Y'know that post I did yesterday that included Andrew Sullivan's infamous "fifth column" quote? Well, reader James forwarded the link to Andy, who had this to say :

u deny that there are some on the far left who would prefer osama to bush?
i've seen a couple of articles lately confessing exactly that.
andrew

Sullivan's ridiculous strawman and lack of capitalization would be funny if he weren't actually serious. Who are these traitors on the "far left"? Are they a well-organized group actively working to undermine the U.S. government or are they a couple of obscure, pissed-off bloggers who are venting a little steam? I've seen some pretty despicable things written by angry liberals and conservatives, but there's a big difference between ranting against your government and collaborating with the enemy. Let's go back to Sullivan's original quote :

“The middle part of the country - the great red zone that voted for Bush - is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead - and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column.”

The irresponsible thing about his statement isn't that he's warning about fifth column movements, but that he's implying that pretty much everyone who disagrees with the President is a traitor. You're painting with pretty broad brush-strokes there, Andy. By citing "the great red zone that voted for Bush" in your first sentence, you're essentially setting up a false dichotomy that implicates everyone else in this undefined "decadent Left". If you weren't trying to draw a parallel, then the quote you're defending is poorly written and should be explained beyond hiding behind your intentionally vague wording.

But if you really do think the majority of us blue-state, coastal lefties "may" constitute a "fifth column", then would it be equally valid to make a statement like this?

"In the densely-populated urban areas which are likely targets for future attacks - and heavily favored Democrats in the last election - are serious about capturing Osama Bin Laden. The religious extremists in the south and Midwest have other plans - for they might be more interested in firebombing abortion clinics."

Would it be okay to contrast John Kerry voters and white supremacists? Or divide the country into secular humanists and hate-filled bastards like Rev. Fred Phelps? Singling out extremists to score points against your political opposition isn't just unfair, it's lazy reporting.

Besides that, the whole point of my post wasn't to bash Andy for a stupid-ass comment he made four and a half years ago, but to spur a discussion (in a roundabout way) about what constitutes a "fifth column" movement, who gets to make those decisions, and what actions should be taken against them. Andy's gone on record as saying that the "far left" (a relative term if ever these was one) should be under suspicion, Sen. Graham believes it's acceptable to spy on those of us suspected of being in the "fifth column" without a warrant, and the President rode to victory by repeatedly suggesting that John Kerry and his allies "embolden our enemies" , so where do you draw the line between legitimate dissent and "fifth column" activity?

Conservatives are going batshit crazy because of this statement at the funeral for Coretta Scott King by Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery :

We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. [Standing Ovation] But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor.

Pity the poor conservatives who hate being reminded that they've been on the wrong side of every civil rights struggle in our nation's history. And in case there's any doubt about whether these sentiments were in line with the beliefs of Mrs. King, here's part of an interview she gave shortly before the Iraq war began :

BLITZER: Mrs. King, thank you so much for joining us. Let's talk a little bit about the legacy of your husband. How much has the racial situation in our country improved since his death, if you believe, indeed, it has?

KING: Yes, I think it certainly has improved tremendously, but we still have much more to be done. Martin defined the evils and the injustices in our society in three areas -- poverty, racism and war. And he said that we cannot solve one problem without solving the other, working to solve the other one. And I think we have remnants of all of those. We've made some small progress in some areas more than others, but we still very much have poverty. We still very much have racism. And we still very much have a threat of war.
. . .
BLITZER: You raised the issue earlier of war. Where do you think [your husband] would come down on the whole issue of possibly going to war with Iraq?

KING: You know, my husband always believed that there should be peaceful negotiations, and he believed in nonviolence. He was committed to it totally, and he believed that conflict should be handled through the United Nations, so strength in the United Nations, and let the United Nations take the leadership. And I believe that Martin would, if he were [alive] today -- although I don't normally speak for him, but I know what he was saying at the time of his death -- is that war cannot serve any lasting good toward bringing about peace. If you use weapons of war to bring about peace, you're going to have more war and destruction. You cannot have peaceful means -- peaceful means will have to be used to bring about peaceful ends. If you use destructive means, you're going to bring about destructive ends.

