Hard for me to say I'm sorry
The Honduran Congress voted to demand that President Manuel Zelaya request an apology from Hugo Chávez for calling a Honduran cardinal an “imperialist clown” after the cardinal had been quoted as saying that Chávez "thinks he's God and can trample upon other people." Of course, this comes on the heels of Chávez saying he’ll boot foreigners out of the country if they criticize him or the country after being insulted by the head of Mexico’s PAN.
I am starting to lose track of the legislatures demanding apologies after Chávez comments. Is it me, or does he seem a bit touchier in the past few months?
58 comments:
Maybe he's mad at the Copa America? There were reports that the event--rather than a pro-regime rallying point--became an arena for opposition chants. They had to go so far as to drown them out w/ white noise on speakers & frequent fireworks displays.
The Chicago reference in the headline did not go unnoticed....
I think the US press loses sight of the widespread dislike for Chavez across Latin America. There is hardly a "leftward shift" towards Chavez, despite what the alarmist US press would like us to believe.
I swear, as soon as I wrote that title, that song has been stuck in my head. I bet it's being played in downtown Santiago.
No doubt, along with Xanadu by Olivia Newton John. By the way, where's your posting on Gwynn's upcoming HOF induction?
I've been busy with work and kids so haven't had a chance to focus on baseball. I also wanted to talk about the Linebrink trade. Maybe I will do a baseball post on Sunday in honor of the HOF.
Chavez is indeed touchy, but you fail to give the relevant context. Never in the past 20 years has a Latin American head of state been so routinely attacked by media and public figures that represent the interests of hemipherice elites. Perhaps if you worked on behalf of non-privileged sectors of society and were routinely attacked for it, you'd be a little touchy too.
As you say, he is routinely attacked and really has been for years, so this is nothing new to him. Yet he seems snarkier now than he used to be.
^^ that is silly.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Chavez effectively used local and regional media in his climb to power and in becoming a regional player.
In general Chavez is becoming more and more surly as most of South America has pretty much figured out that the regime is nothing more than a giant petro-kleptocracy. And that Chavez'habit of insulting just about every politician, international functionary, cleric, and organization in Latin America, just doesn't wash anymore when there is serious work to be done.
Emperor just doesn't have any clothes anymore.
Funny, Boli-Nica. I hear Chavez is overwhelmingly popular not just in the barrios of Caracas, but also in Quito, Managua, Port au Prince, Buenos Aires and even in the Arab world.
I think you're dealing with a political phenomenon that is much more formidable than you imagine, Boli-Nica.
Do you have a link to data on that? Especially the Arab world.
Justin you obviously didn't read the PEW research report. Chavez is just as popular, or unpopular, as Bush is in Latin America.
"President Hugo Chavez of
Venezuela, a sharp critic of the United States and an
ally of Cuba, inspires little confidence outside of his
home country, either across Latin America or around
the world." - he is just as unpopular in the arab countires they polled.
As for Venezuela Chavez was found to have 54% confidence vs 45% no confidence among those polled. This is approximatly what elections and polls have shown for years.
The data I'm aware of on Chavez's popularity in Latin America is limited, but Pew's polling obviously suffers from methodological problems. Datanalisis, the best-equipped polling operation in Venezuela (and also a firm that is tacitly aligned with the opposition), has found Chavez's approval rating to be well above 60 percent --sometimes as high as 70 percent-- ever since the 2004 referendum. No reputable Venezuelan polling firm, much less an election, has shown anything as narrow as a 54-45 split in Venezuelan public opinion on Chavez. (Have you forgotten, Boli-Nica, that Chavez just won Venezuela's last presidential election by 25 points?)
One poll from 2005 shows that Chavez was popular in Argentina.
In addition, a Reuters correspondent in Quito, Alonso Soto, recently noted that "the Venezuelan leader is a popular figure among the poor majority in Ecuador." Reuters is not favorable to Chavez, so I have little reason to doubt Soto's assessment. (I think I have Soto's email, so, if you'd like to ask him where he gets his data, I'd be more than happy to send you his email.)
With regard to Chavez's popularity in the Arab world, I have no data on it, but Aljazeera did pen a piece about it last year, entitled "Winning Arab hearts and minds."
If Boli-Nica thinks Bush is as popular as Chavez in Latin America, he's completely out of his mind.
The Aljazeera piece on Chavez is here: "Winning Arab hearts and minds"
anecdotal evidence is always reliable - sarcasm implied
anecdotal evidence is always reliable - sarcasm implied
That Chavez trounced your candidate by 25 points is not anecdotal, KA. Nor is Datanalisis' polling. Nor is the Argentine poll from 2005.
