Hugo Chávez’ Socialism made Venezuela a more Violent and Dangerous Place

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 28th, 2013

Week in Review

The Democrats have a mission.  To reduce the income disparity between rich and poor.  To reduce the rate of violent crime.  For the only reason people ever hurt one another is because they are wanting for the basic necessities in life.  And they sometimes take them forcibly from those who have them.  But if there is no income disparity there is no rich and poor.  So no one would ever hurt anyone.

Which is why Democrats work so hard to reduce the income disparity between rich and poor.  Their tool?  Income redistribution.  From those according to ability.  To those according to need.  Like Karl Marx wanted to do.  But socialism never really caught on in the United States.  As most Americans see the abject failure it has been.  But this hasn’t stopped other nations from experimenting with it.  In 1999 Hugo Chávez became president of Venezuela.  And he proceeded to make Venezuela socialist.  Here are some highlights of his work pulled from Wikipedia:

Following Chavismo, his own political ideology of Bolivarianism and Socialism of the 21st Century, he focused on implementing socialist reforms in the country as a part of a social project known as the Bolivarian Revolution. He implemented the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution, participatory democratic councils, the nationalization of several key industries, and increased government funding of health care and education and made significant reductions in poverty with oil revenues.[1][2] The Bolivarian Missions have entailed the construction of thousands of free medical clinics for the poor,[3] the institution of educational campaigns that have reportedly made more than one million adult Venezuelans literate,[4] and the enactment of food[5] and housing subsidies…[6]

Closely aligning himself with the communist governments of Fidel and then Raúl Castro in Cuba and the socialist governments of Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, his presidency was seen as a part of the socialist “pink tide” sweeping Latin America. Along with these governments, Chávez described his policies as anti-imperialist, being a prominent adversary of the United States’s foreign policy as well as a vocal critic of US-supported neoliberalism and laissez-faire capitalism.[8] He supported Latin American and Caribbean cooperation and was instrumental in setting up the pan-regional Union of South American Nations, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, the Bank of the South, and the regional television network TeleSur. Chávez was a highly controversial and divisive figure both at home and abroad. On occasion he used undiplomatic language towards other world leaders, having compared US president George W. Bush to a donkey[9] and the devil.[10]

Hugo Chávez created a socialist paradise in Venezuela.  One that would have pleased the father of socialism.  Karl Marx.  Chávez destroyed the income disparity between rich and poor.  Making the people happy.  Where they linked their arms together and sang Kumbaya.  Like the hippies in America did as they lived in their socialist/communist communes.  So you think the people would be living together in a brotherhood of man.  Like John Lennon sang about in his song Imagine.  No possessions.  No greed or hunger.  Just everyone living as one.  So how is that socialist paradise?  Well, the people aren’t living as one in a brotherhood of man (see Venezuela’s Homicide Rate Rises, NGO’s Report Says by the AP posted on ABC News).

A non-governmental group that tracks violent crime in Venezuela says the country’s homicide rate has risen again in 2013 and has quadrupled over the past 15 years.

The Venezuelan Violence Observatory estimates that 24,763 killings occurred this year, pushing up the homicide rate to 79 per 100,000 inhabitants. It was 73 per 100,000 people in 2012. In 1998, the rate was 19.

The more Chávez made Venezuela socialist the more violent crime there was.  That’s not what’s supposed to happen according to the Democrats.  It’s supposed to create a brotherhood of man.  Like John Lennon sang about.  Not make more people kill each other.  Apparently not only was Karl Marx wrong.  But the Democrats are wrong, too.  Imagine that.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Data shows the Sea Levels are not Rising despite what Al Gore has been Saying

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 28th, 2013

 Week in Review

Al Gore has been warning us since the Nineties that if we don’t act immediately to stop global warming the seas will rise and flood the world’s coastlines.  And if we didn’t act soon it would be too late to prevent this.  But we did nothing.  As Al Gore chastises us over and over.  From his beachside estate.  Apparently he really isn’t all that concerned about the rising sea levels.  Perhaps because he is familiar with the annual mean seal level data (see Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level).

Annual Mean Sea Level

The sea level had actually fallen from a high during the Eighties when Gore was warning about the impending rise of the sea level.  And near the end of the Nineties when he was even more shrilly warning us that the rising seas would engulf our coastal areas if we didn’t take immediate action there was actually a sharp fall in the sea levels.  Then they rose again.  And fell again.  Rose again.  And fell again.  They’re actually lower now than they were during their highest level in the Eighties.  And even lower than they were in the Nineties.  When Gore told us the consequences for not acting were greatest.