Face it conservatives, Coretta Scott King was a liberal. While civil rights heroes like the Kings were leading a non-violent struggle for equality, your political heroes were finding new ways to court southern racists away from the Democratic party. The Republican journey to victory was fueled by the votes of bigots, so it's a little late in the game to start acting like you have the right to speak for the leaders of a movement you fought against.

"The middle part of the country - the great red zone that voted for Bush - is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead - and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column."

- Andrew Sullivan, September 16, 2001

"The FISA statute, in a time of war, is a check and balance. But here's where I think I'm your biggest fan. During the time of war, the administration has the inherent power, in my opinion, to surveil the enemy and to map the battlefield electronically -- not just physical, but to electronically map what the enemy is up to by seizing information and putting that puzzle together.

And the administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue fifth column movements.
. . .
So my friends on the other side, I stand by this president's ability, inherent to being commander in chief, to find out about fifth column movements, and I don't think you need a warrant to do that."

- Sen. Lindsey Graham, yesterday

The Hugo Chavez post I did last week has inspired some really strong debate. Since the original thread seems to be slowing down and there's a few points I want to address, I'm going to do it here. First of all, with all of the comments that were made, this is the one that really pissed me off :

Now, if Greg is so gullible that all Bush has to do is shout "Hey! Look over there! A Commewnist Dictator!", then Greg should spare himself the outrage and concern and start enjoying the wine women and song (such as it is) of a flag-waving BigMac-eating American life. There is no point in worrying about what the Democrats should have said if you endorse the proposition that Faux News, in conjunction with the Republican Congress, should be able to form an oligarchy to bring down elected governments.

Not only is this a cheap shot, but it's complete bullshit. Anyone who thinks I'm falling for Bush Administration propaganda hasn't read very much of this site. I don't care what George Bush and his ilk say about Chavez and to claim that my opinions are based on the anti-communist shrieks coming from Washington is completely off-base.

As I explained in an obviously overlooked comment at TMW, my views on Chavez were formed in part by the conversations I've had with my Venezuelan relatives over the summer. To them, Chavez is a man whose heart is in the right place, but isn't doing nearly enough to close the gap between the poor and rich. His various social programs to aid the poor (which I made a point of including in my last post) by helping alleviate the burden of poverty, but don't do nearly enough to lift people out of the barrios. And this is coming from self-described socialists who benefitted from social programs during the tenure of Venezula's first great president, Rómulo Betancourt.

Here's another comment that I found absurd :

I think the Human Rights Watch may take the decision out of context considering most of the media in Venezuala is fanatically anti-Chavez and backed by oil interest and the corporate lobby.

So the fact that the media is anti-Chavez justifies having a repressive law that strengthens penalties against journalists who disrespect the government? It's unbelievable to me how many liberals are willing to be apologists for a law that is indefensible on its face. The fact that the law may not have been applied yet certainly sets a curious standard that I doubt many of you would be willing to apply at home. Is Bush's illegal wiretapping acceptable until we can prove it's been used against innocent people? Is the Patriot Act acceptable in the context of 9/11 until the President actually exercises the abusive the powers that he's been granted? Punishing political critics is wrong and you shouldn't need to wait until someone's being oppressed to point it out.

Additionally, the defenders of the media law sure do paint an unrealistic portrayal of Venezuela. To them, the media's unified opposition to Chavez makes him the underdog against the big, evil corporate influence who can't get his message out, but reminders of Chavez's enormous popularity among the poor are everywhere. The most obvious example I saw when I was there was the word "NO" which was graffitied on almost every wall in the country. After a week of this ubiquitous message, I finally asked my brother-in-law what it meant. These were leftover messages of opposition to 2004's failed recall election. The fact that this single word was immediately understood by the people of Venezuela as a pro-Chavez statement says all you need to know about the passion and strength of Chavez's supporters.

Another thing that's odd to me is the frequent references to the 2002 coup as justification for the media law. Now I'm no supporter of military coups, but the implication that Chavez is some paragon of democratic values overlooks the incident that brought him to prominence in the first place :

After an extended period of popular dissatisfaction and economic decline under the neoliberal administration of Carlos Andrés Pérez, Chávez made extensive preparations for a military-civilian coup d'état Initially planned for December, Chávez delayed the MBR-200 coup until the early twilight hours of February 4, 1992. On that date, five army units under Chávez's command barreled into urban Caracas with the mission of assaulting and overwhelming key military and communications installations throughout the city, including the Miraflores presidential palace, the defense ministry, La Carlota military airport, and the Historical Museum. Chávez's ultimate goal was to intercept and take custody of Pérez before he returned to Miraflores from an overseas trip.

