from the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions were sent to your office in error in a previous e-mail. I do apologize for any inconvenience.' "
Oopsie. Well, I did say they were environmentally dubious!
Nothing like showing your hand to the opposition. Too bad the latter didn't run with it--something like the Democrats under Dubya, I'm sorry to say. (Yes, we have cowardly oppositions in Canada, too. The Yanks haven't monopolized that yet.) There was blood in the water after Mike Harris bowed out, but nobody made mincemeat of the Tory government; we suffered through another five years of the same under Ernie Eves, whose only saving grace was that he was blander and more superficially diplomatic than nasty Mike. Damn, we coulda had a non-confidence V-8...Damn, we could have one NOW!
BTW, A Creative Revolution has a hilarious take on it, in which they speculate that these neckless wonders of Torydom might be the Canadians blamed for everything by South Park. Hey, I'm willing to let them take the blame if you are!
I'm talking about people who actually use the Web to read what they want, read JUST what they want, and not bother to give crapitalism its pound of flesh (or hour of eyeball time).
Web users are getting more ruthless and selfish when they go online, reveals research.
The annual report into web habits by usability guru Jakob Nielsen shows people are becoming much less patient when they go online.
Instead of dawdling on websites many users want simply to reach a site quickly, complete a task and leave.
Most ignore efforts to make them linger and are suspicious of promotions designed to hold their attention.
Well, this is kind of a "no DUH"-er. Of course we don't want to sit through a promo spot, you crapitalist techno-dumbasses. When the commercials are on TV, we go pee. When they're taking up space in our caches while we're waiting for what we REALLY came to see, we go through the fucking ROOF! We don't ooh and ahh over the cleverness of the dancing doodads, unless we are knuckle-dragging Missing Links. We do whatever it takes not to be inundated with dumb distractions, and we consider it user-friendly NOT to have whackloads of memory-hogging widgets dancing before our eyes (and making our not-constantly-updated browsers crash).
Of course, it's the language that all this common sense is couched in here that makes me a fine laughing cheena. We are "selfish" and "ruthless" and "hot potato driven". As opposed to how I would put it: efficient, commonsensical, goal-oriented, unwilling to waste time (and/or money) on extraneous crapola.
Charmed.
Say, dear reader, does this remind you of the Great Click-Through Disappointment that heralded the Dot-Com Bust just before the turn of the century? It does me. Back then, apparently, we were supposed to be so enticed by the dancing ad banners at the tops of web pages that we'd forget what we came to read--be it news, poetry, tips on housetraining our pets--and click through to buy whatever was being sold. The site hosting the ad would receive mere pennies (or fractions of pennies) per click. Meanwhile, it was the site that proffered all kinds of goodies that really cleaned up saleswise, assuming they weren't selling what everyone else was, in which case they got eaten up or crushed by the competition.
It seemed to me then, and still does now, more than ever, a bad way to make a buck. Frankly, the number of independent hits I get on this page would not defray web-hosting expenses for me even if every single one of my small but loyal readership clicked through. That's why you don't see any blog-ads here. Well, that and I just plain hate them. They crash browsers, they clutter the picture, and I really don't want to see pro-war t-shirts advertised on this very anti-war site, 'kay?
And then there's the fact that I just plain hate ads. I've gone off TV and magazines over them. I go to the Internets to escape all that.
I guess that makes me a grade-A bitch. Sure, crapitalists have to eat too, but I don't give a rat's ass. If they wanna know how to eat, I'll tell them how to grow their own organic heirloom tomatoes and chard. I'll even tell them how it's done for free, out of the goodness of my heart. But they heavy lifting, especially the spadework and manure shovelling, they will just have to do for themselves. This site is my servant, not theirs.
Anyone who's been keeping an unbiased track of Venezuelan electoral politics already knows why Leopoldo Lopez won't be able to run for office again: He's a plain little plug-ugly thug, with a lengthy history of violence. But trust the lamestream media whores to spin it a full 180 degrees from the truth...
Leopoldo Lopez won his last election as mayor of an affluent Caracas district with 81 percent of the vote. Women supporters mobbed him at a recent Mother's Day appearance, posing for photos while he and his wife handed out roses.
