Hugo Chavez is still dead

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Let the record show that it was Hash, and not me, who used insulting language because he disagreed with me. Tyrants do not deserve respect. If nobody wants to listen to my point, fine. But don't jump on me for doing what you all do. That thread makes me ashamed of the Atlas and it's left, which I once believed tolerated other opinions.

I never said Chavez was King Leopold. I said he deserved the same amount of human respect as him, nothing more. And to call me a neocon is just embarrassing on the part of Obamanation; I am among the most outspoken noninterventionist here.

Now to Chavez, the man of the hour. Did he do great things? Maybe. I am a Libertarian, and I will disagree with him in general. But he was an autocrat, which outweighs everything he did as President. The same logic is applied to Thatcher by all of the left wing posters. But, since they are left wing posters....

Chavez is being treated (here at least) like he was Lula, or Jack Layton. He was not either of those men, who were (in Lula's case, still is) fine human beings who truly cared about people, even if their ideology is different from mine. Chavez belongs in the same category as Mugabe, with the exception that Chavez did not utterly destroy Venezuela, like Mugabe.

I think your thinking is a little too black-and-white in general sometimes. Not that you can't think that certain actions or patterns of behavior can be absolutely good or absolutely evil--many are--but I think you'd do well to recognize that in most people, even most leaders, sets of both exist. Chavez's autocratic tendencies are a moral and historical blemish upon him, as is the almost uniformly terrible company he kept on the world stage, but I don't think they ipso facto negate everything else about him.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Let the record show that it was Hash, and not me, who used insulting language because he disagreed with me. Tyrants do not deserve respect. If nobody wants to listen to my point, fine. But don't jump on me for doing what you all do. That thread makes me ashamed of the Atlas and it's left, which I once believed tolerated other opinions.

I never said Chavez was King Leopold. I said he deserved the same amount of human respect as him, nothing more. And to call me a neocon is just embarrassing on the part of Obamanation; I am among the most outspoken noninterventionist here.

Now to Chavez, the man of the hour. Did he do great things? Maybe. I am a Libertarian, and I will disagree with him in general. But he was an autocrat, which outweighs everything he did as President. The same logic is applied to Thatcher by all of the left wing posters. But, since they are left wing posters....

Chavez is being treated (here at least) like he was Lula, or Jack Layton. He was not either of those men, who were (in Lula's case, still is) fine human beings who truly cared about people, even if their ideology is different from mine. Chavez belongs in the same category as Mugabe, with the exception that Chavez did not utterly destroy Venezuela, like Mugabe.

I think your thinking is a little too black-and-white in general sometimes. Not that you can't think that certain actions or patterns of behavior can be absolutely good or absolutely evil--many are--but I think you'd do well to recognize that in most people, even most leaders, sets of both exist. Chavez's autocratic tendencies are a moral and historical blemish upon him, as is the almost uniformly terrible company he kept on the world stage, but I don't think they ipso facto negate everything else about him.

But did he really care about the poor of his country? His policies may have helped them, but Chavez was a politician in the end. The man desired power, and he tried it the traditional South American way: a military coup. His regime was about keeping his buddies rich, and staying in power. He did nothing to combat the rising crime or inflation that ravages Venezuela today.

Only one person (or three, actually, of one substance) can know his heart now. Certainly he desired power; I think he did also to some extent care about the poor, however, considering his own background among them. The extent to which this wore off over the course of his career can obviously be debated.