I suppose there is a point under all the attempts to be clever?

What I saw, and found offensive, however--was not your comment that Hugo is a "spitter" (whatever that means), but your admitted complete disinterest in anything to do with South America.

Much as you may hope, we do not live in a Gringocentric world.

Dear Moonraven

Let's do this in parts:

I'm a South American myself. One who knows of Mr. Chavez' meddling in the politics of neighbouring countries and trying to speak in the name of a "new-Bolivarianism" (if there is such a thing) and waving petrodollars around. It's supposed to be satyrical, and that's why the text is tagged as a satyre.

If I were truly "gringocentric" I might not even know Mr. Chavez. I certainly wouldn't know who Simon Bolivar is, and I most definitely wouldn't read Brazilian newspapers (all three are quoted in the text).

My satyre had to do with Christmas and my relation with it. Mr. Chavez' amusing law forbidding Santa Claus and the like was what motivated it.

Ah, and a spitter is a person who spits. During conversation.

Best,

ML.

Excuse me, but if you were truly South American you would not have to link to Wikpedia for info about Hugo Chavez; give me a break.

I am NOT South American in origin, but have spent the last 15 years living and working in Latin America--including in two South American countries (Venezuela and Ecuador). I have spent quality time not only in Caracas, but many other parts of Venezuela. I have also spent time with Hugo Chavez--and can tell you that he is most definitely NOT a spitter. (If that's the only sandbox commentary you can raise against him, you are abusing readers of this site.)

You claim that your piece is "satire". Last time I checked, which was during a course I was giving on 18th century English lit, I was reminded that one of the elements of satire is humor--an element conspicuous by its absence in your piece.

Chavez won by a landslide yesterday--have you noticed that his percentage of votes increases slightly every time? Even if he runs against both Santa Claud and The Devil...apparently.

Sorry for the Freudian misstype of Claus.

Perhaps Chavez wins with a higher percentage of the vote each time because his control over the government and the media becomes stronger after every "mandate" he receives from the illiterate masses of Venezuela?

Just a thought.

If you do a google search, you will discover that the UN declared Venezuela free from illiteracy. I can see that you don't follow the events and processes in South America, or you would have known that.

You also appear to be taking a classist or racist posture in regard to the people of Venezuela, and I find that offensive.

Chavez has zero control over the media in Venezuela except for the government channels. All the commercial media are owned by the political opposition. Anyone with a superficial knowledge of Venezuela is aware of that.

I think it's time for you to educate yourself about Venezuela. Get on a plane and go there. Talk to the people. Travel around the country.
That's what I did.

"the UN declared Venezuela free from illiteracy."

Super for the UN!

In reality, illiteracy is at about 7% in Venezuela...and for whom do you suppose that 7% voted for?

"You also appear to be taking a classist or racist posture in regard to the people of Venezuela, and I find that offensive."

Of course you do.

However, it should be pointed out that "illiterate Venezuelan communists" is not actually a race. But being much more worldly than me, you already knew that.

"Chavez has zero control over the media in Venezuela except for the government channels."

Uh huh.

Well, let's pretend for a moment that you were telling the truth. All that's about to change...

Illiteracy in the US is higher than in Venezuela. For whom did the illiterates vote? You seem to feel that illiteracy inplies a leftist posture.

Communists--oh please--I was around in the 50s with that silly duck and cover stuff. Nothing came of it except that the US government used the red scare to spend like a drunken sailor on nuclear weapons and CIA coups.

And now you--who is comletely ignorant about Venezuela--is now a fortune-teller?

The Easter Bunny--do you believe in him, too--is more worldly than you.

Ignorance, however, does not have to be cast in stone. You can change that. I already told you how.

"Illiteracy in the US is higher than in Venezuela."

Oops! Wrong again!

Literacy (USA)

definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 99%
male: 99%
female: 99% (2003 est.)

Literacy (Venezuela)

definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 93.4%
male: 93.8%
female: 93.1% (2003 est.)

"Communists--oh please"

Uh huh -

From the so-called President's Balcony, Chávez hailed Venezuela, the "socialist revolution," and Liberator Simón Bolívar.

Are you embarrassed yet?

Dear Moonraven

Winning by a landslide probably has something to do with spending literally millions and millions of dollars from a state-controlled enterprise (PDVSA) on populist actions. It might also have something to do with control of the media, disbandment of the opposition, and I could go on and on.