Yes, overthrowing democratically-elected governments is a bad thing, but I'm sure Chavez supporters will find ways to explain why it was okay in this particular case.

Look, I largely agree with the stated goals of Chavez's "Bolivarian Revolution", but after eight years of striving for, among other things, "economic self-sufficiency" and "equitable distribution of Venezuela's vast oil revenues" I see a country that's still got a shameful gap between the rich and poor and has devoted the majority of its anti-poverty efforts into programs that create what American conservatives derisively call a "welfare state". I'm sure that last statement is gonna piss people off, so let let me throw more kindling on this fire by asking why so many normally skeptical people are willing to take Chavez's statements at face value? The people I've talked to tend to see Chavez's policies as an equal mix of benevolence and cynical pandering. After years of watching both parties in this country court their respective bases, I can see what they mean. Just like the GOP knows that the key to electoral dominance is kissing religious ass on even-numbered years, I have a feeling Chavez knows exactly who he has to keep happy if he wants to stay in power.

We could argue about this stuff endlessly, but let me just end by saying that Chavez's friendship with Fidel Castro doesn't inspire me to give him the benefit of the doubt. When you're passing laws restricting press freedom while hanging out with a guy who's got a long history of jailing dissidents, the idea that an oppressive policy is the result of some accidentally vague wording is pretty hard to swallow. The more likely explanation is that Chavez wants to hold onto power and is willing to trample over the rights of anyone who gets in the way of that goal, but as long as he says the right things and bashes George Bush, I'm sure all of these criticisms are just recycled propaganda, right?

For a good example of the toothless Democratic defense that I've been railing against, here's what Sen. Russ Feingold posted today at TPM :

At yesterday’s hearing, I reminded the Attorney General about his testimony during his confirmation hearings in January 2005, when I asked him whether the President had the power to authorize warrantless wiretaps in violation of the criminal law. We didn't know it then, but the President had authorized the NSA program three years before, when the Attorney General was White House Counsel. At his confirmation hearing, the Attorney General first tried to dismiss my question as "hypothetical" before stating "it's not the policy or the agenda of this President to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes." Yesterday, he tried to claim that he had told the truth at that hearing, bringing the parsing of words to new lows. I think it is clear that the Attorney General misled the Committee and the public not only about the NSA wiretapping program but about his views on presidential power. That broader issue was central to the debate over his nomination.

The Attorney General's lack of candor adds to the already mounting credibility problem that this Administration faces. One of the things I tried to do in my second round of questions yesterday was to point out how incomplete and misleading the President's comments on the NSA program in the State of the Union address were.

Here's what I wrote in the comments :

"misled"? "lack of candor"? Why do you guys always feel the need to sugar-coat this crap? Gonzales lied to your face, Senator. Pointing that out in plain language isn't a partisan attack. You may decry Gonzo's parsing, but Democrats' constant tiptoeing around the feelings of their GOP colleagues is just as pathetic. If you guys are ever going to retake the Hill, the first thing you need to do is fire your consultants and start calling "bullshit" on these guys.

On a tangential note, here's Digby on another Democratic tool of sounding tough without saying or doing anything meaningful :

There are many things about this statement that are bullshit. I don't have to lay them all out for you. But I would like to expound on one aspect of this statement that drives me crazy: it's a process answer.

A process answer is saying what "we should say" instead of just saying it. Nothing drives me more nuts than a politician who talks process instead of engaging voters directly. In this instance it's a backstab equal to anything one of those run-at-the-mouth strategists says to the NY Times to boost his cool factor among the mediatarts. He's positioning himself as a "reasonable" centrist on national security, but he clearly has nothing to offer on the subject at hand so he just talks about what "we should be doing."

A lot of politicians do this, in different ways. Even Howard Dean used to do it when he said "we should be appealing to those guys with the confederate flags on their pick ups --- they don't have health care either." I wanted to shout "Great! Do it. What's the pitch?" The pitch never came. That's the rub with these process discussions. Just saying that we should do something or we need to do something is not the same as doing it. And it's a big reason why people are confused about what we stand for.

