"On Monday, Caracas was full of posters. Student protesters have adopted it as their chant, and you can find various cartoons, songs and ringtones alluding to the subject on the web. I would love to be able to defend Chavez and feel offended by the king's remarks, but I can't! The king said what most of us have wanted to say for a long time. We have been listening to his diatribes every Sunday, which go for hours and hours... When he insults anyone who is not with him, when he humiliates our student protesters... We all want to say 'why don't you shut up?'"
So what do people really think of what the King Juan Carlos of Spain said to Hugo Chavez?
१६ नोव्हेंबर, २००७
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४३ टिप्पण्या:
It appears to sound as if the sentiment is universal in that wanting Chavez to shut up is a demand, not a request. I'm all for that.
Long overdue. I'm sure that even Sean Penn would agree by this point.
Galvanized - nope. The point at which the left will agree is really quite easy to define: it'll occur at midday on the January 20th following the next Presidential election resulting in a Democratic victory, whether that be 1/20/09, 1/20/13 or beyond.
The funny part is that Chavez has given his supporters their own chant. They all stand together and shout: "Blow me."
Machismo gone wild. But he can afford it with the money Venezuela's raking in.
What? Is LOS actually Hugo Chavez?
King Juan Carlos said, "Calla te su voca, tonto!"
You know Hugo does kind of look like Jay Silverheels.
wait....did tc really just write a one sentence post?
Since he hates Bush, though, I guess all those folks in Caracas are just plain wrong.
It's good to be the King. 'Bout time.
This is cute:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzIfBiuMoCU
Por que no te callas? Is better translated, Why don't you keep quiet? I'm surprised the BBC wasn't more careful. Doubtful Queen Elizabeth would every tell George Bush to shut up. There is protocol and stuff like that. Callar(se), the verb can mean shut up if you yell it at someone in an exclamation: Callate! [the double L is pronounced like a Y in Spanish.] The king was fed up with Chavez for repeatedly calling Aznar, the former president of Spain, a fascist. The king was pointing his finger at Chavez when he said that.
Chavez maintains that Aznar was complicit in the failed coup attempt against him. I might have trouble forgiving Aznar (and keeping quiet) , too, if I thought he had been in on the plot to overthrow my government and kill me.
Chavez has done more than his fair share of meddling in the internal affairs of his neighbors (and no so-close neighbors), yet they all managed to hold their tongues and act like adults instead of petulant children.
Chavez is now threatening to seize and nationalize a number of major private Spanish investments in Venezuela unless Juan Carlos makes the abject apology personally dictated by Chavez.
"So what do people really think of what the King Juan Carlos of Spain said to Hugo Chavez?"
Depends which people you ask. Authoritarian Latin American socialism is still far more attractive in the faculty lounges of major American universities than it is in the streets of Latin America - especially if you're on the wrong side of the fire hose, truncheon, tear gas cloud or knock on the door at 2 in the morning.
"Chavez is now threatening to seize and nationalize a number of major private Spanish investments in Venezuela unless Juan Carlos makes the abject apology personally dictated by Chavez."
I suspect any excuse would have served Chavez in stealing privately owned Spanish property; regardless, two points - thugs like Chavez have always depended upon decent people to "act like adults instead of petulant children," as you so charmingly put it, instead of confronting them. Also, nationalizing private property, generally speaking, is a poor strategy for fostering investment. I fully appreciate that Venezuela's oil wealth pretty much renders that issue moot, but not completely. Over the long run, the risk of nationalization will push close call investments into other markets. While Chavez certainly wants power more than what's best for Venezuela, this move wouldn't be without cost, most directly borne by the Venezuelans. But will other Latin Americans learn the lesson? There's scant evidence they wish to.
Seizing and nationalizing a business entity is not synonymous with stealing it. If fair compensation is paid then it's hyperbole to call it stealing.
Who decides what the fair price is, and is future earnings taken into account. Not to mention the hammer held over the owners heads during "negotiation".
"Seizing and nationalizing" at a 'fair' price has always worked so well, hasn't it? I mean, surely turnip can come up with a few examples of where it did, right?
I don't like the pseudonym "Dave." Every Tom, Dick, or Harriet is named "Dave." I would never be so cruel to name my dog Dave, for instance. Insolent twerps are named Dave. Losers, too.
What is so cool about this is that it may finally be the thing that takes Chavez down.
Communists are very big on being blustering blow-hards, and demanding respect. Now that Chavez is a risible figure who will never live down the "why don't you shut up" which is a multi-purpose put-down for everything he says from here on out.
People don't respect, nor do they obey leaders who have become buffoons. The King may very well have put in motion the pebble triggering the avalanche that will topple the big-mouthed windbag Chavez.
And Danny Glover and Cindy Sheehan will mourn, I guess.
1. blustering blow-hards
2. big-mouthed windbag
3. People don't respect, nor do they obey leaders who have become buffoons.
You must be referring to our beloved leader, G.W. Bush.
Seizing and nationalizing a business entity is not synonymous with stealing it. If fair compensation is paid then it's hyperbole to call it stealing.
As an exercise in political and economic theory, I am wondering if Trumpit would be good enough to tell us what businesses and economic activities should be nationalized as a matter of policy. He may be as specific or as general as he likes.
