atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#443: No surprises here.

Reuters is reporting that there are obstacles to "21st century socialism" in Venezuela.

"But nine years into Chavez's rule, some analysts say the idea of creating a 'new man' and a classless society has even less chance of success in Venezuela than past attempts in other countries, from Russia to Nicaragua and Cuba," says the article.

People are basically the same everywhere. Every time communism--what the article uncritically describes as "socialism"--has been tried, it never, ever, worked, whenever it was tried, anywhere, in any fashion whatsoever. From socialized medicine in England to the USSR under the Commisars, every time it has been tried its failure has been complete, and all it has done is spread about the same level of misery to all participants...except, of course, the people in charge, who got to be very rich and powerful, and live lives of luxury.

The idea that any government, no matter how draconian, can somehow create "a new man" is laughable. That has never worked, either, and it's been tried over and over and over again throughout history. (And I mean all of history.)

Anyway, Hugo Chavez is not trying to make Venezuela into a communist dictatorship "21st century socialism" because he just loves his people so much; he's doing it because that is how you get power. I imagine old Hugo has a big autographed poster of Fidel Castro on his bedroom ceiling, probably with an enscription something like, "You can do it, kiddo!" (or its Spanish equivalent) scrawled on it with the pen Castro uses to sign execution orders.

The only thing missing from Chavez's mock-revolution so far is a Trotsky, a Himmler, or a Guevara. Having taken a page from Hitler's book, Chavez got himself elected, made it look legal, and got Jimmy Carter to endorse it. Maybe that person will emerge, in time--a Trotsky, a heretic who Chavez has executed; or a Himmler or Guevara, a right-hand-man to do all the dirty work. Or maybe both.

I'm not sure what state the Venezuelan legislature is in. According to the "socialist dictator's handbook", the legislature is an important body to control. It provides the illusion of democracy, very important for controlling the slaves people. Hitler just disbanded it once he was in power. The Soviet Union had the Politburo, but it was basically run by a handful of people, and there was no competition of ideas taking place in that building. The same goes for China. Anyway, once the dictator's power has been consolidated, the legislative body ceases to exist as anything other than a rubber-stamp committee for the dictator's diktats. (If the legislative body toes the line, it is allowed that fate. Otherwise, they are all shot, and cooperative legislators installed.)

The ultimate fate of Venezuela will be the same as with every last example of communism: for all of its resources, the government will end up running the economy into the ground. Venezuela has a longer way to fall, with all that oil money floating around, but it will end up in the same boat that all the others ever have.

* * *

Richard Roeper in today's Chicago Sun-Times, writes a column defending Michael Moore against "Fox News". The actual headline is "Fox's slant on Moore enough to make you ill". And what was Roeper writing about? episode of "Hannity and Colmes" in which Sean Hannity--a well known conservative COMMENTATOR--discussed problems with Moore's latest liberal fantasy alleged documentary, Sicko.

Applying the same standards of journalistic integrity which Roeper applies, there...

Chicago Sun-Times' slant on Hannity enough to make you ill

Oh, but Hannity couldn't say those things without the approval of Fox News!

Okay. So if Fox News is so "slanted" why do they allow Alan Colmes on? Or Greta van Sustern? Or others? I mean, come on. How stupid does Roeper think we are?

Does Roeper not understand the difference between a reporter and a commentator? Or does he think that we do not? Either way, it's a bit disingenuous, isn't it?

* * *

Unix_Jedi brings up a good point in the comments for #442:
And you might add... there are 0 customers for the "Cargo" A380.

Because they've shoved them to the back of the line, UPS and FedEx have already swapped their orders to Boeing. (They'd been promised, cross our hearts, fer shure 2009 delivery dates.. which are (as of now) 2012 delivery dates.. and they said "never mind".)

Which is what's insane from a Galactic Overlord viewpoint, because the A380 Cargo *is* the penultimate use for that plane. In terms of fuel, the thing's projected to be a very miserly sipper.... (Well, that is, if they get the weight down to what the design spec says, right now it's not that much better than a 747).

So that would be the first ones I'd have out the doors. No problems with seat wiring with the cargo version! Get it out, get it flying, get people used to it.

But that doesn't have the prestige of people-moving. It's not glamorous, and it's not what the PR guys want. So the Cargo version languishes, and the whole airframe will likely end up being an atrocious disaster, rather than a success at what it could be.
And he's completely right about that.

I have been seeing articles on the Business Week web site about the A380, and foolishly I didn't save them; they discuss in depth the problems that Airbus is having with production of the A380, including the wiring of the stupid things.

I have been following, here, the progress of the A380 because I was skeptical about the airplane when I first heard of it--in 2000, back in another world, one which no longer exists. And I remember reading Aviation Week and thinking that the A380 was a solution in search of a problem. And even now I still feel that way about it.

Still, Unix_Jedi is right: the A380 would make a phenominal cargo plane, and Airbus is missing a bet by relegating the cargo version to the rumble seat. Ultimately it may mean that Airbus takes a major bath on the A380, as adoption of the massive plane will be drastically slowed due to the production delays.

(The only exception I take to Unix_Jedi's comment is nitpicky: the use of the word "penultimate". I used to use it that way, myself. But I was told in no uncertain terms that "penultimate" means "second-to-last", which is exactly the opposite of what I think he means, there.)

Recent Posts from This Journal

  • #9169: The real problem here

    So I've been reading things about Iran's direct attack on Israel. Predictably, Vox Day is claiming that it's over for Israel. Other people are…

  • #9168: Well, how productive

    I can take frame construction off the list. The frame is finished, but for adding the engine mount and the brake mount. Those are incidentals,…

  • #9167: Another lovely Sunday

    Pixy is on fire today. There are two things from that post that I want to talk about. First, the bit about Apple computers. "Apple's markup on…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.