If you don't believe that Chavez is popular among Ecuador's poor majority, you can write to Reuters' Alonso Soto yourself and ask him how he came to such a conclusion.
I don't think anyone is disputing his popularity with the poor in either Venezuela or Ecuador. Your statement was rather more sweeping.
I don't think anyone is disputing his popularity with the poor in either Venezuela or Ecuador. Your statement was rather more sweeping.
Well, I probably overstated my case in saying that Chavez is "overwhelmingly popular" in the barrios of the Arab world, but I don't think that's an overstatement with regard to the Latin American cities I mentioned.
And to be honest, Greg, you're in no position to nit-pick. Every couple weeks you relay this or that story about how Chavez is so horribly undiplomatic, but then you fail to provide any relevant context. Nothing about the shrillness of the constant attacks on the Chavez government by hemisheric elites (and the media that they own and control). Nothing about Fox News' recent propaganda barrage against the Chavez government, which was chock full of outright disinformation. Oh no, it's just big bad Hugo saying something shrill for no apparent reason.
That may be a good way for you to score browny points among your academic colleagues, but it's certainly not informative or accurate.
So my non-relevant-context brownie point plan has been foiled.
So my non-relevant-context brownie point plan has been foiled.
"Plan"? No. Convenient whipping boy? Yes.
OK, I will rephrase as you note:
"So my non-relevant-context brownie point convenient whipping boy has been foiled."
So my non-relevant-context brownie point convenient whipping boy has been foiled.
Yeah, but I'm sure that it won't deter you.
Neither the foilage nor the whipping boy will deter me.
Neither the foilage nor the whipping boy will deter me.
Yeah, well, that's to be expected. There's nothing like the browny point system to keep a political scientist in line.
As Noam Chomsky once noted, "Nothing is easier than to convince oneself of the merits of actions and policies that serve self interest."
Does Chomsky have a good quote about brownies?
Should have qualified my statement better, since I was addressing JC's point about "poor" Hugo getting bashed by "media and public figures that represent the interests of hemipherice (sic) elites."
I will say that many media/public figures in the hemisphere - (publishers, reporters, academics, analysts) don't have that high opinion of Bush/US Foreign Policy either- I am remembering one poll taken of "leading" Latin American opinion makers in 05..
Based on a reading of leading Latin American papers, I will say that if anything, Chavez had a honeymoon period with mainstream South American media that lasted a good amount of time. First of all he makes for good copy, being eminently quotable. He attacked Bush at the peak of anti-US feelings in Latin America. He probably peaked in late 2005 when he called out Bush at the hemispheric meetings.
What has sunk him? Lets start with his loud beefs with Alan Garcia, Toledo, Fox, Insulza, and spats with Lula/Brazil. He pretty much insulted a broad range of the democratic center left, moderate, center-right of the continent. Not to mention playing local politics there.
RCTV was a fiasco, specially because it was widely respected -horrid soaps and all- by people working in all aspects of media in South America.
Propping up the totalitarian cadaver offends people with a democratic sensibility. ts one thing to do business with Fidel, its another to praise him as the second coming.
Most reasonable people in the continent realized that socialism/collectivism was a pretty stupid and unworkable model years ago. Hugo's claims of building "socialism" in his native land, and specially of "offering a viable alternative" to other countries are pretty much seen as nonesense by everyone except the blind, the deluded,the really stupid, and those on Chavez petro-payroll. It is obvious to many that all Chavez does (as every president during an oil boom has done) is throw petro-dollars at just about every problem, while his cronies sack the country's treasury and PDVSA.
What has sunk him? Lets start with his loud beefs with Alan Garcia, Toledo, Fox, Insulza, and spats with Lula/Brazil.
Uh, Boli-Nica, wishful thinking is usually not a very good guide to sober analysis. If Chavez had been sunk in the region, then one would certainly not expect that Chavez ally Cristina Kirchner would be leading Lavagna by a margin of 35 points in Argentine polls. Neither would anyone expect Chavez to win his own country's election by a whopping 25 points just eight months ago. Neither would one expect Chavez allies like Ortega and Correa to have won elections less than a year ago. If Chavez had been sunk, then one certainly wouldn't expect Ecuador's leader to come out less than two weeks ago saying, "we are part of that current denominated 21st-century socialism." And, if Chavez had been sunk, one certainly wouldn't expect that Correa would enjoy overwhelming popular support in his own country (as Chavez does) at the same time that he clearly aligns his government with Venezuela's.
