Prize money
The Cato Institute has decided to give $500,000 to Venezuelan student activist Yon Goicoechea for the “Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty.” Think tanks are certainly free to give their money to whomever they wish, but my immediate reaction was that this prize could permanently derail his political career and end up having the opposite effect the Cato Institute and others who hate Chávez want.
In
His response:
''The government already says we're financed by the CIA. It already says we're paid by the empire. So if they say it one more time, it really isn't that important,'' he said.
True, but the real effect will be on Venezuelans, not just the government. Even Venezuelans who aren’t enamored of Chávez won’t necessarily be so happy to follow a young leader whose activities are all openly funded with
24 comments:
That was my first thought as well. As an example from the other side of the world, Iranian groups have begged for the US to stop supporting them so the Iranian government can't use our support as an excuse to repress them.
Back to Venezuela, I think this guy's smartest move would be complete transparency with the money. He should release a spreadsheet and receipts accounting for every penny of the money and where it goes. Not only would it help dispel some (but not all) of the negative effects but it would provide a good contrast to the government and even other opposition groups.
Speaking of US support causing problems for democracy activists, this op-ed is going to do plenty of harm.
There's nothing quite like a good WSJ op-ed to start the day.
I see news saying that the Chinese arms ship has turned around and headed for home, though, so maybe a few less guns for Mugabe....
Come on. Cato is a private non-profit NGO. It has no connection with the US government. The fact that receiving a grant could be spun as a negative by Chavez and his revolutionaries is certainly possible, but that argument should carry no weight. What's next - anyone who has any contact in Venezuela with any Americans is labeled an American puppet? Then I suppose we can include all the PDVSA guys who are collecting far more American dollars than this guy.
As far as arming MDC in Zimbabwe, if Mbeki and the rest of the neighbors refuse to act and instead let this idiot stay in power, I don't see that there is much left politically for them to do. I am afraid that Mugabe's boys will only back down if they feel threatened. Unfortunately, intimidation needs to work both ways sometimes.
In Venezuela and in the international media, from now on he will be known as the “guy who is having money funneled to him from the U.S.”
Well, the international media isn't going to remind us of that very often because it wouldn't serve the opposition's interests, but you're right that Goicoechea will be correctly seen that way in Venezuela. It's worse than that, though. He's getting an award in the name of Milton Friedman, the intellectual father of the Chicago Boys and a guy who lavished praise on the Pinochet regime. The CATO institute is chock full of people with very little political actumen, obviously.
And let's be honest. Goicoechea is a little whore. If he had a basic set of ethics and was interested in anything more than his own personal vanity and wealth, he'd refuse the award. Instead, he'll sacrifice his own political future (and that of his fellow oppositionists) for half a million. If these people had any sense of the collective good of the opposition as a whole, they wouldn't constantly be shooting themselves in the foot politically. What an utterly pitiful spectacle.
"And let's be honest. Goicoechea is a little whore."
~The Ever Ironic Justin Delacour, down on his knees at his master's feet.
"He's getting an award in the name of Milton Friedman"
Oh well, beats the hell out of an award from Khadaffy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/latin_america/newsid_4039000/4039871.stm
Arrgh, link didn't work. Try it again
re: Khadaffy
"If he had a basic set of ethics and was interested in anything more than his own personal vanity and wealth, he'd refuse the award."
True, at least in this case.
Except that Chavez didn't receive a personal payment from Khadaffy, Paul.
I can certainly understand why some folks would criticize Chavez for accepting an award from Khadaffy, but that still has no relevance to the questions of (1) whether it's ethical for a so-called "pro-Democratic" student leader to receive an award in the name of the Pinochet-fawning Milton Friedman and (2) whether it helps his cause. Personally, I'm delighted that it won't help his cause, but I would think that those of you on the right would be more concerned.
Once again, even if we were to assume that Chavez's acceptance of an award from Quaddaffy wasn't ethical, his acceptance of that award has no bearing on the question of whether Goicoechea's antics are ethical. If both were wrong, it would simply go without saying that neither were right.
Paul's logic goes something like this. If Colombia's military forces and its insurgency were to rape women (which both have been known to do), one side's raping (the military's) could be excused on account of the other side's raping. A rather absurd logic, don't ya think?
"Except that Chavez didn't receive a personal payment from Khadaffy, Paul."
Just hugs and kisses from a brutal tyrant. Takes one to know one, I guess.
"whether it's ethical for a so-called "pro-Democratic" student leader to receive an award in the name of the Pinochet-fawning Milton Friedman.."
I might take this a little more seriously if it wasn't coming from a communist like yourself. Anyway, Friedman was obviously pro-liberty, unlike your master, and worked within the system in Chile to bring about freedom. It was a success. As he wrote in Free To Choose: "Chile is not a politically free system and I do not condone the political system ... the conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse. They would be still better to get rid of the junta and to be able to have a free democratic system."
Not really, fawning, unlike your grotesque Chavez boot lickings.