But the popular politician's plan to challenge incumbent Juan Barreto, mayor of Greater Caracas, later this year could be thwarted by 26 criminal charges against him — accusations Lopez says were trumped up by an operative of President Hugo Chavez.
He's not alone.
Nearly 400 others — mostly opposition politicians — have been barred from running for office in state and municipal elections in November by Venezuela's top anti-corruption official, a close Chavez ally.
Comptroller General Clodosbaldo Russian made public what critics call a "blacklist" of candidates in February. Though none has been formally charged with a crime, Russian argues that law allows him to prohibit all 386 from running for office while he investigates charges ranging from nepotism to illegally awarding public contracts.
Opposition leaders say they have never seen such a bold attempt to block their candidacies since Chavez took office nearly a decade ago. But as soaring crime and double-digit inflation eat away at Chavez's popularity, many say his allies may be having a harder time riding his coattails into office.
"Chavista candidates can no longer expect to win simply because they're on the president's bandwagon," said Luis Vicente Leon, a political analyst at the Caracas-based polling firm Datanalisis. "The list takes opposition leaders who pose threats in some regions out of the way."
Item #1: Datanalisis is hardly a credible source. Oil Wars has exposed it more than once. So has Venezuelanalysis. Unfortunately, the AP doesn't feel compelled to fact-check; it's content to play stenographer and portray this fraudulent firm as genuine and impartial, when it is neither.
Item #2: High crime rates are Chavez's fault? Oh yeah, right. Venezuela never had crime before he came into office. And isn't it the municipal mayors' job to see to policing? It was until recently, when Chavecito finally decided it was high time to do what these incompetent, crooked bozos could not.
Item #3: Pretty Boy Leo's own record isn't exactly good, either. Not only is he incompetent at policing (the rich municipality of Chacao is also prone to crime, much of it perpetrated, hilariously, by its own police), he's also a criminal himself.
Item #4: Luis Vicente Leon can thunder all he likes about Chavista coattail riders, and one might even concede that there are some (though one will note, as Leon won't, that the Venezuelan public itself is doing the heavy lifting when it comes to weeding them out). But why is he so silent about the "popularity" of Pretty Boy being due solely to his anti-Chavez bias, in a rich neighborhood where such sentiments are a given because Chavecito is in the habit of sicking the taxman on the very people who are the most able to pay, and the least inclined to?
Item #5: In any neighborhood where the voters are populous enough to really matter in the grand scheme of things, Pretty Boy's cute widdle face isn't enough to do it for him. Neither is his Harvard education (which doesn't cut ice with me, either, since Dubya also went to Harvard, and we all know how bright HE is.) And definitely neither is his obvious contempt for the lower rungs of the income ladder. Unlike his co-religionist Henrique Capriles Radonsky, Pretty Boy hasn't even made the effort to show up and campaign in their neighborhoods. Maybe that's because Capriles Radonsky had a grand total of 25 followers in tow (uh, that would be his choir, the one he preaches to), while the residents just thought it was hysterically funny that he was now trying to win them over after his own part in the coup that temporarily destabilized the country and deprived it of a leader those same people elected.
Frankly, I don't see Pretty Boy's real chances being all that great. His popularity doesn't extend beyond the borders of eastern Caracas, and it doesn't take an electoral commission to disqualify him as a candidate; one look at his record will suffice.
...has issued some rosy forecasts for total pie in the Iraqi sky. Behold:
The U.S. ambassador to Iraq said Saturday that al-Qaida's network in the country has never been closer to defeat, and he praised Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for his moves to rein in Shiite and Sunni militant groups.
Ryan Crocker's comments came as Iraqi forces have been conducting crackdowns on al-Qaida militants in the northern city of Mosul and on Shiite militiamen in the southern city of Basra. Thousands of Iraqi forces also moved into the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad last week imposing control for the first time in years.
But truces with the powerful Mahdi Army militia that have calmed violence in Basra and paved the way for the Sadr City deployment have been strained in the past two days.
