Hugo Chavez: His One Gift To Latin America

I learned of Hugo Chavez's one positive attribute from Jacobo Goldstein, a reporter who covered Latin America for CNN for 33 years.  It was that Chavez throughout his career refrained from violence and brutality.  This is not to damn the man with faint praise.  When you consider the likes of Fidel Castro, the Sandinistas, and other Latin leftists who rose to leadership positions, having hands free of blood is no small thing.

The thing for which Chavez is most praised; namely, his concern for the poor is the area in which we can see his greatest failure.  Yes, the redistribution of wealth by Chavez did help Venezuela's poor.  But, it also did them great harm.  Smearing money around like cream cheese on a bagel does not take a country out of poverty.  Compare Cuba with Venezuela.  Why was one rich and the other teetering on collapse?  It's oil.  Venezuela has humongous amounts of it.  Cuba has little to none.

That doesn't mean that a country without oil is automatically condemned to poverty.  Germany, Switzerland, Israel, Singapore are all countries without oil, and yet they've managed to raise the standard of living for their citizens. So, what can oil do, and what can't it do?  First, and foremost, it can buy friends; especially, dictators leading dysfunctional countries.  And, there are certainly enough of those in Central and South America.  God must love Cuba.  This wonderful country is truly dysfunctional.  But, as long as it was sponsored by the Soviet Union, it got all the oil lit needed.  When the Soviet Union collapsed, Cuba faced the prospect of real poverty.  But, then, along comes Venezuela, more than happy to pick up Cuba's oil bill.

The Venezuela-Cuba arrangement was a deal made in a socialist heaven.  Cuba gets the oil it needs, and, in return, it gives Venezuela's Chavez a Praetorian Guard, a secret service, and military training -- one authoritarian ruler supplying another with what it most needs.  But, again, never fail to note that Chavez did not dip his hands in blood.

Chavez also bought the support of Daniel Ortega and other rulers of similar ilk.  But, it was not without cost to Venezuela.  Chavez's arbitrary and capricious rule has lead to a degradation of Venezuela's major industries -- first and foremost, its oil industry which is now in a pretty sorry state.  With a dysfunctional economy, there can be little hope of generating the jobs that are so badly needed by all Venezuelans and especially its poor.  In brief, Chavez has tossed the poor some fish, but has denied them proper fishing poles.

When I Use The Word "Jihad" It Means Exactly What I Choose It To Mean

Once again, the humor of the west is appropriated by Islamists in a manner that neglects to carry much humor.  It was Humpty Dumpty who admonished Alice, during her sojourn in Wonderland, that "when I (Humpty Dumpty) use a word, it means exactly what I mean it to mean -- neither more nor less."

That seems to be the logic of CAIR (Committee on American Islamic Relations) when they offer their explanation of the meaning of the word, "jihad."  From their point of view all Americans should understand that jihad refers to the struggle for self improvement.  You're trying to lose weight?  You're on a diet  jihad.  You're trying to develop better relations with your children?  You're on a child psychology jihad.

The problem with this explanation is that the most common use of the word has been that favored by the salafist as they go on jihad against infidels who resist Sharia (Islamic law)  -- you know -- the law that calls for thieves to lose a hand, single women who goes out with a man un-chaparoned to be stoned to  death.  "People of the Book" are to be treated as second-class citizens.  Oh, did I forget, no dancing, no popular music and no gay men or gay women?

I'm not saying that absolutely no Muslim in any of America's 50 states does not see their weight loss program as a "jihad," but I would venture to say the number of such Muslims is statistically inconsequential.

When it comes to language, I find Christians to be more honest.  Have you ever heard of the song. 'Onward Christian soldiers marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before"?  I have.  It was quite popular at one time.  In fact, it was sung by a choir of servicemen when FDR met with Churchill on the HMS Prince of Wales in 1941 to enter into the Atlantic Charter Agreement.  I believe it was also sung at Eisenhower's funeral.  But, it isn't sung much anymore.