So you're upset that AG Gonzo lied to you, Sen. Feingold? Good, but don't waste all of your outrage on a sanitized blog post to your base. As a Senator, you've got the power to actually do something about it. Write a open letter to the Justice Department seeking a criminal investigation of the AG's perjury. Try to get Gonzo's law license revoked. Seek a resolution on the Senate floor to censure the AG for his lies. Most of all, stop being so damn polite to people who don't respect you.

This bit from today's NSA spy hearing would be clever if it weren't so stupid :

SESSIONS: With regard to history -- you made reference to history -- isn't it true, of course, President Washington instructed his army to find ways to intercept letters from British operatives, that President Lincoln issued warrantless tapping of telegraph communications during the Civil War to try to identify troop movements of the enemy? Is it true that President Wilson authorized the military to intercept all telephone and telegraph traffic going into and out of the United States?

GONZALES: That is correct.

SESSIONS: And that President Roosevelt instructed the government to use listening devices to learn the plans of spies in the United States, and that he gave the military the authority to access, without review, without warrant, all telecommunications, quote, "passing between the United States and any foreign country"?

GONZALES: That is correct, sir.

SESSIONS: What I would say to my colleagues and to the American people is, under FISA and other standards that we are using today, we have far more restraints on our military and the executive branch than history has demonstrated.

So how were Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt bound by a law passed in 1978? Oh wait, they weren't , but Bush is. Perhaps someone should ask Gonzales about the legal weight that our constitution affords to a clever historical analogy and whether said analogy is ever sufficient enough to overrule an act of Congress. Then again, that line of questioning might tip people off to the fact that these hearings are mostly a charade orchestrated for the cameras and that this GOP-run Judiciary Committee won't do anything to stop the President's criminal behavior beyond having a couple token Republicans seethe with faux-outrage.

Like Kevin, I was among a small group of bloggers who met with Wes Clark yesterday. Considering how disenchanted I've been with the Democrats, I was looking to be inspired. Going into the meeting, I was really hoping he would convince me that I was wrong about my concerns that the Democratic party has been completely cowed into silence by the GOP. Needless to say, I walked out of there even more disappointed than before.

To be fair, he almost had me. In response to a question about what the "Democratic message" on Iraq should be, Clark wisely turned the question around and insisted that it's not the Democrats' responsibility to come up with a plan. In fact, he argued, the Commander in Chief has access to so many more resources that it would make any Democratic plans pointless. Instead, Democrats should be pointing out the failures of the current administration. For some reason, this wasn't a very popular answer among my fellow bloggers, but it made a lot of sense to me.

Unfortunately for me, Clark ended his time with us with an answer that not only contradicted his earlier statement but convinced me that the party is completely screwed. The final thought that he wanted to leave on was his grave concern over the bitter partisanship and angry "tone" in Washington. While I agree with this in broad terms, this is the self-defeating strawman that will permanently destroy the Democratic party if people don't wake the hell up.

Point taken, General Clark, but how is the angry "tone" in Washington the Democrats' fault? Where are these hate-filled blue-staters? From where I'm sitting, it seems like every time a Democrat makes a statement that's fueled more by emotion that poll numbers, it's quickly followed by an apology. The most blatant example of late is mob-buster Harry Reid begging the forgiveness of the GOP because he had the gall to point out the crimes they committed.

I don't mean to get into self-help babble here, but the Democrats need to own their feelings and stop trying to please everybody. Take a look at Bush and Cheney. In 2000, Bush called a NYT reporter a "major-league asshole" on stage. Four years later, Dick Cheney told Sen. Leahy to fuck himself on the floor of the Senate, yet neither Bush nor Cheney issued press releases or dropped on their knees. As much as I can't stand these guys, they were at least honest enough to admit that they were pissed and letting off a little steam. It's also worth noting that neither incident hurt their standing with the easily-offended moral police.

Would that mean that the Democrats should add to the bitter division that's ripping Washington apart? Of course not, but I have a very high bar for what's considered inappropriate. Would pointing out the fact that the President was completely out of touch during the Katrina crisis be a personal attack? Is it unfair to call intentionally misleading statements by the Bush Administration "lies"? Is it "political hate-speech" to use the words "crimes" and "criminal" to describe Presidential actions that are clearly in violation of the law?

