Chile News, Crazy Latins, Norman Mailer and Your Deleted Comments

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Before I get started with my first-ever Sunday news roundup I gotta get something off my chest:

Blog Comments
Blogger profiles are the world's lamest invention and they're kidnapping your comments so just click "Other" then type your name and domain if you wish.

News Roundup
Crazy latins in Chile...

Nothing like this mild mannered establishmentarian, RIP, from the land where blue filters go over the camera lens (if you're Steven Soderbergh)

Interestingly, just a few days ago Mailer's Ghost pre-humously entered my consciousness on this very blog when I was batting down some henpecking dullard who tried to elevate Mario Vargas Llosa as some Literary Pinnacle and I said, among other things:

What's worse is that Vargas Llosa is like the John Grisham of Spanish literature (okay, not that bad, maybe like Norman Mailer) but basically just good pulp. Ernesto Sabato is lejos more interesting, for example.

Honestly I'm not really sure if literary experts would classify Sabato as any better, I personally find him more interesting because he deals in the dark, mysterious and metaphysical while Llosa and Mailer are steeped in bravado and superficialism, which has its own merits, I loved An American Dream, especially that part right after he kills his wife and turns to the reader and says, "Have you ever tried peyote?" Brilliant.

Until reading all the obituaries I didn't know that in real life he'd actually attacked his second wife with a knife. Not so brilliant. But it kinda further solidifies Mailer's similarity to Llosa, who punched out Gabriel Garcia Marquez for hitting on his wife or winning the Nobel or something.

In a 1991 Fresh Air interview with Norman Mailer, in which Mailer is disappointingly non-specific about names and one gets the impression Terry Gross is pitching her questions from behind a thick sheet of bulletproof glass, Mailer forecasts the death of the novel and lauds hispanic writers:

I wish the level of our writing was as high as, let's say, as the writing in Latin and South America, I mean, they have great writers there. Any number of the 4, 5, 6 you could name and I'm not sure that we do anymore.

The only other novel I read by him was Harlot's Ghost, about a CIA agent in South America during like the '70s, over 1000 pages with a tepid plot and lotsa big words for big nerds. I loved it.

Anyway, getting back to those out-of-control latins, I'm gonna side with the King if only because Chavez sides with the president of Iran. Also because Chavez makes Bachelet look good and that's annoying: she can carry her obscene populism to magnificent heights while staying under the radar because Chavez is a blustering buffoon who's hatred of the poor and oppressed seems to dwarf that of Chile's gov't, if you can imagine it. How can you stick up for brown people while siding with a dictatorship that imprisons and executes gays and now denies their existence.

And Castro, who totally ignored the JCR's petition for help - help which could have been a strong force against Pinochet's Operation Condor which obliterated resistance throughout the southern cone, helped torture and kill tens of thousands - for him to criticize the 21st century outcome is absurd. If you don't know what I'm talking about you should read The Condor Years: How Pinochet and His Allies Brought Terrorism to Three Continentsand you might even find inaccuracies in what I just said. It's an amazing book. Buy it now.

UPDATE: The King vs. Dictator spat is going crazy!

16 Comments:

At 7:11 PM, Joel said...: Regarding the spat between Chavez and the King, I enjoyed reading the bit about how, "Mr. Chavez repeatedly tried to interrupt, despite his microphone being turned off."

Sounds a little desperate to me.
At 3:50 PM, Anonymous said...: Chavez is just a fat little bastard madman who really does need to shut up, I am so glad the King told him to do so.

Sure he says some things that are laughable and out there like AmImadJihad of Iran.

I know a Venezuelan who is trying to escape Venezuela and really, what is going on in Venezuela is similar to Pinochets Chile. Its just not on the radar yet. It will be, soon.
At 4:17 PM, Chileno said...: You think it's that bad? That's a stretch...
At 5:09 PM, Cóndor said...: This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
At 8:14 PM, Chileno said...: It'd "entertain" me as much as mein kampf I'm sure you fascist slut.
At 7:14 AM, Anonymous said...: I think I may have been wrong when I said Venezuela is similar to Pinochets Chile...

Looking back at my comment, what I meant was that, in terms of human rights abuse its starting to become similar.