You were in Ecuador? Did you know that Mr. Chavez actively interfered with that country's election process? By campaigning for Rafael Correa?

Let me tell you how I see it: You probably thought my story was an ode to Hugo Chavez (and I can tell from your earlier post that you like the man). Halfway through the text (and before looking up the definition of satyre) you felt aggravated because you saw the story as derogatory to Hugo Chavez. You simply can't get the fact that the "Hugo" character is a metaphor (and that's why I call him Mr. Chavez in the beginning of the text, where I'm describing factual events, and I call him Hugo during the dialogue)

You are fully entitled the right of liking or disliking anyone. I believe I am entitled the right of writing about anything I deem interesting, provided the in-house editors approve it.

If you are American I find it hard to see how, with your "upbringing", you can like a president who bends the power of his office to his personal aims. Ah, did you know his agenda includes the amendment of the constitution to allow for indefinite reelections?

And two last things: My quoting of the Wikipidia article has to to with the fact that if you're DEFINING something it's best to use a third party source - one viewed as impartial - my story is NOT about Hugo Chavez and I put that in for the benefit of readers who didn't know him. If you check my site out (and you can find the address somewhere on this page) you will see that the version of the article there doesn't contain the Wikipidia reference.

I am from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. While I have lived in England and in the US, I was born and live and work in Rio.

Saludos!

ML

Winning by a landslide probably has something to do with spending literally millions and millions of dollars from a state-controlled enterprise (PDVSA) on populist actions. It might also have something to do with control of the media, disbandment of the opposition, and I could go on and on.

IF THAT WERE THE CASE, WHAT ABOUT THE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THE US GOVERNMENT GAVE TO THE VENEZUELAN OPPOSITION? FOLLOWING YOUR LOGIC, CHAVEZ SHOULD HAVE LOST.

I HAVE ALREADY INDICATED THAT THE BIGWIGS--GUSTAVO CISNEROS ET AL--OF THE OPPOSITION NOT ONLY CONTROL THE MEDIA IN VENEZUELA--THEY OWN IT. THAT'S WHY THE ATTEMPTED COUP IN 2002 WAS CALLED THE FIRST MEDIA COUP.

IF THE OPPOSITION HAS DISBANDED, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THEIR DECISION. THEY PRESENTED A CANDIDATE--HE LOST. GAME OVER. AGAIN. THE OPPOSITION IS SHRINKING IN PERCENTAGE OF VOTES BECAUSE MANY OF THEM ARE CASHING IN ON THE FASTING GROWING ECONOMY IN THE HEMISPHERE WOULD BE A CYNICAL WAY TO LOOK AT IT.

NO, YOU COULD NOT GO ON AND ON--BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO FACTS AND NO INFORMATION ABOUT VENEZUELA EXCEPT FOR WHAT YOU HAVE READ. FROM YOUR OWN SELF-DESCRIPTION, YOU HAVE NEVER LIVED THERE.

You were in Ecuador? Did you know that Mr. Chavez actively interfered with that country's election process? By campaigning for Rafael Correa?

NOT ONLY HAVE I LIVED IN ECUADOR AT TWO DIFFERENT TIMES--I WAS IN QUITO WHEN THE GOVERNMENT OF GUTIERREZ FELL. IT FELL BECAUSE HE HAD RUN ON A PLATFORM SIMILAR TO THAT OF CHAVEZ, THEN BETRAYED HIS CONSITUENCY BY GETTING INTO BED WITH WASHINGTON. IF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT PULLS THE SAME STUNT, HE'LL BE TOSSED OUT, TOO. IT'S BECOME A TRADITION--SOMETHING LIKE 8 PRESIDENTS IN LESS THAN 10 YEARS SHOWS THAT THE BANANAS ARE ROTTEN IN ECUADOR.

NO ONE THESE DAYS CAN RELIABLY INTERFERE WITH ANOTHER COUNTRY'S ELECTION PROCESS. THE US HAS TRIED IT MANY TIMES LATELY--IT DIDN'T WORK IN VENEZUELA, NOR IN BOLIVIA, NOR IN NICARAGUA AND CERTAINLY NOT IN ECUADOR--DESPITE THE RESPECTIVE AMBASSSADORS' THREATS. INVITING CORREA TO SPEND A WEEKEND WITH CHAVEZ AND HIS PARENTS IN BARINAS WAS NOT INTERFERING WITH THE ELECTION--HE DID NOT INVITE THE ECUADORIAN VOTERS!!!!--IT WAS GETTING TO KNOW A PROSPECTIVE PRESIDENT OF A NEIGHBORING COUNTRY. JUST GOOD BUSINESS.