And by the way, Alan Garcia isn't fairing well in the realm of Peruvian public opinion, in case you haven't noticed.
No doubt Latin Americans have criticisms of Chavez, but to conflate your own viewpoints with those of the region would be rather silly.
This is all getting pretty hyperbolic. Chavez is clearly not "sunk." Neither, though, should the Kirchners be viewed in terms of Chavez's popularity.
Actually, the point I most agree with is Justin's observation that we shouldn't conflate our own viewpoints with the region. Almost anyone who is very pro or anti Chavez seems to does so.
Neither, though, should the Kirchners be viewed in terms of Chavez's popularity.
But that's not what I said, Greg. What I said is that, if Chavez had been sunk, we wouldn't expect Chavez allies like Kirchner to be doing so well in the polls. That's not commensurate with saying that Kirchner's popularity is a reflection of Chavez's. There's a clear distinction between saying Chavez hasn't been sunk and saying that he is popular throughout the region. There is nothing even remotely hyperbolic in what I've said.
You interpret people's points based on your own dispositions towards them, which disables you from picking up on nuance. I said Chavez is popular in the BARRIOS of some Latin American cities (which isn't even controversial) and I acknowledged that I overstated my case in saying that he was "ovewhelming popular" in the barrios of the Arab world. Greg selectively hears that I'm saying Chavez is just plain popular everywhere.
In typical academic fashion, you love to play the pseudo-maverick mediator, but in order to do that, you have to demonstrate the capacity to accurately interpret the words in front of your face. Unfortunately, you're often not up to the task.
Is being a pseudo-maverick mediator part of the political science brownie point scheme I am also involved in?
Is being a pseudo-maverick mediator part of the political science brownie point scheme I am also involved in?
It goes with the territory, Greg. It goes with the territory.
And if what I said in my last post were wrong, you would conceivably be able to explain how so. You can't, though, and you know it.
Hey Delacour, are you saying that Chavez' intervention in internal politics of other countries helped sway their elections? Interesting.
Anyways, so pro-Chavez candidates win in two of the most chaotic countries in the hemisphere. Big deal. There are enough domestic reasons that they would have won.
Both these clowns can talk about "21st Century Socialistic Bolivarianism" all they want w/Evo Fidel. But at the end of the day, its no more than a confederation of the poorest trying to open the wallet of the rich idiot in town.
In countries of "weight" (i.e. those with significant populations and exports) Chavez arguably hurt his purported allies. In Mexico the Chavez screeds arguably killed what was at one point a formidable (and fairly moderate) campaign by AMLO. Hugo Chavez pretty much campaigned for Alan Garcia, by talking up that wacko Colonel running against him.
As for the Argentinians, they humor Chavez because they want his cash , and the fact that he likes to stick it to the Brazilians their eternal rivals.
And Brazilians, Colombians, and Chileans, they are making a killing selling stuff to Chavez.
The larger point is that Chavez is spending billions, both by direct aid to "friendly" governments, and by buying the food, services and goods that other South Americans countries have for sale.
Despite those significant interests still the major media and important commentators, have lost patience with Chavez.
OK, I will bite. Your words:
What I said is that, if Chavez had been sunk, we wouldn't expect Chavez allies like Kirchner to be doing so well in the polls.
In that argument, you have a clear if/then relationship: his popularity correlates (to some degree) with her approval rating, which of course relates to her own popularity.
My own view is that we could reasonably expect that Kirchner would be popular no matter what Argentines thought of Chavez.
You may, if you wish, excoriate me for such a view.
In that argument, you have a clear if/then relationship: his popularity correlates (to some degree) with her approval rating, which of course relates to her own popularity.
To "some degree," yes, but the correlation is far from perfect. The point here is that, if Chavez had truly been "sunk" in the region, any candidate's association with him would be expected to be at least somewhat of a political liability. We all know that the Kirchner government came under fire from the Argentine right for permitting Chavez to lead the anti-Bush rally during Bush's visit to Latin America. It would appear, however, that the Kirchner government's association with the Chavez government has not been a political liability, if the polls are any indication.
Now, in the Peruvian case, Humala's association with Chavez probably was a political liability, owing in part to a feverish propaganda campaign in the media. But that's not uniformly the case across the region, as the success of Kirchner, Correa, Ortega and Morales suggests. And that really is the point. If it were just Kirchner that is apparently unaffected by the association with Chavez, it might not seem all that relevant. But the fact is that a whole bunch of leaders with at least some association with Chavez (including Lula) haven't been penalized at the ballot box for said association, which all suggests that Chavez has clearly not been "sunk" in the region.