What you see on television with people earning $800 a month and having lots of 'free' things is just a farce, in reality its not like that.

The country is still in poverty despite record oil revenues.

The oil revenues help Chavez's ideology - not Venezuelas poor.

He is just using the poor as armed peasants.
At 3:17 PM, Chileno said...: You're right, and it's a pretty extreme brand of slimy populism that seems to be sweeping through latin and south america.
At 4:43 PM, Patriot Joel said...: This is where I "float half-baked fluff about the virtues of Pinochet's free market capitalism."

Look, I'm not defending the mans human rights record, all I'm saying is that you have o respect to a certain degree the improvements to the economy resulting from his policies.

I know it's more fun to talk about human rights atrocities, but if you look at the information at this link, for example, (it's a pdf)...

http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/eco_cou_152.pdf

...he GDP per capita in 1985 was below that of the rest of South America. Now I know that this was after Pinochet took over, but not even he had a magical wand which could fix things instantly. Over the next few years, the GDP per capita rapidly improved eventually surpassing that of South America and coming just short of the world average GDP in 2005.

Of course right below the chart I'm mentioning, we can see the dramatically unequal income distribution of Chile, but I contend that this has little or nothing to do with Pinochet's policies.

My point is this; what Hugo Chavez does, affects everyone in his country adversely, (aside from the few privileged insiders selling their souls out for protection). It can be argued that what Pinochet did affected a majority of the country positively. How many went missing during his regime? Out of a country of 16million. I mean, you're acting like he was the devil incarnate. When leftist Chavez shuts down TV channels to silence opposition, it doesn't seem to even get as much attention as people still pay to the things Pinochet did. Under Allende’s three years in power food shortages became common because of price fixing by the socialist government, fiscal deficits increased drastically, and inflation increased to an annual of more than 450 percent. I'm just saying people over-do it when criticizing Pinochet, but then I never lost a family member to his government.
At 5:05 PM, Patriot Joel said...: Chavez blinked first; "Yo no quiero ningún conflicto con el Rey. ¡Yo no le dije nada al Rey!"

http://noticias.123.cl/entel123/html/Tele13/Noticias/Internacional/322202.html
At 8:15 PM, Chileno said...: This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
At 9:10 PM, Anonymous said...: Oh, man. What are you?

How can you call Bachelet a populist, when she's clearly anything but a populist and you know it? I mean, you know that's crap, so why saying it?

You seem to have a fondness for extreme-left groups and individuals (you seem to LOVE Marcel Claude), but then you criticize Chávez, who's supported by those very same groups and individuals.

You also seem to despise capitalism, but you then glorify all things U.S.A.

You lament yourself that Castro did not support guerilla groups to fight Pinochet's slaughter of left-wing leaders. Fight fire with fire?

You criticize some leaders' "hatred" of the poor, but then you characterize poor Latin Americans as "brown people." Do you realize that sounds racist?

Some of these contradictions make you look flat-out ignorant and reduce your credibility.

Side note. Something I've noticed a lot is your hatred of the current gov't. Seems to be an easy target to shoot at lately, eh? Dude, it just makes you look like an angst-ridden teenager. Because in the end, most of what they do, you agree with, but you'd never admit it. For example, rather than celebrating the gov't for fining pharmacies who don't sell the morning-after pill, you criticize the fine for being too small, totally ignoring Chile's reality and price differences.

Really, would you rather have Piñera as president (I just shudder at the thought of having Opus Dei UDI members in ministerial posts), or extreme-left groups like Juntos Podemos (the Communist Party in charge of the Finance Ministry?), who support Chávez tooth and nail? Really, I mean, REALLY?
At 9:47 PM, Chileno said...: >>>How can you call Bachelet a populist

Exhibit A.

I mean, come on, how is she not a populist?

>>>You seem to have a fondness for extreme-left groups and individuals (you seem to LOVE Marcel Claude), but then you criticize Chávez, who's supported by those very same groups and individuals.

What evidence do you have that Marcel Claude supports Chavez? Or any of these "extreme-left" groups that I've affiliated myself with (news to me).