"Once again, even if we were to assume that Chavez's acceptance of an award from Quaddaffy wasn't ethical, his acceptance of that award has no bearing on the question of whether Goicoechea's antics are ethical."
It makes me laugh you would compare a despot like Khadaffy to Milton Friedman. Perhaps the world is just that warped there in your dorm room. Anyway, Goicoechea's award isn't unethical. So, as usual, you are full of shit.
"Paul's logic goes something like this..blah, blah"
Wow. Does anyone actually pay you to teach anything there? I find that hard to believe after reading that non sequitur and rhetorical equivalent of a fart in the face.
Perhaps you really just sit there in your dorm room, "working on your Phd" in your dirty undies, shaking your fist at your pets goldfish and turtle.
Hmmm, let's see. Milton Friedman meets personally with Pinochet and helps design his economic plan, effectively legitimizing the regime. Then, years later, he renounces the junta, with plenty of fawning in between. Study the record, genius.
Except that Chavez didn't receive a personal payment from Khadaffy, Paul.
Actually, for the record, Gadaffy's annual human rights award comes with $250,000. I don't know what Chavez did with the money. Maybe he donated it to charity; maybe he put it in a personal bank account. I'd be curious to find out if anyone wants to do the research.
The other basic ethical problem, of course, is that the Venezuelan opposition is being funded from abroad. In the United States and Venezuela, there are laws against such funding (which is precisely why the Democratic Party was forced to pay large fines for taking money from Chinese businessmen). Oh, but somehow, it's a-okay for the Venezuelan opposition to take money from abroad. What exactly is the logic at work here? How exactly do we judge it ethically bankrupt for our own politicians to take money from abroad but somehow ethically permissable for the Venezuelan opposition to do the same?
Try squaring that circle, Paul.
"How exactly do we judge it ethically bankrupt for our own politicians to take money from abroad but somehow ethically permissable for the Venezuelan opposition to do the same?"
Don't forget the Colombian "opposition" taking money and aid from your master. Or the Argentinians
and maletagate.
Besides, as Mike pointed out, CATO is an NGO. I guess you don't understand the difference.
And Yon didn't receive the award from Friedman, he's dead in case you didn't know. Your master Chavez, on the other hand, accepted an award from, and slobbered all over, a bloody tyrant. Profound difference.
"years later, he renounces the junta, with plenty of fawning in between.."
You haven't actually provided any fawning. Friedman's whole life was dedicated to the type of individual liberty you communists abhor. He worked to introduce economic freedom into Chile's system and correctly surmised it would help lead to democracy.
Now go wash your undies and stop creeping out the undergrads.
FIRST OF ALL...look at Cato's consistent positions on US foreign policy. They are hardly neo-cons.
They have pretty much represented the libertarian and paleo-conservative side of the right, with a consistent isolationist/non-interventionist line in foreign policy. At the height of the Reagan/Cold War years they were calling for withdrawing troops from Germany. They feuded with the Heritage Foundation anti-communist right, the internationalist Republican foreign policy elite, and the crowd around Commentary Magazine & Scoop Jackson that became the Neo-Cons. They further feuded with these influential blocks, when Cato opposed both Gulf Wars.
To simplify their position they don't want the US government doing anything abroad, including traditional foreign aid, covert operations, nation-building, etc., etc. A Fortune 500 company invading and buying a country is ok. They think Chavez is an anti-market devil, but don't want a US invasion. But, private funding is perfectly ok., and that is why they give an award to an anti-Chavista.
You haven't actually provided any fawning.
Watch the documentary "The Commanding Heights," Paul. Friedman met with Pinochet and advised him. It's on film, for Heaven's sake.
Don't forget the Colombian "opposition" taking money and aid from your master.
There isn't a shred of evidence of that. The Uribe government was smart to back off the International Criminal Court (ICC) threat because it wouldn't stand a chance in hell with its sloppy excuse for a case.
Or the Argentinians and maletagate.
It's possible, but I haven't seen the evidence. If it were true, criticism of it should be neither less nor more strident than criticism of the U.S. Office of Transition Initiative's aid to the Venezuelan opposition. Boz and other minions of empire love to make hay out of "Maletagate," but they somehow don't give a rat's ass if the U.S. Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) gives out millions in Venezuela and refuses to divulge who its recipients are (check out AP's report about it). In this warped political culture of ours, double standards abound.
Besides, as Mike pointed out, CATO is an NGO.
And the Chinese businessmen who gave to Clinton were, if I recall correctly, businessmen (i.e. not officials of the Chinese state). That doesn't make any difference in U.S. law, though. No foreign funding of electoral campaigns is allowed.
Your master Chavez, on the other hand, accepted an award from, and slobbered all over, a bloody tyrant. Profound difference.
You can repeat that 'til you're blue in the face, Paul, but it still has no bearing on what Yon Goicoechea did.