Let me tell you how I see it: You probably thought my story was an ode to Hugo Chavez (and I can tell from your earlier post that you like the man). Halfway through the text (and before looking up the definition of satyre) you felt aggravated because you saw the story as derogatory to Hugo Chavez. You simply can't get the fact that the "Hugo" character is a metaphor (and that's why I call him Mr. Chavez in the beginning of the text, where I'm describing factual events, and I call him Hugo during the dialogue)

I THINK YOU NEED TO INCREASE YOUR DOSAGE--THAT MADE ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.

You are fully entitled the right of liking or disliking anyone. I believe I am entitled the right of writing about anything I deem interesting, provided the in-house editors approve it.

YEP, JUST GRAFFITI THOSE WALLS--IT'S YOUR PERFECT RIGHT.

If you are American I find it hard to see how, with your "upbringing", you can like a president who bends the power of his office to his personal aims.

THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION IS PRECISELY WHY I DESPISE GEORGE W. BUSH. HE SHAMED AN ALREADY BESMIRCHED COUNTRY AND SHAMED THE CONCEPT OF DEMOCRACY. HE IS A SHELTERED WORKSHOP VERSION OF HITLER.

AS A NATIVE AMERICAN MY UPBRINGING DOESN'T ALLOW ME TO FALL FOR THOSE BEADS AND FIREWATER.

Ah, did you know his agenda includes the amendment of the constitution to allow for indefinite reelections?

CONSIDERING THE NUMBER OF YEARS THAT VENEZUELA HAS BEEN IN CHAOS DURING ITS HISTORY SINCE ITS WAR OF INDEPENDENCE, POLITICAL STABILITY MIGHT ACTUALLY ALLOW IT TO BECOME A NATION--AND A POWERFUL ONE, CONSIDERING ITS PETROLEUM RESERVES ARE LARGER THAN THOSE OF SAUDI ARABIA. (I AM WRITING THIS FROM RIGHT ACROSS THE BRIDGE FROM SAUDI--IN BAHRAIN, AND KNOW FIRST HAND OF WHAT I WRITE.)

And two last things: My quoting of the Wikipidia article has to to with the fact that if you're DEFINING something it's best to use a third party source - one viewed as impartial - my story is NOT about Hugo Chavez and I put that in for the benefit of readers who didn't know him. If you check my site out (and you can find the address somewhere on this page) you will see that the version of the article there doesn't contain the Wikipidia reference.

I AM NOT INCLINED TO READ YOUR PIECE AGAIN.

I am from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. While I have lived in England and in the US, I was born and live and work in Rio.

SO? WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

Saludos!

ML
IGUALMENTE

MOONRAVEN

Moonraven:

This is starting to sound like a flame war. I don't have the time for this. You and many other people think that after almost half a decade of military dictatorships with a rightist flavour South America has actually moved forward with the same thing tilted towards the left.

Many politicians in the region sustain themselves on a pseudo-leftist rhetoric which proved ineffective years and years ago. In the name of fighting "imperialism", they are willing to do away with several personal rights you would take for granted. If you view this as a good thing, that's a perfectly valid opinion.

However, your opinion does not reflect that of the majority. I must point out that the fact that you were in Venezuela does not make it gospel.

Many of us in the region thing think there is a real risk of several countries in the continent going back to where they were, democracy-wise, in the 1960s and 70s.

I mentioned where I'm from to clarify your doubt as to whether I was really South American. Out of politeness, because I am certainly under no obligation to do so.

Bear in mind I have no problem in discussing anything I've written. I believe discussion is an inherent part of a publication such as Blogcritics. However, I will ask that you remain civilized. I will refrain from answerings offensive posts - control yourself or don't come to play.

Your impartial source, Wikipedia, indicates that in 2003 14% of folks in the US were illiterate.

The same year, according to Wikipedia, Venezuela's illiteracy rate was 6.6%--that was before Mission Robinson brought the figure down to just about 1%. No such mission was implemented in the US.

Don't make up your figures, sweetie. No points for a big imagination and no facts.