And even if they all do support Chavez, does that preclude me from agreeing with them on some issues - even, heaven forbid, agreeing with Chavez on some things? You appear to be stuck inside the simplistic mind of a child that confuses ideals and beliefs with mindless, feudal loyalty. I pity you.

>>>
You also seem to despise capitalism, but you then glorify all things U.S.A.

What evidence do you have that I despise capitalism? And since when do I glorify all things U.S.A.? You're really full of shit and you'll be red in the face if you take even 5 minutes to peruse my blog and find out the positions I've really taken on things, rather than just imagining them for yourself.

>>>You lament yourself that Castro did not support guerilla groups to fight Pinochet's slaughter of left-wing leaders.

No, your weak intellect failed to grasp my argument which was...? That decades ago Castro should have put his money where his mouth is today, if he is going to say anything about the direction of Latin America.

>>>brown people." Do you realize that sounds racist?

It sounds racist to you because you are ashamed of brownness. I see no shame in "brown", nor in "white" nor in "black" - you are the one who sounds racist.

>>>totally ignoring Chile's reality and price differences.

I may sound like an "angst ridden teenager" but you are an illiterate nincompoop. I SAID:

$67,000??? These companies make 12 million a year for Christ's sake.

How is that ignoring price differences?

Here's what I think is going on. You are offended by the contents of my blog and you feel that laundry lists of complaints will bolster your emotional tirade against me. In reality, you display an extreme sloppiness and inability to engage in coherent argumentation. You completely ignore the facts of what I stand for, and in this vacuum you make up stuff about me and what I've said. It's pretty silly.

>>>Really, would you rather have Piñera as president

So you're resigned to "the least evil" mentality. And while we're at it, let's not breathe a word of criticism about the least evil that Chile elected.

Great...
At 10:22 PM, Chileno said...: I decided to heed Zapatero's words, I used too name-calling in my first response to Joel so I deleted that comment and here's the revised version. Note that I keep the word "fascist" because that is an arguably objective modifier for a stance that is "Pro-Pinochet", as Joel is. A fascist. But you won't find "Pig" or, as Chavez would say, "Snake" in this version. Here we go:

Joel, I can only conclude that you don't read this blog, and based on the poor research and lack of coherency in your above comment - do you even have an education?

Three cheers for citing a "source" but you do nothing with it. It is basic economic data that nobody is refuting, but you make an obscene logical leap from its objective contents to "thanks Pinochet". You present absolutely no argument, nor do you have any sources to back up your "thanks Pinochet" stance. I can only conclude you are a thoughtless fascist.

It gets worse.

>>>Under Allende’s three years in power food shortages became common because of price fixing by the socialist government...

Who the fuck told you that? That's the reason? Nothing to do with Nixon and Kissenger's deliberate design to strangle Allende's economy? It's well documented that the United States' Plan A was economic warfare. It didn't work, so Plan B was a military coup.

Yet you completely disregard that. Read a fucking book, dude.

Probably one of the most astonishing assumptions you make, or "contentions" as you'd have it, is that if it all went according to Pinochet, there wouldn't be so much inequality.

You completely disregard my extensive review of a Maclean's article where the Dictatorship vs. Socialist Rule was debated. I panned the article but at least it brought up those two viewpoints. Both of which, btw, I detest because they're based on the premise that the economy is "good" overall, as if inequality weren't a SEVERE PROBLEM.

Here's how Joel treats inequality:

>>>Of course right below the chart I'm mentioning, we can see the dramatically unequal income distribution of Chile, but I contend that this has little or nothing to do with Pinochet's policies.

Not only are you willing to gloss over the one minor "detail" of inequality, (because if you conscientiously acknowledge it, more than just reference it, you'd have to admit that overall the economy SUCKS), but no sooner do you do that, than you proceed to suck fascist dick. And what's more is that most fascists probably wouldn't even go as far as you do.

I mean how the fuck can you 'contend' that Pinochet were somehow a proponent of equal wealth distribution? What evidence are you basing that on? It's absurd!

Honestly, you're silly to think that a big word like "contend" will distract us from the vacuousness of your argument: you don't back it up - that's just sloppy, Joel. And what a time to be sloppy. Your laziness displays nothing less than an absolutely revolting willingness to give Pinochet and his dreadful economic policies the benefit of the doubt.