The fact of the matter is that, no matter the differences between left-of-center governments in Latin America, a victory for one is a victory for them all because it increases the prospects for regional integration independent of the United States.
In Mexico the Chavez screeds arguably killed what was at one point a formidable (and fairly moderate) campaign by AMLO.
Which screeds would those be, Boli-Nica?
Despite those significant interests still the major media and important commentators, have lost patience with Chavez.
Oh, so now the argument devolves from Chavez having been "sunk" to Chavez not being liked by "major media" and "important commentators."
No discussion here, of course, about who owns major media and what their interests might be in trying to "sink" Chavez. That's par for the course among the minions of empire.
Oh, and what exactly distinguishes an "important commentator" from a a not-so-important one? That they agree with you, Boli-Nica?
Ummm... JD....you started this whole thing by claiming that "Never in the past 20 years has a Latin American head of state been so routinely attacked by media and public figures that represent the interests of hemipherice elites."
My entire argument has been based on your "media and public figures", which I take to mean the independent media in Latin America, through whom the"chattering classes" including former politicos, academics, analysts, and journalists, project their opinions.
My contention, was that SOME regional media, was fairly tolerant of Chavez,including times when he went on anti-Bush/anti-IMF tirades.
But, after some of his most recent stunts, including the RCTV debacle and his yammering at the Brazilian parliament, many in the Latin American media have condemned him.
Your replies have been to cite Chavez popularity in the barrios of Managua and Guayaquil, glowing endorsements from Dr. Correa., and argue about the importance of a Chavez endorsement to the electoral fortunes of Ms.Kirchner.
In other words, nothing having to do with why the editorial pages of major papers in Brazil are pretty fed up with some of Chavez stunts.
I'm going to delete posts intended only to insult someone else.
"...argue about the importance of a Chavez endorsement to the electoral fortunes of Ms.Kirchner."
Since Greg insists on being the etiquette police here, I'll just respond this way. That doesn't even remotely resemble what I've written, Boli-Nica. It would be nice if you would respond to what I actually write, not your own deliberate misinterpretations of what I've written.
It seems to me that someone can dislike *BOTH* Bush *AND* Chavez (or insert any other figure). I don't see a problem there. Our ability to like people is not a zero-sum quantity (though children often worry about that in relation to their parents' affection).
It also seems to me that Chavez has been criticized since the 1990s, but has only now gotten very, very, very touchy about it (i.e. threatening to expel any foreigners who say unkind things about him). This suggests that either: A) more people are saying bad things about him, or B) people are saying meaner-than-usual things about him, or C) both, or D) something else is going on. I suppose we could find ways to measure variables A & B (and, by default, C). If we don't see changes, then D ("something else") is the answer. That "something else" could be anything, of course.
Of course, regardless of how other people treat Chavez, one suspects that he has control over how he himself acts. Unless we are subscribing to the view that behavior is justified based on other people's behavior (as kids often justify their being jerks because "he started it").
I think that pretty much summarizes my take on this whole argument.
Lets not have a meltdown here. So I "misrepresent" your polemics, while at the same time you accuse me of "thinking" "Bush is "more popular than Chavez"? No one is denying how unpopular Bush and US foreign policy is in Latin America.
In that one instance, I was being sarcastic, after reading the exchange between you and the good professor over the electoral liability or lack thereof, Chavez association represents to the Kirchners.
ANYWAYS....historically, keeping bad company doesn't seem to hurt Peronistas popularity. The original Peronist "power couple" hung out with ex-Nazi's, and they are still revered.
As far as popularity of Chavez, Mr. Delacour has pretty much told us the recent Pew poll is worthless, because it "obviously suffers from methodological problems." The only such "obvious problem" that I could find, is that the surveys in Bolivia, Brasil, and Venezuela were exclusively urban. That might not be a representative sample of the entire country. On the other hand it would cover the fabled "barrios" and "favelas" where Chavez has supporters.
Socialism of the 21st Century Anyone?
This article summarizes the Latin American responses. Majorities in Brasil, Bolivia, Chile, Mexico and Venezuela agreed with the statement that the free market is the best economic system, even if it produces inequalities. Perú at 47% and Argentina with 43% are exceptions.