Now, there are a couple of crocks at work here. First of all, the Shiite militias, including the Mahdi Army and Badr brigades, may be Islamist militants, but they are NOT al-Quaida, nor are they affiliated with the so-called al-Qaida in Iraq. Al-Q are Sunnis, or more specifically, Wahhabis with a fundamentalist belief system so extreme that mainstream Sunnis rightly frown on them, particularly since they are imported from Saudi Arabia, not homegrown. And the Shiite militias are all existing Iraqi factions unleashed by the downfall of the secularist Saddam Hussein regime. Ambassador Crocker neatly glosses over all this.
Supporters of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who heads the Mahdi Army, accused al-Maliki on Saturday of seeking to eliminate their movement and warned that "dark clouds" hang over the truce.
Uh oh. That means defeat is NOT so imminent after all. Score one more against Ryan Crocker.
Al-Qaida fighters or other Sunni insurgents struck back in Mosul on Saturday. A roadside bomb in the city's Sumer neighborhood hit an Iraqi army patrol, destroying a vehicle and killing four soldiers, a police officer said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.
Near Baqouba — where a U.S. offensive last year targeted al-Qaida in Iraq — gunmen assassinated a member of the local Awakening Council, a U.S.-backed group of Sunni tribesmen who are fighting al-Qaida. The attack occurred in the village of Had, north of Baghdad, police said.
"...or other Sunni insurgents". Nice vague language there on the part of the reporter. But those who care for clarity, not vagueness, will note that THIS passage doesn't exactly signal defeat for Islamist forces in Iraq, either.
By the way, who authorizes police to speak to the media? Don't count on it being totally up to the local authorities. They're not exactly independent, as the size and fortification of the US embassy compound should make clear.
U.S Ambassador Crocker spoke as he visited reconstruction projects in the southern city of Najaf.
"There is important progress for the Iraqi forces in confronting the Sunni and Shiite militias," he said, speaking Arabic to reporters. "The government, the prime minister are showing a clear determination to take on extremist armed elements that challenge the government's authority ... no matter who these elements are."
"You are not going to hear me say that al-Qaida is defeated, but they've never been closer to defeat than they are now," Crocker said.
Nice bit of hedging there, Ambassador. Unfortunately, it's still another big fat CROCK-er. And "never been closer to defeat than now" doesn't mean much if they are only a hair closer to it than yesterday. There is still a yawning distance there.
The U.S. military says attacks have dropped dramatically — down to an average of 41 a day across the country, the lowest rate since 2004 — amid the crackdowns and truces. The U.S. military, backed by Sunni Arab tribal fighters, have scored successes in battling al-Qaida in Iraq and other Sunni insurgents in western parts of the country.
Oooooooooo, only 41 attacks a day. Yeah, that's progress. BTW, the chocolate ration this week is 30 grams, up from 50 last week. Don't you love Big Brother?
The Mosul sweep aims to dislodge the terror network from its most prominent remaining urban stronghold. The operation has met little opposition, suggesting that many al-Qaida militants fled, intending to regroup elsewhere as they have in past crackdowns.
Closer to defeat? When they've only abandoned one place to resurface in another? Um, yeah. Wake me up when you've actually got a body count, eh?
In Baghdad, three men attending a conference at the offices of the National Dialogue Front, a leading Sunni Arab political party, were killed when a bomb exploded under their car as they left the gathering, police said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the press.
Again, note the anonymous, unauthorized police. Who is muzzling them? I thought freedom (of speech and otherwise) was supposed to be on the march over there!
Meanwhile, new tensions over the truces in Sadr City and Basra were sparked when Iraqi troops in Basra fired over the heads of al-Sadr followers congregating in a northern square for Friday prayers. Iraqi police recently banned al-Sadr gatherings there after a large cache of weapons was found nearby.
Iraqi troops were deployed and when those gathering refused to disperse, the police fired rounds over their heads, witnesses said.
Iraqi police in Basra said one person was wounded, but al-Sadr officials contended that one person was killed.
And then we wonder why the truce is so shaky. Shooting at them? Yeah, that sounds like a terrific move. Nothing like a little antagonism to keep that trucey feeling going!
Also Friday, Iraqi and U.S. troops carried out a sweep in two Mahdi Army strongholds of western Baghdad, the Amil and Bayaa districts, arresting around 100 people, police officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the press.
Again--note unauthorized police. In whose interest is it to keep them silent?