What a boor your last comment was. I honestly feel like I'm wasting my time because you obviously don't read my posts. I've blogged extensively about the fact that the current neoliberal government is but an extension of the policies eventually set in place by Pinochet. He was the hero for the elite ruling class who he saved from a democratically elected shift toward real socialism (not today's hackneyed version of neoliberal whoring and hoarding).

>>>I'm just saying people over-do it when criticizing Pinochet, but then I never lost a family member to his government.

That is the most reprehensible string of fascist tripe I've ever heard come out of your mouth. You are simultaneously justifying brutal methods toward achieving neoliberalism and DISMISSING THE LEGITIMACY OF VICTIMS TO OPINE ABOUT THE STATE OF THEIR ECONOMY, BECAUSE THEY WERE TORTURED/KILLED.

Do you even realize what you're doing, Joel? You play off Pinochet's atrocities as some kind of distraction that's, in your words, "fun to talk about", but you chide that human rights abuses aren't really what's important. What's important is the good that Pinochet did. Yet you don't even bother to support your arguments for why Pinochet was "good".

You are worse than obscene. You have intellectual turret's syndrome. Not only are you disrespectful in a bungled, imperialist kind of way, but you seem not to realize how offensive you are being. You wanna throw in your two cents on the history of Chile, you better know what the fuck you're talking about.

Listen to me. I've written about this before but you obviously don't read this blog so I'll say it again: I met a woman who lives in a pathetic rat infested house in barrio brasil, she's POOR, and her cousin was shot dead on New Years, 1988, in Arica, for painting a political mural.

IF she were somehow made rich by such brutality, then your argument might have some sick, yet logical coherency: Pinochet broke some eggs to make an omelet.

Problem is, dude, no one's getting the omelet, except for an elite, minuscule slice of the population. Certainly not many of those who were raped and tortured.

You "contend" that Pinochet somehow meant to revitalize the economy, then distribute wealth equally. Are you fucking out of your mind???!!!

>>>The GDP per capita in 1985 was below that of the rest of South America. Now I know that this was after Pinochet took over, but not even he had a magical wand which could fix things instantly.

Do you even know when Pinochet came into office??? Here's a freebee: 1973.

You know what happened then? Not only did he not "fix things instantly" but he drove them into the ground. As early as 1975, when Marc Cooper visited Chile, he writes about the abominable state of the economy, due to the Military Junta's failed policies and lack of attentiveness to the poor who were desperately in need of support.

Come the early 80's, Chile suffered a devastating economic downfall.

You paint a completely erroneous picture of Pinochet working his butt of through the years to put the economy together, and finally, oh finally it took off. Nothing could be further from the truth. Pinochet simply took businesses and lands that Allende had appropriated, rarely did he return them but rather kicked them down to his cronies. He took state owned companies like Telefonica and privatized them. Eventually proponents of neoliberalism got a system working, an economy that benefits an elite few, and you and Maclean's can go off and debate who is responsible for this "economic miracle" in which Chile is among the most UNEQUAL ECONOMIES IN THE WORLD.

Pinochet was nothing more than an opportunistic gangster. That became even more evident when the Rigg's Bank scandal broke earlier this decade but you probably haven't even heard of that, Jackass. That was when Saul Landau dubbed him "Al Capone of the Southern Cone".

>>>you have o respect to a certain degree the improvements to the economy resulting from his policies.

Do I? Do I have to respect unbridled exploitation, theft, rape, torture and murder for the personal gain of a dictator and an elite ruling class?

>>>I mean, you're acting like he was the devil incarnate.

Yeah, and...?

>>>I know it's more fun to talk about human rights atrocities

Perhaps it is for you but I've spent much more time on this blog talking about the economy.

>>>It can be argued that what Pinochet did affected a majority of the country positively.

Maybe it can, but you're doing a horrible job of it. Let a better educated fascist pick up the reigns next time.

>>>When leftist Chavez shuts down TV channels to silence opposition, it doesn't seem to even get as much attention as people still pay to the things Pinochet did.