If you do not have time for discussion--what an arrogant comment--don't write opinion pieces. Do everybody a favor. There is an exprression, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen", which applies in your case.

At no time have I been offensive to you--I am NOT a racist or classist. On the other hand, apparently your comment that I am "uncivilized" (despite a PhD in English and many years as a writer and university-level educator and administrator) has to do with my being Native American.

My opinion may not be that of the majority (majority of WHOM?) because the majority of the planet's folks can't even find Venezuela on a world map! However, the majority of Venezuelans have spoken. Again. Yesterday.

Every year Latinobarometro conducts a survey of acceptance of democracy among the country which make up Latin America. While in some countries there is reason to be concerned, Venezuela has close to the highest percentage of acceptance:

Democracia venezolana en cifras de latinobarómetro
Por: Iván Oliver Rugeles
Publicado el Miércoles, 23/11/05 03:57pm

En su estudio 2005 resalta el hecho de que Venezuela es el país que más confía en la democracia. Ante el sondeo que hizo acerca de cuan democrático son los países del Continente, en una puntación de 1 a 10, Venezuela obtuvo 7,6, siendo la más alta y muy superior a la media de la región que es de 5,5. Le siguen Uruguay con 7,1, Costa Rica con 6,5, Chile con 6,2 y más abajo México con 5,1. Pero veamos otras cifras relevantes:

-El 76% de los venezolanos manifiesta su total apoyo a la democracia, ocupando el primer lugar Uruguay con 77%, le siguen Costa Rica con 73%, Argentina con 65% y Chile con 59%.

-El 56% de los venezolanos afirman encontrarse muy satisfechos con su democracia, mientras que en Chile la cifra llega al 43%, en Colombia al 29%, en México al 24% y en Perú a 13%. La media latinoamericana llega al 31%. Destaca el informe que en Venezuela esa satisfacción no ha dejado de crecer desde el triunfo de Chávez en 1998, pues del 30% que afirmaba que lo estaba en 1.996, el indicador creció al 55% en el período 1999/2000.

3) El 65% de los venezolanos aprueba la forma en que Chávez dirige el país (el 61% tiene confianza en él y el 54% considera que el país en verdad muestra claro progreso en materia económica).

4) El 50% de los venezolanos aprueba la gestión del gobierno en su integridad y,

5) El 65% de los venezolanos considera a las elecciones como el mecanismo idóneo e insustituible para la preservación de la democracia.

aporrea.org

The percentages in that survey are very consistent with the results of yesterday's election. Any politician you would care to name would give his right arm for Chavez' level of acceptance.

Again, you start with one line of facts (and there is an online source that will back every single opinion) and jump into personal offenses.

If you want to discuss something, I'm here. If your discussion is a genuine attempt at turning someone's opinion to yours, supply an email address and we'll get on with it privately. Who knows? Once your views have been presented in an agression-free environment I might actually believe that they're sound, and not a mere attempt at winning a flame-war.

But you sound more agressive than the usual guy trying to prove a point.

Please accept my piece as something well written or badly written (as someone else has quipped before). I would understand you better if I had purported to draft an in-depth analysis of Venezuela. I certainly did not, and my text can simply not be construed as such an attempt.

If you can't get a joke, that's alright. If you CAN get jokes, but hate it when they poke at politicians you have either been in the vicinity of, or particularly like, that's fine by me too.

Just don't try to turn the fact that you didn't like the piece into "you've got the politics all wrong". The fun of fiction is that while a background in fact is sometimes useful (and as you haven't disputed the fact that he did pass a law forbidding Santa Claus, etc. I'll take it you believe it actually happened), fiction is NOT an attempt at analysing facts and issuing an opinion.

When I write one of those I'll file it under the op-ed section. And I'll happily discuss the facts as part of defending the piece.

However, the views that I expressed on the politics in reply to your posts have NOTHING to do with the piece. While I believed your intentions were discussing the politics (and not just loading and firing the flame cannon) I shared my views. Now, there's simply no point in feeding the beast.

In the meantime, let's share the love.

Best,

Marcus.

You have a unique talent for putting words in other folks' mouths. And for projection.

I have already indicated that your piece was not funny. If comedy is your aim, you will starve. The first rule for a writer, incidentally, is: Write about what you KNOW. You didn't do that.

I am all for banning Santa Claus--for that matter, even in the US. Consumerism is at the root of the destruction of the planet.