Iraqi forces in the operation cordoned off a cultural center in Amil where Sadrists were gathering to hold prayers and arrested some worshippers, the officials said.
Sadrist lawmakers denounced the moves saying there was a "nationwide conspiracy against Friday prayers" and a government move to "eliminate" their movement.
It's hard not to concede they have a point. Between the shootings and the raids, you really have to wonder. What kind of Muslim does that to his co-religionists while they are praying? Is prayer time not sacred in Iraq anymore? Or is it just not sacred if you're not in the same corner with a certain oil-thirsty invading force?
Sadrist lawmaker, Aqeel Abdul-Rahman, said the group was still committed to Sadr City truce. "But we see black clouds on the horizon, being brought by the government to rain on the sons of the Sadr Movement," he said.
The Sadrists' angry rhetoric may in part be aimed at warning al-Maliki not to take more aggressive steps against the Mahdi Army in Sadr City, such as confiscating heavy weapons or arresting key figures. The government has said it plans to do so, but has not begun any raids in the district, wary of sparking retaliation.
Looks to me like the Sadrists are more committed to holding up their end of the bargain than you-know-who.
Of course, I can just see Crocker and Co. pushing for harsher actions in spite of everything, so BushCo can go out with a bang in an election year and not be known for all time as the gang that couldn't shoot straight.
If I were Mr. Crocker, I'd leave the diplomatic corps and join a PR firm. He's obviously better at spinning than he is at diplomacy.
Never-before-seen footage from the actual finding of Raul Reyes' computer! Indisputable evidence linking Chavecito to the FARC! Exclusive to Globoterror, the 24-hour crapaganda channel! Absolutely (and I do mean absolutely) unedited!
Festive Left Friday Blogging: Some summit that was in Peru
And for some reason, I found a lot of funny pix from it...and for some reason even stranger, most of the funniest ones had Evo in them. In some funny context or other.
Like this one, in which he's chatting with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel:
What do you suppose is going through her mind? My educated guess is it's something like this:
"Scheisse, there's that Chavez-person. I just realized I owe him a big apology. I am SO not looking forward to this."
Did Evo then go on to tell the Chilean president all about that? Could be:
She certainly found SOMETHING funny. Must have been something he said.
"La-la-la-la-la, looks like Chavecito is about to get an apology from Angela-la-la-la-la..."
"What? The king of Spain STILL won't apologize to Chavecito? I don't believe I'm hearing this."
"Yes, it's a pen. And in MY hands, it's really mightier than a sword."
"Hey, you guys! You won't believe what Evo did. He got Angela Merkel to apologize to Chavez!"
Protesters gathered to call for the extradition of the CubanaBomber, Luis Posada Carriles, to Venezuela to face justice for his crimes. How much longer can BushCo pretend not to know the guy, especially since Bush the Elder was this old fart's CIA director back in the day?
Michael Weiner, who egomaniacally calls himself "the Savage Nation", devotes nearly thirteen whole minutes of his gross abuse of the public airwaves to, you guessed it, celebrating the diagnosed brain cancer of Senator Ted Kennedy:
Transcript of his incoherent ramblings at Media Matters.
There's so much wrong with this man that it's hard to know where to begin. But let's make a valiant effort here...
The poor guy's been suffering for years, you know? Unfairly he's been accused of alcoholism, but we see now that it was something much more deep-seated.
Uh oh. I see someone doesn't understand how malignant glioma of the parietal lobe operates. It's not "something much more deep-seated" that causes "suffering for years" and gets one "unfairly accused of alcoholism". Glioma is a fast-moving cancer. Most of those who are diagnosed with it are dead in less than a year. By definition, it can't cause "suffering for years", let alone anything resembling alcoholism or insanity. Until the victim presents with seizures, as Kennedy did, the condition is entirely without symptoms. Which is what makes malignant glioma so devastating. By the time the victim presents with symptoms, it's already too late to hope for a cure, and treatment tends to be about control or palliation instead.
The Wiener Nation repeatedly plays a Dead Kennedys song while jabbering and vomiting at the same time. Classy. He even treats us to the lyrics and his own highly idiosyncratic interpretation of "California Über Alles", fixating on the line "I am not a liberal". Will someone kindly inform him that the Dead Kennedys are a leftist group, and when they say they're not liberal, they only mean that liberals are too watered-down for their liking--and not that they themselves are with the far-right, as the Wiener and his jackboot-licking caller obviously think they are?