A large majority in Chile (75%), Brasil (74%), Perú (70%), México
(66%) and Bolivia (59%) expresed little or no faith in the way
Chávez governs.
A majority in Brasil (56%) y Perú (53%) say they have no confidence in Chavez.
In Argentina, they are evenly split with 40%
have "much or some confidence in Chavez" 43% says they have little or no confidence in him.
As far as Mexico is concerned.
As for Chavez being cranky, besides the RCTV backlash and "issues" with Mercosur, he has other worries. A top pro-Chavez general claims many officers aren't too happy with the former Lt. Col., while another "loyalist" general told him off to his face in public. Could also be the Transparency International Report and recent World Bank data, which seems to give evidence to the contention that his government is pretty crooked.
As far as popularity of Chavez, Mr. Delacour has pretty much told us the recent Pew poll is worthless, because it "obviously suffers from methodological problems." The only such "obvious problem" that I could find, is that the surveys in Bolivia, Brasil, and Venezuela were exclusively urban. That might not be a representative sample of the entire country. On the other hand it would cover the fabled "barrios" and "favelas" where Chavez has supporters.
As it turns out, the problem was that the Pew report was unclear and you misreported its findings. You wrote: "As for Venezuela Chavez was found to have 54% confidence vs 45% no confidence among those polled."
If you actually read the report, those were the results of respondents' answers to a question about Chavez's management of foreign affairs. Indeed, the Pew report does suggest significant apprehension on the part of Venezuelans about Chavez's management of foreign affairs. However, the figures are not the same as general ratings of approval and disapproval of Venezuela's president, as you erroneously suggested.
According to Datanalisis' March 2007 poll, 64.7% of Venezuelans approved of Hugo Chavez's performance as president, while 29% disapproved.
The Pew report has other interesting findings that you naturally won't publicize, such as:
1) The percentage of Venezuelans satisfied with their income --up 26 points from 2002-- had increased more than that of any other country's respondents in the survey.
2) Among the seven Latin American countries studied, Venezuelans had the highest rate of satisfaction with the way things were going in the country (followed by Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Mexico, Brazil, and Peru, in that order).
Unfortunately, there are also some serious problems with the inferences that Pew draws from its polling data, as I've described in my blog.
It seems to me that someone can dislike *BOTH* Bush *AND* Chavez (or insert any other figure).
And who said people couldn't dislike *BOTH* Bush *AND* Chavez, Miguel?
You have a strange habit of making points that have no relevance to the discussion at hand.
The question is not about whether both Bush and Chavez can be disliked. The question at hand is about whether certain characterizations of the Chavez government's actions are accurate or inaccurate, contextualized or decontextualized.
Of course, regardless of how other people treat Chavez, one suspects that he has control over how he himself acts. Unless we are subscribing to the view that behavior is justified based on other people's behavior (as kids often justify their being jerks because "he started it").
Again, more responses to straw-man arguments that you yourself contrive.
In line with the foreign policy establishment's talking points, you and Greg would like to reduce this debate to one about Chavez's personal "behavior." That's par for the course. The penchant of bourgeois intellectuals to personalize international conflicts is an age-old practice. But the conflicts are not interpersonal ones, in case you and Greg haven't yet figured that out. The conflicts are of a class nature and revolve around the conflicting interests of different classes.
A spokesman for Honduras' Catholic hierarchy (and the class it serves) goes on the offensive against a left-populist political figure who represents the hopes and dreams of the poor majority of his country. That left-populist political figure then goes on a diplomatic counter-offensive against this spokesman of privilege.
Only in the minds of bourgeois intellectuals who serve dominant class interests does Chavez's response merit any sort of selective censure.
I love it when you really get going, though I think the brownie point stuff was better. Actually, the maverick one was pretty good too.
Well, Greg, perhaps if you didn't just regurgitate establishment pablum, you could make the discussion more interesting yourself.
But oh no, you and Miguel would prefer to grovel for browny points from a consensus-crazed, fundamentally conservative discipline. Gotta pay the mortgage, after all.
You can pretend to belittle the point to keep the brownies coming, but I think you know quite well how this racket works.
Justin:
My comment wasn't aimed at you (tip for future: it's not always all about you). I was summarizing my take on the issue. And, yes, I like my discipline. I especially like how most of us who work in it try to be accepting of different view points (my view of "liberalism" gives strong preference for the value of "tolerance" over "ideological purity"). But, hey, I was once a young firecracker, too.
But, hey, I was once a young firecracker, too.