Clearly the Gore warnings were not based on the data.  So why all the warnings to the contrary?  Who knows.  Whatever the reason one thing is for sure.  It paid him very well.  And gave him that beachside estate.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

The Ice in the Antarctic is too Thick for Two Ice Breakers to Break Through

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 28th, 2013

Week in Review

According to the global warming enthusiasts we’re melting the ice caps at the poles.  Leaving the poor polar bears in the Arctic Ocean floundering in the open seas.  With no ice to drag themselves up onto to rest and eat the baby seals they’ve just killed.  Pity the polar bears didn’t hang out in the Antarctic with the penguins.  Then again, the ice there may be too thick (see Rescue of icebound Antarctic ship faces setback by KRISTEN GELINEAU, AP, posted 12/27/2013 on Yahoo! News).

A Chinese icebreaker that was en route to rescue a ship trapped in Antarctic ice was forced to turn back on Saturday after being unable to push its way through the heavy sea ice.

The Snow Dragon icebreaker came within 7 miles (11 kilometers) of the Russian ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy, which has been stuck since Christmas Eve, but had to retreat after the ice became too thick, said expedition spokesman Alvin Stone…

Three icebreakers, including the Snow Dragon, have been trying to reach the ship since Wednesday. France’s L’Astrolabe made it to the edge of the sea ice surrounding the ship on Saturday, but called off its mission after it, too, failed to break through, said Lisa Martin, spokeswoman for the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, which is coordinating the rescue…

The scientific team on board the research ship — which left New Zealand on Nov. 28 — had been recreating Australian explorer Douglas Mawson’s century-old voyage to Antarctica when it became trapped. They plan to continue their expedition after they are freed, expedition leader Chris Turney said.

Interesting.  After they get freed from the ice they are going to continue retracing the century-old journey of Australian explorer Douglas Mawson.  Which means there was less ice a century ago than there is now.  Because his ship didn’t get stuck in the ice.  No.  His adventures happened off the ship.  On the frozen, windswept expanses.  And were far more unpleasant than being stuck in the ice.  For people died.  While the survivors had to eat their sled dogs to survive.  Something that won’t happen on a warm ship stuck in the ice with weeks’ worth of supplies for all onboard.

A ship full of food?  That’s something the polar bears would enjoy.  Pity they’re stuck up in the warm and melting Arctic while at the other pole it’s colder and icier than it was a century earlier.  Funny how there’s global warming at the North Pole.  While there is global cooling at the South Pole.  And this during the summer months at the South Pole.  Guess that global warming can be a fickle thing.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Democrat Policies are forcing Young Couples back home with Mom and Dad

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 28th, 2013

Week in Review

Since the Keynesians took over government we said goodbye to the classical economics that made America the number one economic power in the world.  Free market capitalism.  Based on a strong banking system.  And a sound currency.  People saved as much as they could.  Banks converted their savings into investment capital.  And investors and entrepreneurs built the world’s number one economy.  Because people worked hard and saved for their future.  While raising their families.  In their houses.  Without Mommy and Daddy helping them.  Unlike people do today (see Young Couples Moving Back Home To Save Money For Baby posted 12/22/2013 on CBS Miami).

“Young couples, when they have a child or when they’re planning to have a child, are moving back in with their parents,” said Carmen Wong Ulrich, BabyCenter Financial expert,. “Ten percent of young women are staying, living at home with their parents to save money to have children. This is a new trend.”

Alexis Kort, her husband Josh and their baby Charlotte moved in with Alexis’ parents when they relocated to their hometown.

“You don’t necessarily think about it before you have a kid and then all of a sudden you’re like ‘Wait a second, how do we make this work financially?’,” said Kort…

This trend extends beyond housing. A survey found that nearly 30 percent of new parents get financial assistance from their parents. Ulrich points out that parents who support their children who have children have less time to save for their retirement.

“Supporting grown children is a strain and it can be a strain on your own financial future,” said Ulrich.

You can blame the Democrats for this.  They’re all Keynesians.  And believe in printing (and devaluing) money to keep interest rates artificially low.  So low that you actually lose money now if you put it into a savings account.  So people spend it before it loses its purchasing power.