But then again, this mistake is kind of predictable. The homophobic Wiener used to hang out with the very gay Allen Ginsberg in his youth, and he's doing his damnedest to make sure everyone forgets it, even if he can't. So it's just like him to twist a cultural reference until it's even more bent-out-of-shape than he is. (And baby, that takes some doing!)
Onwards:
Later in the program, Savage aired a clip of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) offering a tribute to Kennedy on the Senate floor before describing Byrd as "a senile senator" and "a walking psycho." Savage went on to assert, "For years now, Byrd has been blubbering on the floor of the Senate. For years, I mean, to be honest, Kennedy didn't seem sane to me." He continued, "Forget about the drunk stories and all that -- anybody can drink. The guy sounded like he was off for years, I'm sorry."
Sorry? No, he's not. Weiner, or Wiener, is not sorry in the least. He's glad, because he thinks Ted Kennedy's diagnosis suddenly vindicates his own long-held beliefs about liberal senators of a certain age, which he then extrapolates to liberals in general:
This is running America. No wonder Ahmadinejad's racing ahead with a nuclear weapon. He's afraid of these old men? He's afraid of these men who don't know what they're talking about? They don't know what they're talking about. No wonder Al Gore can receive a prize -- a Nobel Prize for something that doesn't exist. No wonder. Nobody knows what's going on. Either they're senile, or they're bought out, or they're corrupt, or they're crazy, or they're on medication. And we the people are sitting here saying, "The king has no clothes," and the king says, "Off with your head."
Perceptive reader, please note that the Wiener also extrapolates his own grotesquely twisted, much-in-the-minority view to the point where he, a Nation of One, becomes "We the People". Megalomania much?
What's interesting to note, as an aside, is how Michael Weiner--presumably Jewish--has far less hate for fascism than he reserves for its victims:
In February, discussing the death of Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), the only member of Congress to have survived the Holocaust, Savage stated, "You're not supposed to talk badly about the dead. I generally wouldn't do it. But in the case of Tom Lantos, I'll make an exception. I think he was one of the most -- he was a scoundrel. And I'll tell you why I detested Tom Lantos. The man survived the Holocaust of World War II and used it as a weapon the rest of his life."
Interesting, that. I'm no fan of Lantos either--he was a warhawk when he should have been a war-resister, he rubber-stamped the Hatriot Act, and his idea of what constituted a dictator extended too far into the realms of democracy for my liking. But at least I respect his status as a holocaust survivor and his right to speak out against fascism using, yes, that status as a weapon. Even if I don't go so far as to approve his using it as a justification for a corporatist war.
The Wiener, however, hated Lantos because there was a D after his name--and because Lantos was a bona-fide holocaust survivor while he, Michael Weiner, had not survived bugger-all and therefore had no bragging rights. So what happens? Weiner throws in with the Nazis instead, thus neatly demonstrating how monstrous egos make monsters of those who can't get over themselves.
But perhaps I should give this ugly old whiner the benefit of the doubt. After all, he's of a certain age too, and I'll bet he's been sick a lot longer than the unlucky Sen. Kennedy has:
Long before he became Michael Savage, the radio honcho was born in the Bronx and grew up in Queens as Michael Alan Weiner, the son of Russian Jewish immigrants. His father, Ben, whom those who knew him describe as gruff and profane — and who died of a heart attack in his fifties — was a socially conservative street vendor who worked his way up to owning a small antiques store on Manhattan's Lower East Side.
"Benny had a chip on his shoulder and was always mad at the world, and he was tough on Michael. There was nothing Michael could ever do to please him," recalls Alan Zaitz, who has known Weiner since the two of them were in Hebrew school together as second-graders.
Benny Weiner verbally abused his son and didn't hesitate to embarrass him in front of his teenage friends, Zaitz says: "Michael would have on tight black jeans and a boat-necked sweater and his dad would say, 'I don't like the way you're dressed. You look like a fag,' stuff like that."