Not only have you demonstrated a complete ignorance of History, but Current Events seem to have stumped you as well. Do you have any idea what a SCANDAL Chavez' RCTV shut-down has been? It's a huge fucking deal throughout the world, as well it should be.

Pop Quiz, Joel: apart from everything else Pinochet did, what did he do to Chile's media?

I'm not gonna answer this one for you, you've gotta try something new and actually do some research, let us know what you find out.
At 5:50 PM, Joel said...: First of all, I'm not going to defend Pinochet’s human rights record if that's what you're trying to get me to do. I think you've completely missed the point of my post in the blind rage you work yourself into upon reading the words "Pinochet" and "positive" in the same sentence.

I have turrets syndrome? I'm sure if you go through your previous post, you'll discover a profanity content alarmingly higher than normal.

"Honestly, you're silly to think that a big word like "contend" will distract us from the vacuousness of your argument:"

I'm sorry if you had to pick up a thesaurus. ;)

"It's well documented that the United States' Plan A was economic warfare. It didn't work, so Plan B was a military coup."

To answer your question of "Who the fuck told [me] that?" Bosworth, Barry P., Rudiger Dornbusch, and Raúl Labán, eds. The Chilean Economy : Policy Lessons and Challenges. Xiv ed. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1994. 441...pages 43 and 223.

However, simple understanding of economics will tell you that price fixing only reduces supply; hence, food shortages. You could find an explanation of that in any good economics book. What was your question about having an education?

Did the US admit to economic warfare? Yes. Would it have mattered if they didn't? I doubt it.

"I mean how the fuck can you 'contend' that Pinochet were somehow a proponent of equal wealth distribution? What evidence are you basing that on? It's absurd!"

My contention was not that Pinochet was somehow a proponent of equal wealth distribution, but that it was an institutionalized problem by the time that he came to power in 1973. I do believe he could have furthered Eddy Frei's policies on land reform, but simply stabilizing the economy seems preferable in my view to the empty shelves and bread lines of Allende.

Anyway, I'm not going to sit here and write a 60 page treatise analyzing what's good and what's bad about Chile's economy, but the simple fact remains that Pinochet took over a country with bread lines and 450% annual inflation and somehow today the same country is thriving by South American standards. You want to tell me Pinochet's policies had nothing to do with that? Fine.

"You are simultaneously justifying brutal methods toward achieving neoliberalism and DISMISSING THE LEGITIMACY OF VICTIMS TO OPINE ABOUT THE STATE OF THEIR ECONOMY, BECAUSE THEY WERE TORTURED/KILLED."

Chalk this one up to misunderstanding. I was being serious, and maybe I should have expanded my thought. I was conceding that all of these other points of mine wouldn't seem justified if I had lost a family member. I was conceding that I've never had to deal with the psychological effects of the Pinochet regime, and what does it matter if you can buy bread if your cousin was shot in the head over a mural. This was a genuine statement, and was not intended to be sarcastic in the least.

I'm saying that Pinochet is a favorite whipping boy today (and justifiably so for the most part), while others (Chavez, Castro) go on to ruin peoples' lives for decades, and are celebrated for their efforts. I'm saying give criticism where criticism is due.

"Do you have any idea what a SCANDAL Chavez' RCTV shut-down has been? It's a huge fucking deal throughout the world, as well it should be."

Is it? Because I certainly haven't noticed. I do remember stories about Pinochet's funeral. Doing a quick search on Google brings up 50 news articles. Pinochet? 267. He's not even alive. These are "News" articles mind you. That's my real point. People like to pile on Pinochet because he ended their Marxist pipe-dream, while Hollywood celebrities and Jimmy Carter have their photos taken with debilitating dictators.

Thanks for removing the name calling from the previous post Will. Now I'll have to find some other unsuspecting victim to pass on the hex that lady in Arica put on me. :)
At 6:47 PM, Chileno said...: Joel I don't think you're trying to defend the atrocities but what I'm reacting to is your willingness to discount them. You do this in two ways:

1. You separate Pinochet's brutality from his economic policy as if the two had nothing to do with each other

2. You implicitly discount the situation of the victims. This is you're argument: if you'd had some traumatic experience you might have a biased view of Pinochet's economic policies. But thank heavens you weren't tortured, you're a cool, collected, rational, disinterested Western observer who simply knows better. Because you weren't tortured.