The Christian community is sensitive to the militaristic echoes that ripple forth from the words of this song.  I haven't heard it sung in years.  Sure, I can understand that the word, "war," in this song could easily refer to the "war on poverty," or the "war against drugs."  But it just doesn't have the proper ring to it.  The same thing can be said about "jihad," especially since it continues to be used with gusto by terrorists.  But, perhaps, because Islam is Islam it can find no place for such sensitivity.

The News: Weirder and Weirder

The U.S. is redoing its labeling laws to comply with international conventions.  It says that this will make it easier to import and distribute Canadian meat.  Canada says it's a terrible idea and that it will inhibit trade with the U.S.  In fact they threaten retaliatory action.

What is going on here?  Maybe we should just let Canada work it out with the International body.  If it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for us.  (The article never mentioned it, but I suspect American meat producers are somehow involved in this matter.)

Next weird item:  The Chinese find 3,300 dead pigs floating down a river.  No mention of where these unfortunate pigs came from, or how they met their end.  The Chinese seem primarily concerned that this sort of thing might pollute their water supply.  Duh, you think!

Finally, we come to Carl Icahn entering into a non-disclosure agreement with a major company in which he has an interest.  Isn't this what they mean by insider trading?

Too Big To Fail, Too Complicated For The Average American To Understand

There was a well written piece by Eric Grover in the March 11, 2013 issue of Barron's that will escape the attention of most Americans.  But, even if this editorial were brought to their attention, would they understand it?

It's titled, "The Ruling Class; The Dodd-Frank law misses the primary causes of the financial crisis."  The piece says in essence that "... the banks that are too big to fail are getting bigger," and that (Dodd-Frank) ... makes the next financial crisis more likely, and that (this) puts a damper on economic growth."

Grover's arguments are sound.  But, who, with the the exception of business people, and economists, can understand his argument.  The irony is that the voter who doesn't get it, and probably never will, will suffer the consequences brought about by government policies that politicians encourage him to support.

Will The Turkish Model Fit Egypt

I must first cite remarks made by Dr. Magnus T. Bernhardsson at Florida Atlantic University on March 9, 2013, as having shed light for me on developments on the middle east.  While I've not quoted him here, I must nevertheless credit him for ideas that I've adopted.

Consider Turkey as a model for Morsi of Egypt.  Prior to Erdogan, the Turkish government would appear to veer this way and that.  If it got out of hand, the Turkish army took over and put the Turkish government back on a sound track.  The Turkish army was imbued with the values of Kemal Ataturk and it wanted to see those values preserved.  But, it did not want to govern.

There's a lot that's attractive to Morsi about this Turkish model.  But it also has some problems; problems that Erdogan may be successfully resolved for himself in Turkey.  Erdogan was not about to let the Turkish army be the arbiter as to what was best for Turkey.  That was a role he wanted for himself.  So what has he done?  He's neutered them by arresting over time all the leading military men that might have been in a position to take over Turkey if they were to become displeased with him.

Instead of allowing the Egyptian army to have an independent voice, as they once did in Turkey, Morsi would like to neuter them, the way Erdogan did.  But, will he succeed?

The Egyptian army can see Morsi's enchantment with the way Erdogan handled the Turkish army and they have no interest in being treated the same way by Morsi.  And, that explains a lot.

It explains why the Egyptian army has been flooding the tunnels into Gaza; something that is not positive for Hamas's interests and might even be seen as aiding Israel.  Hamas's rule of Gaza is somewhat in line with Morsi's way of thinking.  True, Hamas is currently more extreme.  But, if Morsi is looking for a partner, Hamas seems far more agreeable than his own army.  The Egyptian army understands that.  It is therefore in the interest of the Egyptian army to move against  Hamas anyway it can.