It might also be worthwhile to put the issue into perspective. Libya represents no national security threat whatsoever to Venezuela, so, at the very least, Chavez is not cavorting with people who threaten his country's national security. Yon Goicoechea is.
"atch the documentary "The Commanding Heights," Paul. Friedman met with Pinochet and advised him. It's on film, for Heaven's sake."
I've seen the film. Nobody disputes he advised Pinochet on how to open up economic freedom in Chile. Nobody of good faith disputes Friedman's motives. Hence your smear campaign.
"There isn't a shred of evidence of that."
Oh, of course there is. But then you're the same buffoon who disputed even his rhetorical support for the FARC.
"And the Chinese businessmen who gave to Clinton were, if I recall correctly, businessmen (i.e. not officials of the Chinese state). That doesn't make any difference in U.S. law, though. No foreign funding of electoral campaigns is allowed."
Wait, huh? CATO just awarded Yon a prize for standing up to a tyrant. The prize is well after your master's defeated attempt to become a true dictator through the ballot box. Not even close to a parallel situation.
"it still has no bearing on what Yon Goicoechea did."
Yon stood up to a thug and was recognized for his efforts. Not a damn thing wrong with that.
"Libya represents no national security threat whatsoever to Venezuela, so, at the very least, Chavez is not cavorting with people who threaten his country's national security."
The very least. Decent human beings wouldn't carry on like a schoolgirl over a despot like Khadaffy, let alone receive a prize from him. You have to be a real turd to receive the Khadaffy award. It was an apt choice.
"Yon Goicoechea is."
Venezuela is more than your master Chavez and his bankrupt regime.
Wait, huh? CATO just awarded Yon a prize for standing up to a tyrant. The prize is well after your master's defeated attempt to become a true dictator through the ballot box. Not even close to a parallel situation.
This is a matter of principle, not politics, and it extends way beyound CATO's award to a student opposition leader. The principle that we adhere to is that no foreign funding of U.S. electoral campaigns is allowed. But by some completely contorted logic that Paul is incapable of explaining, what's good for the goose is downright bad for the gander (Venezuela). Venezuela is supposed to allow foreign funding of its political opposition, he tells us. How does that follow, Paul? How do you square that circle? How is it that one principle applies in the United States and the opposite principle applies in Venezuela?
Oh, and one other thing..
The prize is well after your master's defeated attempt to become a true dictator
"True dictator"? How exactly was big bad Hugo on the road to becoming a "true dictator"? By your fascinating logic, the lack of term limits for the executive would make a leader a "true dictator." By this stellar logic, Spain, England and Germany would all be dictatorships. You're a genius, Paul.
"How does that follow, Paul? How do you square that circle? How is it that one principle applies in the United States and the opposite principle applies in Venezuela?"
Are you the top Dorm Room Revolutionary out there, Justin? I'm just wondering because, if so, your team sucks.
Let me square the circle for you and then you can get back to staring out the window at nubile young sorority chicks who go to the other side of the street when they see you coming: Yon isn't an elected official, and he wasn't running for political office. His award isn't really any different in substance to the Nobel Prize, or an Academy Award. Would you complain if some anti-Uribe jagoff won a Nobel? The prize is given out by a private think tank, not the US government. There's really nothing left to say here other than
you should go get a real job. McDonald's is hiring.
Let me square the circle for you and then you can get back to staring out the window at nubile young sorority chicks who go to the other side of the street when they see you coming: Yon isn't an elected official, and he wasn't running for political office.
But, you see, Paul, a circle isn't square. And you need to brush up on Venezuelan politics. Yon Goicoechea is the closest thing there is to an official opposition in Venezuela because the rest of the official opposition decided to commit political suicide by first attempting to destroy the country's economy and then boycotting the 2005legislative elections (because the opposition knew it was going to lose fair and square).
His award isn't really any different in substance to the Nobel Prize, or an Academy Award.
The Cato Institute? Equivalent to the Nobel Prize Institute? The right-wing libertarian morons who give out an award for the cause of "political freedom" in the name of the Pinochet-fawning Milton Friedman are equivalent to the Nobel Prize Institute?
I hope your job doesn't involve any critical thinking, Paul.
"But, you see, Paul, a circle isn't square."
Congratulations for figuring that out. I'm glad to see all those years of your tax subsidized education wasn't completely wasted. But perhaps you will stop using one of the most inane phrases in the English language.
"Yon Goicoechea is the closest thing there is to an official opposition in Venezuela because the rest of the official opposition decided to commit political suicide.."
In other words, you agree he isn't an elected official.
"..The right-wing libertarian morons who give out an award for the cause of "political freedom" in the name of the Pinochet-fawning Milton Friedman are equivalent to the Nobel Prize Institute?"
Yes. I know you, as a communist, are against individual liberty, but in substance there's no difference between the Friedman prize and the Nobel Prize often given out to terrorists like Arafat and appeasers like Jimmy Carter. Perhaps your master will someday have one to put next to his Khadaffy award.
Post a Comment