One of life's ongoing mysteries is the inability of some to see beyond their own blinders or to even gain the slightest bit of knowledge about a partisan issue before bloviating. Here are a couple of examples:
None of which justified Hugo Chavez once again being a loudmouth ass and pompous underminer of legitimate issues in Venezuela by having to say offensive and uninformed bullshit simply because it seems contradictory to things said ‘in the Empire’.
makes this comment:
Much as i love Chavez, and would not call him a ‘loudmouth ass’ what you say is largely true. He does have a pronounced taste for saying dumb things just to p*ss off the Empire. I wish it wasn’t the case but it is. In fairness, he isn’t a very highly educated man, much as his heart and ideas are in the right place, and some of his occasional sillinesses can be charitably forgiven him on the grounds of lack of education. [my emphasis]
Wow. Perhaps Hector should give some thought as to how one makes it to the rank of lieutenant colonel (Chavez's rank at the time of his attempted coup). Or he could just go to Wikipedia:
At age seventeen, Chávez enrolled at the Venezuelan Academy of Military Sciences. After graduating in 1975 as a sub-lieutenant with a degree in Military Arts and Science, Chávez entered military service for several months. He was then allowed to pursue graduate studies in political science at Caracas' Simón Bolívar University, but left without a degree.
So what does Wikipedia say about the Venezuelan Academy of Military Sciences?:
The Academia Militar de Venezuela ("Venezuelan Academy of Military Sciences"), founded in 1810, is the oldest military academy in Latin America.
So Hector, really has no idea about that which he is braying. Let's take his comments one step deeper. When the subject of lack of education comes about, perhaps Lula would be a better example as he had to drop out of school after the fourth grade. I do not recall Lula praising Idi Amin, Carlos the Jackal or Robert Mugabe.
There is little doubt that the coup that tossed Manuel Zelaya out of the Honduran presidency was very divisive. Indeed one of my regular commenters vigorously embraced the coup, while turning a blind eye towards the fact that the coup government violated Honduran law by throwing Zelaya out of the country and credible allegations of human rights abuses by the Micheletti government. After having posted several comments regarding this on this blog as well as other blogs in which this commenter had commented eliciting no response, I finally pressed the issue in the comments to this post on Greg Weeks' blog. The response? I get falsely accused of having called the commenter a paleocon (something that I cannot recall having done and, the commenter offered no proof of my having done so) and then accused me of engaging in "gringo imperialism" for the sin of having brought up the subject of human rights.
Let's do some basic research here. Honduras is either a signatory or has ratified the Convention Against Torture, the Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Disctrimination Against Women, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Civil Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
How respect for human rights is gringo imperialism is beyond me. This is basic moral relativism and it's beneath contempt. That's the sort of comment I would expect from a Castro or Pinochet sympathizer.