Is there a clinical name for a condition that causes an abused kid to turn into his own abusive father after a certain age? If there is, he's got it. A most peculiar psychopathy indeed, and one that can't be ascribed to glioma of the parietal lobe, although I don't doubt that it is highly malignant.
It defies the laws of physics, if I'm not mistaken. But shhhh, don't tell that to the AP:
Venezuela on Saturday accused 60 Colombian soldiers of illegally entering its territory, as tensions over Venezuela's alleged effort to aid Colombian guerrillas swirl.
Well, at least they got the "alleged" part right. It's an allegation, it's only an allegation, and in the end, an allegation is all it will ever turn out to be. But I'm still trying to visualize a tension swirling, and all I get is a headache. Definitely a bad trip. This is much easier:
Well, there goes another piece of Chavecito libel. And who better to blow it all to shit than "a battle-hardened, one-eyed female commander" of the FARC?
Nelly Avila Moreno, better known as "Karina," denied her bloody reputation during a news conference. She said she surrendered because she was encircled, had a bounty on her head and was spooked by the recent murder of a fellow rebel leader by one of his bodyguards.
[...]
In response to a reporter's question, Avila said she had no knowledge of Chavez arming or funding the FARC.
Asked what the Venezuelan president means to the rebels, she simply said: "We admire Chavez for the way he is."
I guess that explains his success as a hostage negotiator, too. Go figure! No $250 million (or $300 mil, depending who you ask. The crapaganda whores are still unable to keep this one straight.) No guns. No nothing.
Why, the next thing you know, the Three Magic Laptops From Outer Space will be conclusively proven fraudulent, too. Fire up the corn popper, this latest mediatic war on Venezuela should be fun to watch as it falls apart.
PS: It gets better. In Aporrea's version, in Spanish, "Karina" also denies that the FARC had anything to do with Rafael Correa, the president of Ecuador. That was another bogus accusation that's been floating around out there, and now it's busted, too.
Opposition senator Gustavo Petro called for an investigation today into the 48,055 archives of FARC "#2" man Raul Reyes, killed on March 1 in a military incursion into an illegal guerrilla encampment in Ecuador.
Petro, a member of the leftist Alternative Democratic Pole (PDA) party, declared that he had proof that the archives alleged to be from Reyes' computer were "opened, created and modified by the police between March 1 and 3."
The legislator said that this alteration of computer archives had been established by Interpol.
Translation mine.
It just gets more and more interesting, doesn't it?
Not surprisingly, Petro is a leading investigator into El Narco's paramilitary terror ties. Colombia Journal also has an interesting, fairly recent article featuring his perspective on Uribe's para-politics alongside, of all people, Raul Reyes. If the article is anything to go by, Uribe is NOT vastly popular as is often claimed by the lamestream media up here, and there may well be a big liberal/leftist groundswell going on. And the murder of Reyes takes on a fresh significance--he pointed out that the FARC were not deemed terrorists until after September 11, 2001, when anyone who stood in the way of neoconservatism was suddenly and conveniently rebranded from a communist to a terrorist. As with al-Q, there is always a big to-do about the killing of a "#2 man" in an organization, as though it were a mere matter of decapitation. Meanwhile, the groundswell, which is not terrorism but is treated as if it were, keeps growing, regardless of who at or near the top of an armed movement has been assassinated.
Which means Sen. Petro is by far not the only Colombian refusing to drink the coke-laced Kool-Aid concerning the FARC and their alleged computers. And that makes this a very dangerous time. Colombia has a long, nasty history of being a hard place to be an electoral leftist, and the armed FARC insurgency is a reflection of this, just as surely as are the murders of liberal candidates such as Gaitan, Galan and many others. The Colombian civil war has outlived the Cold War, but it's far from over.
Let's hope Uribe and his thugs don't succeed in their efforts to wipe out the opposition.
...in response to a guy named Ed, from Miami, who tootled all the lines we know only too well from the loco anti-Chavez contingent, plus one new one: "Bush is a populist."
WTF???
Well, I couldn't let that stand, so I fired off:
From: Sabina Becker
To: Mike Malloy (mike@mikemalloy.com)
Subject: Ed from Miami is way off base
Date: May 19, 2008 9:35:29 PM EDT (CA)
Bush is a POPULIST? Bush hasn't a populist bone in his body--he is capitalist to the core. He hasn't given the people ANYTHING they want. Unless the people in question are the owners of big, big businesses who've contributed millions to his campaign war chest. Does that sound populistic to you?