And Keynesians believe in government spending.  To stimulate the economy.  Which they pay for with taxes.  Lots of taxes.  Between the devaluation of the dollar (which raises prices) and the rising tax bite there’s less money to save.  And with the Keynesians pushing for more consumption and less savings (to stimulate the economy) kids aren’t saving.  They’re spending.  Living in the now.  Without a care in the world about tomorrow.  Which is why kids today are moving back in with their parents.  Because they’d rather pay a cellular bill the size of a car payment than save for their future.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

The Left says Smoking Cigarettes and Drinking Alcohol are bad for you but Smoking Marijuana is OK

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 28th, 2013

Week in Review

You hear it all the time.  Smoking marijuana is no worse than drinking alcohol.  So we should decriminalize it everywhere.  And allow responsible adults smoke marijuana if they choose.  While at the same time they have banned smoking cigarettes just about everywhere outside of your own home.  Because smoking will kill you.  And anyone near you.  Funny how smoking cigarettes will kill you and anyone near you while smoking marijuana is no worse than enjoying a refreshing adult beverage.

What’s even funnier is that as they continue to make statements like smoking marijuana is no worse than drinking alcohol they are ramping up a war on alcohol.  As drinking alcohol is killing people at record numbers (see Raising the price of booze saves lives and money. Scotland is right to try it posted 12/21/2013 on The Economist).

AMONG man’s earliest artefacts are vessels to store and carry booze. Drunk from Stone Age jugs or Etruscan amphoras, fermented sugars have brought cheer for more than 12,000 years. And headaches too: alcohol stokes rage and gloom as well as jollity and dancing. For liberal-minded types, the downsides are a personal matter—we should be free to frolic.

Within limits. Where the harm extends beyond the individual, there is a case for intervention. Global alcohol consumption is stable. But some people are tippling more, in ways that hurt themselves and others (see article).

At stake are not just vomit-drenched streets. Deaths linked to drinking have tripled since 1990; in that time alcohol has gone from the sixth to the third leading cause of death and disability worldwide. The bill lands on everyone, as does booze-fuelled violence. Including lost output, the harm from alcohol costs Europe and America around 1.5% of national income.

The problem is worsening. Across the rich world, a small share of the population consumes a large share of the liquor. One reason is that many young people have upped their intake. More drinkers are also bingeing—even in southern Europe, where alcohol used to be taken mainly with food…

The best way to tackle excessive drinking is to raise prices through taxes levied on a drink’s strength, so that the most harmful drinks are more expensive. The resulting price-rise should cut the consumption of hard-up heavy topers (who are particularly partial to dirt-cheap supermarket booze) and young drinkers, who can afford only what’s cheap…

Public-health laws often require an unpopular move at the start, but new habits and attitudes can take root surprisingly quickly. A ban on smoking in restaurants and pubs seemed outlandish—until New York City introduced one in 2003. Much of the world quickly followed suit. Even diehard liberals like this newspaper, queasy at first about smoking bans, or mandatory crash helmets and seat belts, would hesitate to scrap those regulations now.

We are drinking ourselves to death three times as much as we were in the 1990s.  And one reason why is that young people are drinking more.  In fact many of the binge drinkers are young people.  It is less uncommon to read about a binge-drinking related death on a college campus.  It’s not happening all of the time but there are deaths.  And sexual assaults.

Getting a woman drunk has long been a prelude to sex.  That’s what singles’ bars were for.  Drinking to lower a woman’s inhibitions.  To get her to go home with a strange man for consensual sex.  But at a party on a college campus?  There’s no need to go home.  For there is always a bedroom or a couch or a floor available in a fraternity house, apartment or dorm room.  And young men with raging hormones in a sexualized culture will take advantage of a passed out college coed.  Even doing terrible things to her as she lay unconscious.  Or getting a video of her while she’s still conscious doing things she’d never do sober.  And posting it online.  Causing great pain and suffering for the girl.

Smoking marijuana will be no different than people enjoying alcohol.  So we should decriminalize it.  For what bad thing ever happened from enjoying alcohol?

Marijuana is a young person’s intoxicant.  We’ve all seen the stoner movies where high school teachers have to deal with stoners.  Like Jeff Spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High.  And this was when the drug was illegal everywhere in the United States.  Imagine the Jeff Spicolis when the drug is decriminalized everywhere.  While being more potent than ever.  If new habits and new attitudes can take root surprisingly quickly then existing habits and attitudes and law should be just as easy to remain rooted.  Especially for marijuana.  For it combines the reckless abandon of youths to over consume like alcohol.  And the harmful effects of smoking cigarettes.

Would the left sacrifice our young just to get their vote?  Yes.  Of course they will.  And are.  For do you really think they care if these people die after they grow up and begin acting—and voting—responsibly?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,