Uh, Miguel. You can save your nonsense about pulling rank for some lap-dog student of yours, if that's what makes you feel worthy. Fortunately for you, such crass behavior does occasionally work among confused and insecure graduate students. Unfortunately for you, I don't have that problem and never did.
This isn't about age (I'm actually older than you). It's about which side of the class divide we stand. In fact, in my case, it's about which side of the class divide I've stood my entire life.
To you, you're an established scholar. To me, you're just a little punk who comes from privilege and happens to have a doctorate.
One thing that does need to be cleared from this article –and my post- is that it confuses the survey question. The respondents were asked their opinion about Chavez “foreign” policy, not necessarily about how he governs internally.
It is an undisputed fact that Chavez -as president of a major oil-producing country - is a regional player – as would be any other person in his shoes left, right, or center. You may disagree what type of agenda Chavez has for the region, but few people would disagree with the contention that Chavez has AN AGENDA - whatever it may be.
Whatever that agenda may be, it seems that many Argentinians like it, so maybe a Chavez "endorsement" of Ms. Kirchner is not a bad thing.
But, a majority of Mexicans, Chileans, and Peruvians, as well as a majority of urban Brazilians and Bolivians disprove of Chavez foreign policy. That is a large number of folks, and would seem by sheer numbers to cut across class lines.
In 80's bands terms, he has gone from Police numbers to Chicago numbers (albeit still with Peter Cetara)
JD On Academia:
Professors Centellas and Weeks are "in line with the foreign policy establishment's talking points."
"bourgeois intellectuals"
Paleo-Marxism 101, or scenes from the class struggle in JustinlandBut the conflicts are not interpersonal ones............... The conflicts are of a class nature and revolve around the conflicting interests of different classes.
Chavez Justi-fied
Chavez is a "left-populist political figure who represents the hopes and dreams of the poor majority of his country."
Cardinal sins and the Lt Col.
Calling Cardinals "lapdogs of the empire" is merely a "diplomatic counter-offensive against this spokesman of privilege."
"[O]nly in the minds of bourgeois intellectuals who serve dominant class interests does Chavez's response merit any sort of selective censure."
Personalizing???
It's about which side of the class divide we stand. In fact, in my case, it's about which side of the class divide I've stood my entire life.
LOL...u truly are funny JD.
Usage of the term cursi is about as burges (i.e.bourgeois ) as you can get.
Maybe its been adopted by the "boli-burgesia" (no relation). They've got the tacky-bling "thang" down pat.
Justin:
I thought you didn't like to "personalize" discussions? You also seem to make many assumptions about me.
If you want to make this personal: I'm a first generation immigrant, moving to the US when I was 10. My parents came (from Bolivia) w/ almost nothing to the US to escape the economic nightmare that was the 1980s. We did have relatives in the US, but hardly privileged. My American grandfather never finished middle school and worked as a car mechanic (as did his oldest son). My father worked menial labor for some years (he didn't speak English), we lived a few blocks from a GM plant in Saginaw, Michigan (which is only a step up from Flint), and we lived on food stamps and welfare. Eventually, we clawed our way up to the lower (and I mean lower) middle class. I had to work to pay for college. I went to state schools because I couldn't afford otherwise and my parents paid not a single penny of my tuition. Also, no one at my high school even suggested that private liberal arts colleges (like the kind I work at now) were the kinds of places were people "like me" went to school.
But, yes, I went to college. So by Marx's definition I am very bourgeois (as are you).
Ironically, I've tried to keep to the issue. It is you, Justin, who insist on making this personally vindictive. Why is that? What do you think it accomplishes? Because it doesn't seem as if your goal is to persuade others to your point of view (which is typically a common goal of public discourse).
And to Boli-Nica. Yes, "cursi" a very bourgeois Spanish word, used by what we call "jailones." Perhaps a better (less bourgeois) term would be "chuto."
With his tacky talk of personal trifectas, I suspect Miguel would fit in quite nicely there.
How dare I be happy. Shame on me.
The marriage-doctorate-employment "trifecta" is quite possibly the cheesiest piece of prose I've ever seen from an academic.
Yes, it was specifically meant to be.
And, actually, I spend the bulk of my time watching Reno 911! reruns.
Oops, I made a mistake. Please accept my apologies, Miguel. I mistook a response by Boli-Nica for something you had written. I wouldn't have brought up the trifecta business if I hadn't made that mistake. My sincerest apologies. I'm going to try to erase the offensive posts about the trifecta business. I do mean this. I'm truly sorry.
Post a Comment