And I am not a guy.

Moonraven,

First of all I apologize for the gender mix up. I couldn't have inferred you weren't a guy from any of your posts.

You hate Santa Claus - I knew we had SOMETHING in common. If you're ever in Rio de Janeiro do send me an email and my wife and I will be more than happy to show you around and buy you a couple of caipirinhas, a local drink made of Brazilian cachaça and limes. Believe me, no one disputes anything after a couple of caipirinhas.

I promise you won't have to read any of my pieces as it's pretty established by now that you don't like them.

Keep sharing the love,

M.

"I have already indicated that your piece was not funny. If comedy is your aim, you will starve."

Er, and you care so intensely about that why, exactly?

If you don't like the piece, that's fine. If you don't think it's funny, that's fine. If you don't agree with it, that's fine. That's the risk writers have to live with. But what it sounds like here is that you have a problem with allowing anyone to have an opinion that differs from yours. Even looking at the same facts, people can come to different conclusions; the person with the different is often no dumber or smarter, no more prone to prejuidice, than you (the generic you) are.

I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about here. Why spend so much time with something that you have so clearly indicated is not worth your time?

I thought the piece was great. I started to read the comments, but had a familiar feeling of deja vu combined with nausea concerning "moonraven." S/he sounds an AWFUL lot like the commenter of yore (professor, expatriate, insufferable blowhard) who started interminable and hostile attacks in these pages as an apologist for all things Communist awhile back.

Perhaps Christopher knows if it's the same person--if not, must be her clone.

I've done a couple of opinion pieces in the past on my blog, and magnetized a couple of people who didn't know when to just let things go. One of them was on the subject of Tom Cruise. For some unknown reason, just having an opinion on something and deciding to write about it gives these people the impression that they have to go into verbal attack mode.

Life's too short, people. Just let it go and move on with whatever else is important in your lives.

Moonraven? How about calling yourself "Moonbat"? Are you just absolutely pathologically dishonest, or simply blind drunk on commie kool-aid?

"HE SHAMED AN ALREADY BESMIRCHED COUNTRY AND SHAMED THE CONCEPT OF DEMOCRACY. HE IS A SHELTERED WORKSHOP VERSION OF HITLER." Really? You love this murdering communist dictator, but George Bush is Hitler?

As to winning an election, that doesn't mean a hell of a lot. It might be because Venezuelans are largely illiterate and just don't know better. Or it could be that Chavez has consolidated his power and gets an increasing share of votes because he's better able to fake the numbers- which I would find easy to believe. Or maybe it's a little from column A, and a little from column B.

Any way you want to look at the electoral issue though, Chavez is an evil slug, happy to get in bed with the very worst dangerous assmunches on the planet such as the Iranian mullahs just to spite US. Here's a general rule of thumb for beginning to sort out the good guys vs the bad guys: Anyone who looks at George Bush and Ahmadinejad and picks the latter as their preferred buddy, you can pretty well figure that they are a wicked monster who gives not a rat's ass about the good of mankind.

In any case, the moonbat's just being ridiculous to claim that they have any kind of free opposition press in Venezuela.

Beyond all that, though, Moonraven here is really, really humorless to get offended over very gentle humor such as Marcus wrote here. Here in America at least, we rake even the politicians we LIKE over the coals a lot harder than this.

If I might interject here, I thought Marcus's original piece was a nice little piece of humor. It's a pity there are a number of people who have no appreciation for the absurd--which, by the way, is a key element of satire.

Marcus-- don't let them drag you down to their level of turning everything into a political debate. These would-be pundits have no sense of humor.

I was under the apparent misapprehension that PERSONAL ATTACKS were not permitted on this forum....

One of you apologists for the political right wing want to explain why the concept of SOCIALISM, if applied in the Third World is interpreted as COMMUNISM--yet I don't see any of you jokers painting Norway red?

To the oh-so-civilized debator who wrote this:

"You love this murdering communist dictator, but George Bush is Hitler?"

You bet your ass George Bush is a murdering (thousands on 9/11, hundreds of thousands of Iraqui civilians, almost 3,000 US soldiers)fascist (check out Mussolini's definition of fascism as a fusion of government and big business) dictator (Patriot--sic--Acts I and II, disappearing habeas corpus, a basic right since the Madna Carta, illegal wiretaps, and on and on and on)--have you tried to find your civil rights lately? Why do you think some folks are waking up and even voting for nebbish democrats?