Ed is also wrong about Chavez. He's not a populist, he's a socialist. You know, the economic form of a democrat? Redistribution of wealth, et cetera? That's what Chavez is.
And he's especially wrong about alleged the hatred of whites Chavez is supposedly fomenting in Venezuela--one look at Chavez's government should tell you that. His ministers come in all colors, and some happen to be not only white, but middle class or higher. So are a growing number of his supporters. This "he's a hatemonger" line is a lie.
Plus, no industries have been turned out--except those who'd only exploit Venezuelan resources without paying their taxes or due regard to the environment. Previous administrations looked the other way--"to encourage foreign investment". To me, that sort of behavior is like taping a Kick Me sign on one's own back. Kudos to Chavez for ripping that sign off his country's back.
I've learned Spanish so I can understand what Chavez is really saying in all his speeches, and I have not heard one word of hate coming from him. He's not only an impressive speaker, he's also totally anti-imperialist, which is obviously not the same thing as a plain old hater. Hate does not win love, and Chavez is very much loved. He's made it clear that he is with the people, and that's why he's popuLAR, not popuLIST.
One thing about that Old Grey Lady...she's one helluva madam. Yes, folks, the NY Times is pimping for Alvaro Uribe again. And look: there's one of her working girls now, out on the corner...
Tension between Colombia and Venezuela increased Sunday after Colombia's defense minister rejected an accusation by Venezuela's government that 60 Colombian troops had illegally entered a border region of Venezuela known to be a redoubt for Colombian guerrilla groups.
Yes, folks, that's the incomparable Simon Romero again, parading around in his miniskirt and high heels. Give that man a hand for his prowess at handjobbery!
Now, pay close attention, kiddies. Auntie Bina, a true lady despite her natural red hair and her plebeian origins, is about to teach you something about the difference between journalistic credibility and mere prostitution.
First of all, the Colombian army invaded Venezuela. 60 troops. That's quite an oops. I don't mean oops as in "oops, we crossed the border by mistake"--more of an "oops, we did it again--invaded a sovereign country on orders from Washington via Bogota, and now the neighbors are onto us!" (Remember, kiddies, they've done this time and time again. Rodrigo Granda being just one of the more egregious examples of recent years. They snatched him right off the streets of Caracas without so much as a "Hey Chavez, can we come over and arrest this guy? If not, would you please nab him and hand him over?" That didn't go over so well in Miraflores.)
And then there's the language Romero uses: "...known to be a redoubt for Colombian guerrilla groups". Really? Funny, but the local Venezuelan campesinos didn't "know" it for any such thing. And they know that patch of dirt like the backs of their hands. There are no FARC encampments there, let alone a "redoubt". All that's there are family farms and houses.
This invasion, this violation of sovereignty, isn't an "accusation by Venezuela's government", either. It's documented fact. Just as it's a documented fact that Colombia is a repeat offender when it comes to letting its wars spill over onto neighboring countries' soil, and then, without informing the neighbor governments of its intentions or seeking permission to arrest anyone, it just shoots, bombs and sends commandos in to take whomever it's after. It also has the audacity to demand "explanations" from those whom it attacks, when in fact it owes them explanations and apologies for attacking them.
Nice of Romero not to mention any of this.
The differing accounts of Colombian troop activity in the area are part of a dispute that has been festering for months. The dispute intensified in March when Venezuela reacted to a Colombian incursion in Ecuador by saying it would respond with military force if Colombia pursued Colombian rebels into Venezuela.
"A dispute that has been festering for months"? Uh, nice job of minimizing things there, Simon. Actually, the Colombian civil war has been going on for some 60 years now. And the fact that it routinely spills over the borders doesn't cause you any concern, unless the neighboring countries dare to say boo, is really an incredible bit of sangfroid on your part.
