I keep track of which dictator is nationalizing more industries - Barack Obama or Hugo Chavez.Nevermind that Hugo Chavez is not a dictator, either (which isn't to say that there isn't much to criticize Chavez for, but I think proto-dictator might be more accurate.)
But Limbaugh doesn't think that Obama is merely a dictator. He's a giant alien monster cockroach dictator!
From Lindsay Lohan it was on to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, as Limbaugh noted that Chavez "announced the government would nationalize several iron and steel companies to pave way for a large 'socialist' state-run enterprise." Rush said he's keeping a tally, on a spreadsheet, of which "dictator" can nationalize more industries: Obama or Chavez? According to Rush, the tally depends on how you measure this stuff -- do you want to own a lot of little things or a few giant ones? Obama has chosen the latter, said Rush, and eventually he's going to own California. How is he going to end up owning California, you might be asking? Well, you need look no further than Men in Black -- specifically, the climactic scene in which, as Rush recounted it, the giant cockroach is trying to leave earth, and one of the tricks that Will Smith uses is to smash little cockroaches on the ground to distract the giant cockroach. "Imagine Obama as the big cockroach and union workers as the little cockroach, and he looks at union workers getting stomped on by CEOs and everywhere else, and of course, the union government, union workers of California getting stomped on. So he's the big cockroach and he's going to make sure these little cockroaches don't get stomped on and don't get avenged, and that's why he's going to nationalize California."Hm ... stomping on cockroaches. Well that's familiar eliminationist imagery. The Hutus of Radio Rwanda and RTLM before and during the Rwandan genocide identified Tutsis as inyenzi ("cockroaches.")
See here for my previous post on Radio Rush.
3 comments:
"Nevermind that Hugo Chavez is not a dictator, either (which isn't to say that there isn't much to criticize Chavez for, but I think proto-dictator might be more accurate.)"
Come on HG, why cave in to this bullshit about him being a "proto-dictator" he was flat-out elected and re-elected and he has respected the results of constitutional referendum even when he has lost.
While only a fool would suggest there is nothing to criticize, there is also alot to commend about Chavez and the present social transformation that Venezuela is going through (and which is bigger than Chavez anyway).
Yes, but his tendency has been toward attempts to aggregate more power for himself, eliminating term limits and ruling by decree where possible. The sort of expansive, populist Executive power he's seeking would trouble me regardless of who it is, or where. Plus, his describing Robert Mugabe as a hero doesn't really reassure me.
However, I do think much of the criticism in the American media of Chavez is b.s., and hardline neoconservative policy continue to contribute to his popularity.
Fair enough HG,
I actually share some of your concerns on one level. Being a socialist I generally am favorable to the direction that Venezuela is heading. And for exactly that same reason I think the Bolivarian revolution is in many respects too dependent on Chavez, as is the case for so many socialist projects unfortunately.
Part of the b.s.propaganda surrounding Chavez and his govt. has been that he has "destroyed" Venez.'s economy, which is apparently false. Check this out:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-chavez-administration-at-10-years:-the-economy-and-social-indicators/
Post a Comment