Of course, the answer to all of these questions is "no". These aren't criticisms about the character of the President and his allies, nor are they personal attacks that have no relevance to the current political climate. They're all legitimate criticisms that have everything to do with George W. Bush's ability to do the job he was once or twice (depending on how you count) elected to perform. Yet every one of these criticisms (which seem mild to me) are deemed to daring for the majority of beltway Democrats.

Which takes me back to this bitter partisan divide crap. Considering that the Democrats in D.C. are too timid to even defend themselves, it's sad to see a great guy like Wes Clark beat up his fellow Dems for fighting too dirty in a battle they haven't even joined. It's like kid getting beat up by a bully decrying "the endless cycle of violence". A good way to stop that cycle is to stop getting your ass kicked.

So this is where we seem stuck. The Democratic party is facing the most vulnerable Republican party in a generation, but they're still afraid of "politicizing" corruption, contributing to the angry "tone" in D.C. by calling lies "lies", and actually defending themselves against a GOP spin machine whose best defense against their criminal behavior is the lie that "Democrats do it too". I'm not asking that they sink to the Republicans level, but start defending themselves with the same level of energy they use to defend their seats in Congress.

In the movie Defending Your Life, there's a scene where Albert Brooks' defender is trying to make a case that he has overcome his various fears by replaying an incident in which Brooks injured himself and crawled for help. In response, the prosecutor said "Nobody ever accused him of not having a survival instinct". And that's kinda where things seem to stand today. We've already figured out that Democrats are too frigid to stand up for themselves or us, but won't their instincts kick in at some point? Or are they, as one blogger at the meeting said, like the frog in a pot of water slowly heating up to a boil who won't realize how hot it is until it's too late?

For those that don't also frequent This Modern World, comments were turned on this week. So the TMW versions of "Saving What You Don’t Have", "Yay! We Got Second Place", and "The Enemy of My Enemy..." all have lengthy threads that are worth checking out if you've got a few minutes.

It's been a while since I've had multiple friends ask me to blog about something, so with my friends Nasaka and Anthony both wanting to know what I think about the Danish Muslim cartoon controversy, well, I guess the title of this post kinda sums it up. For a little background, here's how BAGnewsNotes (who as of early this morning was the only place I could find the cartoons) summarized the controversy :

Saudi Arabia and Syria recall their ambassadors from Denmark and Libya closes its embassy in Copenhagen. Muslims storm the Danish embassy in Jakarta, and gunmen threatened the European Union offices in Gaza. Why? Because of 12 cartoons that ran in a Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten, in September.

Originally, editors at the paper asked 12 artists to draw depictions of the prophet after an author complained that no artist was willing, under his own name, to illustrate a book about Mohammed. A controversy then broke out between Danish Muslims and the paper which appeared settled after the paper apologized for causing offense, but defended its right to publish the material. The current crisis started, however, when European papers began reprinting the cartoons in a display of press freedom.

From The BAG's standpoint, however, the strangest thing about the controversy is that the specific cartoons (with the exception of the one above) have barely been discussed. Instead, the anger centers almost exclusively on the fact that the prophet is involved. Religious leaders insist that Islamic tradition bars any depiction of Mohammed for fear that such images can lead to idolatry.

In defense of those protesting, a number of the cartoons are genuinely offensive, but if the protests are based less on the content of the cartoons than the fact that some uppity cartoonists would have the audacity to draw a picture of their prophet, then one cartoon in particular stands out as the perfect criticism of this whole situation :



I sympathize with those who are offended by some of the other cartoons, but the people rioting in the streets need to calm the hell down. Living in a free society means sometimes you're going to hear and see things you find offensive. Protesting is a perfectly natural reaction, but this is extremism :



That said, there's probably a lot more to this than meets the eye. Are the photos we're seeing in the press indicative of the protests as a whole or just the hysterical parts that the media has latched upon? Are European newspapers responsible for stoking this controversy by responding to Muslim anger by reprinting the cartoons? I don't know enough about the relationship between Europeans as a whole and the Muslim world to reach any conclusions, but my initial reaction is that this is largely a bunch of religious people overreacting and trying to silence their critics. I hate it when people do that in America, so this rubs me the wrong way as well. Put down that burning flag and write a letter to the editor, man.