Anyone who's read up on Venezuelan history should know by now that Venezuelan troops have had to be stationed in the border regions for many a decade. Among them was a young army officer named Hugo Chavez. Perhaps you've heard of him? His job was making sure that Colombian guerrillas, soldiers and paramilitaries didn't invade Venezuela or hide out there. This is the same Chavez who later, as duly elected and constitutional president, ordered troops and tanks to the border to guard it against further incursions of the sort. I don't think he honestly cared whether the invaders were military, paras, FARC or ELN; I do, however, have good reason to believe he has the best interests of his fellow Venezuelans at heart. There have been many cases in recent years where large land-owners in the region have used Colombian mercenaries to kill and menace Venezuelan campesinos trying to farm the land that was redistributed to them by the government of Venezuela. Chavez is trying to make sure no Venezuelan lives get lost to the Colombian conflict, or to the mercenaries it has inevitably spawned. Would that big Venezuelan land-owners were so conscientious, but they see campesinos as essentially disposable. And if the peasants get uppity, it's off with their heads!
The same is also true of the Venezuelan oligarchy in general. Like Colombia's narcopresident, they are aligned towards Washington, not their own country. They have no loyalty except to the Yankee greenback. So they have no problem recruiting Colombians to their dubious cause of unseating a democratically elected ruler who does not rule on their behalf but that of all Venezuela.
What amuses me, though, is this:
Tension resurfaced last week after Interpol verified that computer files recovered by Colombian forces in the Ecuadorean raid had not been altered. The files refer to military and financial support by Venezuela of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, a group classified as a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union.
Independent proof of such support has not emerged.
Romero must have hated having to actually write something true for once. There is, indeed, no independent proof that Chavez has been supporting anyone other than those whom he has supported openly. And that would not be the FARC. His most intimate connection to them has consisted merely of negotiating for the release of hostages, preferably in exchange for the release of leftist political prisoners in Colombia. No money or offers of money have been linked to those negotiations.
I bet Romero also soiled himself a bit having to write this:
In the latest episode, Venezuela's foreign minister, Nicolás Maduro, said Saturday night that Colombian troops had been detected Friday in Apure State in western Venezuela, about 875 yards from the Colombian border. In a rare written protest, Mr. Maduro asked Colombia "to immediately cease these violations of international law."
Mr. Maduro said the troops, a battalion from Cubará Military Base in Colombia's Arauca State, had been quickly told to return to Colombia.
On Sunday the Colombian defense minister, Juan Manuel Santos, denied Mr. Maduro's assertion. "There was no incursion," Mr. Santos said in comments broadcast on Colombian radio.
"I looked into it and they were not doing anything," Mr. Santos said of the Colombian troops.
But the Venezuelan information minister, Andrés Izarra, contended Sunday on state television in Caracas that Venezuela had photographs of the incursion.
This should make Romero throw up in his mouth a little:
Video in Spanish, from VTV's current affairs talk show, "Dando y Dando". Communications minister Andres Izarra and former oil minister Ali Rodriguez join hosts Tania Diaz and Aristobulo Isturiz to unravel the Colombian lies. I wonder if Simon Romero has seen this; somehow, I doubt he has.
"Not doing anything", eh? No, of course they weren't. They were just invading Venezuela, no biggie--nothing they hadn't done before, many many many times. I guess, if you're a Colombian defence minister, "not doing anything" means something most people wouldn't think it meant. And if you write for the New York Times, your job is not to question or investigate such preposterous statements, but simply dutifully take down whatever you are told by the Powers That Be--whether in Washington or Bogota.
Or to do for fascist Colombian presidents what Monica did for Bill Clinton; same thing.
The story is about pathetic, mush-mouthed Manuel Rosales, the guy who got maybe a third of the vote in the last Venezuelan election despite heavy financial support and cheerleading from Gringolandia. But as you can see, that ain't him. That's another US puppet altogether.
Still, it's not an honest mistake, but a definite Freudian slip. Aporrea reports that Rosales is awfully chummy with El Narco. According to journalist Jose Vicente Rangel, formerly Chavecito's VP, Rosales recently attended the Festival de Vallenato in the paramilitary-controlled region of Valledupar, Colombia, and was seen leaving with El Narco.
What do you suppose they were up to? Just kinky sex, or something much more nefarious?
BTW, very nice of the AP not to report what's really going on in the Venezuelan opposition. They are in fact leaderless and very much at sea. They don't even need Chavecito to make them loco; they just are.