Bachelet was tortured. Her father was killed. Yet she promotes and extends the brutal free market policies of Lagos, Frei, Aylwin - all of whom are continuing the neoliberal legacy of Pinochet that you praise.

Bachelet, like 10's of thousands of others were tortured, but she's upper class. She doesn't suffer the effects of poverty. Most of Chile does.

Anyway, price fixing didn't tank the economy. You continue to be selective with your facts. It's absurd to think that Economic Warfare by the richest, most powerful country in the World had no effect on Chile's economic plight. Sure price fixing causes limited supply, I'll tell what else does - TRUCKERS STRIKE. Ever heard of it???

In the early 70's Chile was in a state of economic war, constantly at threat of a coup. This was because a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leader was rocking the boat. (You can't blame him for his philosophy, because that's what the PEOPLE VOTED FOR). You choose, as many do , to harp on his economic policy but that's TOTALLY DISINGENUOUS because he the Chilean economy was being aggressively attacked, and US involvement is well-documented.

You need to watch some Patricio Guzman movies, dude. Batalla de Chile all three parts, plus Salvadore Allende, pay special attention to the interviews with the US ambassador, and his descriptions of his high level meetings with Nixon who would slam his fist down on the desk of the oval office and scream, we're gonna get that "sonuvabitch!"

So you can sit here an henpeck Allende's price fixing but lemme tell you, you just come across as totally absurd in the eyes of anyone who knows anything about the history of Chile. To completely rule out that the US involvement might have had some effect. You don't even mention US involvement. Don't you see how erroneous, disingenuous and laughable your argument becomes????

Also, did you research what Pinochet did Chile's media?

Anyway, I read the news everyday and RCTV was a big deal. At the same time, it wasn't a 17 year dictatorship that killed and tortured thousands, sent even more into exile and permanently restructured the culture, economy and psyche of an entire people. In addition, the death of anyone (Reagan, the Pope, Castro, etc) is gonna be big news.

Apart from RCTV Chavez is a big deal, I always see him on the news in Chile and in the US too, they just wrote three books about him - so apart from being atrociously apologist of fascism, your whining about "Pinochet gets a bad rap" in comparison to Chavez just doesn't add up.

Pinochet drove the economy into the ground. The only reason it lifted out of "crisis" stage was because once he took over, the economic warfare ended. Duh. The US had won, and they supported Pinochet. But the abysmal poverty that ensued ...it was a fucking military dictatorship under curfew for 17 years the economy fucking sucked it's a historical fact you can't deny that!

Yes, free market capitalism is what Chile is left with today, that is a victory for the US for whom Pinochet was an instrument. And the economy is strong for an elite sector, wealth distribution is the worst in the world, there is an appearance of wealth because heaps of credit is being extended to Chileans, most of whom are in debt, stressed out -- generally loving life.

So I do blame Pinochet and the US for Chile's economy today which, for the vast majority of the population, totally sucks.

>>>People like to pile on Pinochet because he ended their Marxist pipe-dream,

Who the fuck are you talking about? If you're talking about me, I've never defended Allende's policies, so you can't say that's the reason. I've given plenty of reasons. He was an opportunistic gangster and thief who killed, raped, tortured and pillaged for personal gain. I've got a hunch that's closer to the reason people pile on Pinochet.

I mean, do you even read those articles you find about Pinochet?
At 9:11 PM, Joel said...: You're right about most of this, but most of it has little to do with my original point which is that I think it's absurd to chastise people for comparing Chavez to Pinochet as if Pinochet was the worst human being to walk the earth.

I'm not saying the US didn't wage economic war against Chile, you keep trying to suck me into defending Pinochet. I think there's a middle ground between “Allende was the savior” and “Pinochet is/was the devil incarnate.”

Pinochet left the country better off. For whom and how much is debatable, but I can't see how Chavez is going to leave the country better for anybody. Or Castro, or any other petty dictator in Africa or Tibet.

Anyway, thanks for the movie suggestions. I'd like to check those out.