Newsweek calls Norway a "social welfare state"--if it were south of the Rio Grande would they have to amend that to "Communist state"? Probably.

Nobody talks about Communism anymore, guys. This is the Twenty-first century.

Move on. Get a high school diploma.

Hmmm.

What we have here is someone who personally attacks a Blogcritics writer because of a political disagreement, personally attacks Blogcritics commenters, believes in loopy leftist conspiracy theories (Bush did 9/11!), and repeatedly spews obviously bogus "facts" that are then immediately rebutted (with citations), but then ignores said rebuttals.

So, the only think I wanna know is: Why did SHARK change his moniker?



(JK!) ;-)

No personal attacks by this poster. Unless you consider a recommendation that any high school guidance counselor could have given you to be a personal attack.

None of my facts are "bogus". Saying that they are--when it is this poster who has put citations for them--does not make them bogus. It just shows that you have nothing with which to refute them.

Goebbels beat you to the punch years ago by indicating that if a lie is repeated enough times it becomes the truth.

And here is a tidy psychological description of your hero George W. Bush--both in terms of foreign "policy" and domestic abuse:

"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off (KEEP MENTIONING 9/11 AND DRAG OUT THE USUAL 22 PAKISTANI SUSPECTS TO TAKE A BOW WHENEVER YOU NEED TO DISTRACT FROM A SCANDAL);

never admit a fault or wrong (HE'S THE DECIDER, HE WILL STAY THE COURSE);

never concede that there may be some good in your enemy (EVERYBODY WHO'S AGAINST HIM IS A MEMBER IIN GOOD STANDING OF THE AXIS OF EVIL);

never leave room for alternatives (EXCEPT FOR BEING AGAINST HIM AND THEREFORE A MEMEBER, ETC.);

never accept blame (IT WAS THE CIA DIRECTOR, THE DEVIL, OR HELLUVAJOB BROWNIE);

concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong (FIRST OSAMA AND THEN SADDAM--WHEN SADDAM WENT ON TRIAL THE CIA TASK GROUP TO FIND OSAMA WAS CANCELLED);

people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one (SADDAM HAS WMDS, SADDAM DID 9/11, HUGO CHAVEZ IS A DICTATOR WHO IS THREATENING DEMOCRACY IN THE HEMISPHERE, THE PRESIDENT OF IRAN IS GOING TO DROP A NUCLEAR BOMB ON WASHINGTON DC, AND ON AND ON AND ON); and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it (ESPECIALLY IF FOX NEWS DOES IT FOR YOU)."

Well, it could have been a description of him--from your old friend Wikipedia --except that, oops, it was an OSS psychological profile of Hitler...

But, again, we digress. Back to the OP's attempt at satire. In an article in today's Toronto Star entitled "US Failing to Engage Latin Leaders", this quote:

"Carl Cira, director of the Summit of the Americas at Florida International University, says it is time Washington learned there is no percentage in "shouting and beating our chest.

"You can call this a tilt to the left, or a tilt to populism, but only Chavez has the economic autonomy to stick his finger in the eye of the U.S.," he says.

Notice how he chose the phrase "stick his finger in the eye of the US"--not spit in the eye of the US.

Just a little bit of difference in phrasing makes the difference between agile use of the language and a woefully jejune comment.

My God, its just a guys personal view about Christmas. Why you people always have to freak out with small things? Thats so hipocrite, you could use that strentgh to deffend you country and fucking america latina ACTUALLY doing something. Go work for a non-profit organization, go feed the poor, go buy books for miserable children, dont stay in front of the computer playing nacionalist.
Because I dont buy it.
Excellent post, moonraven!

Ode to Hugo Chavez (Richard, 31 December)


Draw your sword, we your blood
Our logomachy must reach an end
Antipathy rises bitterly to flood
When words cut too deep to mend

Our pneuma cannot be devoured
By bete noir or those misguided
Be warned a faith fully flowered
Will not be murdered nor divided

Your raillery is pepless and old
Recalcitrance for nothing's sake
Radical inclusion just to be bold
Always washes shallow and fake

You have mistaken stilled silence
For quiescence and perhaps fear
Good people are slow to violence
But grow pawky with danger near

We ask you to reconsider the road
That you so self-destine to travel
For decades this road was closed
Proclaiming ill intent unraveled