Less importantly, but still worth mentioning, is that this sign cracks me up :

At first glance, I thought this said "Freedom to go to hell" which made me laugh in a "I'll give you a can of 'shut the hell up'" sort of way, but it looks like it's actually a sign protesting the idea of freedom. Is it just me or does that seem like a poorly-chosen stance for someone who's rioting in the streets? Either way, I can't wait to steal this idea with a "Fuck the First Amendment" placard at the next anti-war protest.

UPDATE : Dumb mistake on my part. It was a Danish newspaper, not Dutch. For those of who who view this as a pet peeve, here's a Elayne Riggs calling me an idiot.

[I]t's starting to niggle at me that many bloggers have mistakenly referred to this as a Dutch controversy. No folks, we've already covered that one. Holland and Denmark are not the same country, as I hope Amsterdam-bound bloggers are aware

My bad.

Lemme just start by saying I respect Cindy Sheehan. I think her activism has given voice to hundreds of grieving military families who are enraged at the Bush Administration. My mom even went to visit Camp Casey over the summer and i printed the photos on the site. So it's with a heavy heart that I've got to ask this question :

What the hell are you thinking?!

Getting cuddly with Hugo Chavez and thanking him for "supporting life and peace"? Do you know anything about Hugo Chavez other than the fact that he hates George Bush? Here's an eye-opener from Human Rights Watch :

Amendments to Venezuela’s Criminal Code that entered into force last week may stifle press criticism of government authorities and restrict the public’s ability to monitor government actions, Human Rights Watch said today.

“By broadening laws that punish disrespect for government authorities, the Venezuelan government has flouted international human rights principles that protect free expression,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “While countries across Latin America are moving to repeal such laws, Venezuela has enacted further restrictions on the press that will shield officials from public scrutiny.”

The amendments extend the scope of existing provisions that make it a criminal offense to insult or show disrespect for the president and other government authorities. Venezuela’s measures run counter to a continent-wide trend to repeal such “disrespect” (or “desacato”) laws. In recent years, Argentina, Costa Rica, Paraguay, and Peru have already repealed such laws, and other countries like Chile and Panama are currently considering legislation that would do so.
. . .
Anyone convicted of offending these authorities could go to prison for up to 20 months. Anyone who gravely offends the president, on the other hand, can incur a penalty of up to 40 months in prison.

In other words, if you went to Caracas and tried to do the exact same thing you did in Crawford, you'd be in jail right now.

And though I wouldn't use the word "dictator" to describe Chavez, I can see why people would jump to that conclusion after power grabs like this :

The Venezuelan Congress dealt a severe blow to judicial independence by packing the country’s Supreme Court with 12 new justices, Human Rights Watch said today. A majority of the ruling coalition, dominated by President Hugo Chávez’s party, named the justices late yesterday, filling seats created by a law passed in May that expanded the court’s size by more than half.
. . .
The law passed in May expanded the court from 20 to 32 members. In addition to the justices named to the 12 new seats, five justices were named to fill vacancies that had opened in recent months, and 32 more were named as reserve justices for the court. Members and allies of President Chávez’s Fifth Republic Movement (Movimiento V República, or MVR) form a majority in Congress.
. . .
The court-packing law signed in May also gave the governing coalition the power to remove judges from the Court without the two-thirds majority vote required under the constitution. In June, two justices retired after facing possible suspension from the Supreme Court as a result of these new provisions.

The political takeover of the Supreme Court will compound the damage already done to judicial independence by policies pursued by the court itself. The Supreme Court, which has administrative control over the judiciary, has failed to provide security of tenure to 80 percent of the country’s judges. In March, the court summarily fired three judges after they had decided politically controversial cases.

For those of you who have the knee-jerk reaction of defending anyone described as "leftist", just because Chavez helps the poor by providing cheap petroleum, sending doctors into the barrios, and setting up a market to provide partially-subsidized food, doesn't change the fact that he's acting like a despot. Harassment of political opponents and the slow crawl toward a one-party state are things I hate about George W. Bush and the Republican party, so I don't see why Chavez should get a free pass.