The U.S. understands the game too.  That's why it gave Egypt tanks and fighter planes.  These would do the Egyptians little good if they wanted to launch an attack against Israel.   But, what they do do is strengthen the image of the Egyptian army.  And, that's exactly what the U.S. wants to do.  They may say -- and rightly so -- that they're simply complying with the Camp David Agreements.  And, that's quite true.  But, don't fool yourself in thinking that that's America's primary motivation.  The U.S. wants the Egyptian army to play an important role in Egypt's future and they don't want to see it neutered by Morsi.

It's Time For American Muslims To Stand Up And Be Counted

Here are some items from the NY Times of March 18.

A.  "The State Department ... dropped an Egyptian activist from a list of women to be honored ... after (her) comments celebrating attacks on Israelis in Bulgaria. " Page A 4

B.  "Two Frenchmen suspected of plotting terrorist attacks, making explosives and being involved in extremist activity online were detained Thursday amid heightened concern about threats to France over its military campaign against fighters in Mali linked to Al Queda."  Page A 8

C.  "...Taleb Yaacoub kept the cover story he had been years building: He was a Lebanese businessman looking for import opportunities.  .........(later)  Mr. Yaacoub admitted he was in Cyprus working for Hezbollah."    A 12

This is just in one day's edition of the NY Times.

What goes through the minds of American Muslims when they read such items?   Do they support Salafist ambitions in Mali?  Do they resent the more secular Muslims who the French are trying to aid?  The Turks have traditionally been hostile to the Greeks, and the Greeks don't much care for the Turks.  And, maybe that's the way it will be for Israelis and Muslims.  But, do Muslims celebrate the murder of tourists traveling on a bus simply because they're Israelis?  Do American Muslims ally themselves with Hezbollah?  Do they celebrate the assassination of Sadat?

If American Muslims can not accept the Jewish State of Israel, a state that gives equal rights to its Christian and Muslim citizens, then it will be inevitable that Islamicphobia  will follow.  If they favor a state that seeks the umbrella of Sharia for its citizens rather than western values that seek to promote freedom to speech and religion, it will find itself in conflict with American values.

So where do American Muslims stand on these matters?  Many are proud, patriotic Americans who join  us in the support of our secular Constitution.  But, what is the number of Muslims that do not share these values?  This is a question that must concern all Americans, but most especially Muslim Americans.  Americans have worked long and hard to eliminate prejudice based on ethnic differences.  It is a job that requires the best efforts of all Americans.  That, of course, includes the American Muslim community.

Public Sector Unions vs Private Sector Unions

Governors seeking to eliminate contracts of public sector unions are accused of being hostile to the working man. Their response is that contracts won by the unions are more than what private sector workers can bear.

Let's look at this more closely. Private sector workers negotiate with private companies. Whether it's for more pay, or better working conditions, or healthcare, or retirement benefits, etc., they know that, at the end of the day, the costs of their demands must not exceed what the company can carry. Of course, it's not always that rational. The demands of unions have indeed seen companies trying to move their operations out of high labor cost states over to states where labor costs will be lower.

And, indeed, companies have been broken by unions. Companies know this. They also know that enough corporate earnings must be available as profits so that investors can get an appropriate rate of return.

Public sector unions negotiate with the government, not with private entities. "Government" includes local government, state government, and federal government. Gains for public unions are paid out of government coffers. Governments must also balance their books. But, they have an advantage that private companies do not. They can tax.

The federal government can not only tax; they can actually create money.

Of course there are downsides to this.  Print money to excess and inflation becomes inevitable. Tax too heavily and the economy begins to go into reverse.

In other words, those negotiating with workers must keep an eye on the viability of their organizations. However, the outcomes for government is very different than for companies. If a company goes broke,  it rarely will bring down the country. However, governments that fail fail all of its citizens.

Corporate leaders work hard to improve the profitability of their companies. They are judged as to how well they succeed. The politicians who negotiate with public sector unions are in a very position. If they can push the financial problems into the future they will do it. They seem to tackle their financial problems in a responsible way only when they have to. However, the time has come when they have no choice but to confront their financial problems.  It matters to all of us.