I'm glad to see monarchy defeat populism. It means Hillary will beat the Republican nominee.
If fair compensation is paid then it's hyperbole to call it stealing.
If the compensation is less than what the owner was willing to sell if for then it is entirely accurate to call it stealing.
If you're willing to sell your car for $10k and someone takes it from you at gunpoint and gives you the "fair price" of $7k, you've just been robbed of three thousand dollars.
I didn't ask u Irrelevant. Eminent Domain IS WRITTEN in to the U.S. Constitution. Find a new hobby more suitable to your limited intellect.
In the United States, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution has been interpreted to require that JUST COMPENSATION be paid when the power of eminent domain is used, and has also been interpreted so that, as a pre-requisite to the use of eminent domain, the property must be taken for "public use". These requirements are sometimes called the takings clause. - Wikipedia
Not entirely on topic: I ran "Calla te su voca, tonto!" through the 'Babelfish' site and got 'Shut your mouth, idiot!'
Does this make the 'Lone Ranger' with his faithful Indian Friend 'Tonto' camp or add a piquancy to your celebration of '500 years of oppression,' Thanksgiving?
Trumpit- can you now define 'Public Use' for us?
A highway, a school, an airport; yeah, Eminent Domain is acceptable, and a fairly arrived at compensation is justified.
But what about a shopping mall or a factory? There are two issues in my mind that negate Eminent Domain in these instances- 1) it is not public use, but an alleged public benefit; 2) the government should not be in the business of stealing a person's property to hand over to another individual for them to profit on.
If I want to sell my farm to a developer and we agree on a price the government, at any level, has no right to step in and fix a price more beneficial to one party or the other, yet Eminent Domain use in these instances does just that; and it sure as hell ain't the little guy their helping out.
I think it's a matter of the king being offended by Chavez's rudeness in a formal public forum. He used the familiar form por que no tu callas because he was speaking to what he perceived as an inferior; Chavez's coarseness certainly qualifies him for the "risen peasant" role.
He'd best leave Juan Carlos alone, however. The King shot one one his brothers to death as a teenager in an "accident" with a pistol.
Oops, it went off....
Randy (Internet Ronin) said...
Chavez has done more than his fair share of meddling in the internal affairs of his neighbors (and no so-close neighbors), yet they all managed to hold their tongues and act like adults instead of petulant children.
Venezuela invades Guyana's territory
Most people don't understand how Chavez meddles in the affairs of his neighbors. Just this morning I'm reading about a Venezuela military attack on Guyana over an area of disputed territory that was settled in 1899.
But every time there is domestic problems, Chavez tries to stir up nationalistic feelings by attacking his much smaller neighbors.
Since I perceive that there might be some misunderstanding about what the king meant, his phrase Porque no te callas in this case meant exactly Why don't you shut up? When he used the familiar form tu, he was talking down to Chavez, and he meant to insult him. As we all know, Chavez deserves to be insulted. Especially since at least five people died in Venezuela in street riots in the same week, if I am not mistaken.
I should also point out that we have been listening to this all week.
Well I did not copy the link right. Here it is again.
link
Trumpit sounds like a Chavez supporter to me. Perhaps he works in American academia.
Trumpit said...
"Eminent Domain IS WRITTEN in to the U.S. Constitution."
The Constitution presupposes that eminent domain is a power of government and places limitations on how it may be exercised by the federal government. Likewise, the Constitution presupposes that the death penalty is a punishment for crimes and places limitations on how it may be exercised by the federal government. In both cases, these limitations were later expanded to cover state actions by the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Constitution's presupposition that a power exists (to take away life or property in appropriate circumstances), or its failure to abolish it rather than regulate it, is far from taking a position on whether it ought to be used or how often. I agree wholeheartedly with Jeff's 12:13 AM comment.
A few notes on the original Spanish:
"Calla te su voca, tonto"
Juan Carlos didn't say that. Voca isn't even a Spanish word. Presumably it's a misspelling of boca.
He said "Por que no te callas?" while wagging his finger at the Venezuelan blowhard. I loved it.
Literally, this means "Why don't you be quiet?" But it's pretty rude to say that in Spanish cultures, especially in a diplomatic setting. I think it's entirely fair to translate it as "why don't you shut up?"
On the other hand I see people saying the king was rude to use the informal "te" instead of the formal "se." In Spanish, it's polite to address people in the third person. Forms of the second person "tu" are used when talking to family, close friends, or children.
Historically, it was used when speaking to servants or social inferiors, but as Spanish cultures have modernized, this usage has fallen by the wayside.
However, one of the privileges of being king is that you call everyone tu. Nobody expects the king to address them in the third person, not even 3rd world autocrats.
Es bueno ser rey.
Chavez is a Joker, no way, it's a patetic joker.
Look at this new designs on t-shirts about this issue.
http://www.cafepress.com/tshirtmaster/4082237
Why don't you shut up gifts and t-shirts
Just to set the record straight, "Sean Penn" is not "the left", and your average person on "the left" (including me) is more than ready for Hugo Chavez to shut up, if not be fed to pirhanas.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा