Chavistas Of The Free World

Moynihan considers the odd politics of Western progressives who support Venezuela’s “Bolivarian revolution”:

A pro-Chavez academic writing in The Nation argued that the massive street demonstrations across the country “have far more to do with returning economic and political elites to power than with their downfall.” The Guardian headlined a news story: “Venezuela’s hardliner reappears as Nicolas Maduro expels US officials.” That hardliner wasn’t Maduro, whose government is arresting regime opponents and strangling the free press, but Leopoldo Lopez, the opposition leader currently languishing in jail. Flip over to the Guardian’s editorial for the bizarre excoriation of President Obama for his supposed “support for regime change in Venezuela.”

It’s a thought experiment I often present to the Western Chavista, one that usually ends up demonstrating that sympathizers of the regime, both in this country and in Europe, have something of a colonialist attitude towards Venezuela. Because one wonders the reaction of these faux progressives if Prime Minister David Cameron, President Barack Obama, Chancellor Angela Merkel–pick your the imperialist lackey!–arrested an opposition leader who had organized peaceful street protests? Or if the CIA shut off the internet in politically restive cities like Berkeley and Brooklyn; blocked Twitter traffic it found politically suspect; and took over PBS, forcing it to broadcast only pro-administration agitprop, never allowing the opposition party to traduce the government across public airwaves?

Update from a reader:

I think you should ask yourself a very basic question: do you really think that every regime that you don’t like is necessarily illegitimate?

Has it crossed your mind that there are countries with populations that support leaders who don’t cater to American interests, or have the same values as your bourgie free-market readership? Do you think it’s a coincidence that you see as inherently undemocratic any country that does not act in a way that you approve of? This is what democracy actually is: people deciding to do things that you don’t like. If your support for elections is only as strong as their capacity to deliver results that you like, then you have no actual commitment to democracy at all.

During the Iranian protests, the Dish was draped with green ribbons for months, and yet there was barely any notice of why the current regime survives: because it is in fact very popular with a significant majority of Iran’s citizens. It’s just not popular with the English-speaking, Westernized Iranians who write blogs and are on Twitter. I don’t like that regime anymore than you do, but I don’t pretend that my disapproval amounts to proof positive that the regime is illegitimate or not supported by a majority of its people.

I think you and the whole crew over there should ask yourself whether the events of the last ten years suggest you should adjust your understanding of how the world works, or what progress means. Because from the Iraqi civil war to the election of Hamas to, yes, the repeated re-election of the Chavez government, what the world has shown is that it will pursue its own interests against the narrow paternalism of Western progressives. You’ve got to decide if you actually support real, messy, ugly democracy, or if you support the rosy lies of the Bush-era embrace of “democracy.”

Putin Freaks Out

Arrest Warrant Issued For Former Ukrainian Leader As Square Becomes Shrine To Dead

There was something rather delightful in the way that Ukraine’s refusal to be forced into a Euro-Asian Community of Putin-favored despots ruined the new Tsar’s Olympics. The revolt of the Ukrainians – even some supporters of Yanukovych –  exposes the stark limits of Putin’s approach to politics: always zero-sum, contemptuous of the West, posturing across the globe, acting the way dumb tyrants always act. The Kremlin is now touting the Friday “truce” agreement that its representative refused to sign. And so it is unsurprising that the Kremlin has gone completely over-the-top in reacting to the weekend’s epic events:

“If you consider Kalashnikov-toting people in black masks who are roaming Kiev to be the government, then it will be hard for us to work with that government,” prime minister Medvedev said. “Some of our foreign, western partners think otherwise, considering them to be legitimate authorities. I do not know which constitution, which laws they were reading, but it seems to me it is an aberration … Something that is essentially the result of a mutiny is called legitimate.” …

The Russian foreign ministry statement pressed all the buttons that will have the west and Kiev alarmed about ethnic and religious strife fracturing the country in two. It complained that ethnic Russian rights were already being violated after the parliament rescinded the status of Russian as a second language. “Referring merely to revolutionary expediency, [the parliament] is imposing decisions and laws aimed at repressing the human rights of Russian and other national minorities. There are even calls for a complete ban of the Russian language,” it said.

Now we’ll see how mature the opposition is, and whether it can control its more radical elements, which would only goad Russia to more brinksmanship. Fisher says it’s a positive sign that the parliament took the lead in pushing out Yanukovych on Friday:

What makes this an even bigger deal is that, while foreign countries have played a role, it’s ultimately Ukrainians pushing through a resolution, and doing it democratically. Most of the time, these sorts of crises end when one side is simply defeated outright, or cuts a middle-of-the-night deal brokered by foreign powers. But what’s happening right now in Kiev is being driven by procedural, by-the-letter votes in the country’s own parliament. In many ways, it’s a victory not just for but by democracy and the rule of law.

And that’s maybe the most amazing thing about Parliament so aggressively undermining Yanukovych — that they’re doing it democratically, within the rule of law, following all the rules of procedure and form. That’s just extremely rare in “transitional” states in the long process of developing from an authoritarian to democratic system, particularly post-Soviet states.

It is. But now the president is being charged with mass murder:

The Kyiv Post reports that acting Interior Minister Arsen Avakov announced on his Facebook page this morning that Mr. Yanukovych and “other [former] government officials” are wanted for “mass killings of civilians.” Though the charges do not name the alleged victims, the Post writes that it is “presumed that the investigation centers on whether Yanukovych hired snipers or ordered riot police to shoot EuroMaidan [Independence Square] demonstrators in January and February.” At least 100 people have been killed in Ukraine‘s political turmoil, including at least 75 in the past week.

Ioffe worries that demobilizing the protesters’ armed contingent might be a challenge:

The so-called self-defense groups patrolling and ruling the Maidan these last few months are now highly organized groups of men who have tasted victory—and their own power. What do you do after you take up a baseball bat and topple a president? Go back to your day job? The new interim Interior Ministry head said he promised the groups posts inside the Ministry, but the devil will absolutely be in the details: there are a lot of these guys, and some of them really are extremists. Will there be room for all of them? If not, what will happen to the rest?

Uri Friedman says to watch the power struggle:

It’s also worth keeping an eye on what happens among Ukraine’s opposition leaders. The triumvirate —Oleh Tyahnybok of the Svoboda (Freedom) party, Vitali Klitschko’s of the Udar (Punch) party, and Arseniy Yatsenyuk of the Batkivshchina (Fatherland) party—may have united against Yanukovych, but their uneasy alliance is beset by power struggles and ideological divides, particularly between the mainstream opposition parties and the far-right Svoboda party (what U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, in his leaked “Fuck the EU” call with U.S. diplomat Victoria Nuland, referred to as “troubles in the marriage”). Now the powerful Tymoshenko, who some activists support and others view as part of the corrupt political elite, has entered the mix. And the extent to which these leaders can win over the diverse mix of protesters in the street remains an open question.

Max Boot predicts shenanigans from the Kremlin:

We can expect a riposte from Putin before long, and from his allies in Ukraine who are down but not defeated. How the revolution will unfold no one knows, but Ukraine has had plenty of experience of thwarted upheavals. This is, after all, the second popular uprising against Yanukovych, the first being the Orange Revolution of 2004-2005. Although thwarted in his attempt to steal that election, Yanukovych returned to power in 2010, managing to win a fair election after his political adversaries failed to show results while in office.

Bershidsky points out that revolution or no revolution, Ukraine is still broke:

Sweet as revenge may be, what Ukraine needs now isn’t a Yanukovych trial or tourist destinations such as Mezhihirya (pictures of gold-laden interiors of the former prosecutor general’s home are also popular on the social networks). Right now, the country needs $35 billion to avoid default, according to acting Finance Minister Yuri Kolobov, until recently a Yanukovych loyalist. If Ukraine is to get that money from the International Monetary Fund, the European Union the U.S. and, possibly, Russia, it needs to concentrate on finding ways to go forward, not look back at its ugly past. Otherwise, there will be plenty of politicians and bureaucrats hungry for a bite of the aid package, and their gnawing will go unheard in the revolutionary din.

And lastly, Brian Merchant implores us not to stop watching now that that the “excitement” appears to be over:

It’s certainly an overused technique, but framing stories as “apocalyptic” or “dystopian” gives audiences an easy window for empathy. We’re all afraid that our world will fall apart, after all, and seeing it happen anywhere gives us a paroxysm of worry, fear, and guilt. The bombs and clubs are coming down on our fellow humans, and we imagine their specter looming over us too—it’s healthy, I think, to stare, engrossed, with trepidation and sympathy.

But in order for the experience to amount to much more than looking at porn, we have to keep watching. The livestream is still rolling, you know. After the fire-licked glow and apocalyptic combat comes real, 3D-life: the scenes now filling the stream reveal the tumult of compromise, the measuring of loss, and a mass of people groping for the next step.

(Photo: A wanted poster showing a portrait of ousted Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovych on February 24, 2014 in Kiev, Ukraine. Ukrainian interim interior minister has today announced that an arrest warrant has been issued for the ousted president. By Rob Stothard/Getty Images.)

The Uprisings Around The Globe

VENEZUELA-POLITICS-OPPOSITION-PROTEST

Ed Krayewski sees the protests in Ukraine, Venezuela, and Thailand as part of a global backlash against irresponsible “democratic” governments:

To varying extents, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Thailand have democratically-elected governments.  And in each case, those governments, rather than working to do their best to represent all people, have demonized and alienated the opposition, claiming their slim margins of victories as mandates to act in any way they please.

The root problem in each country is unaccountable government. That unaccountability, in each case, is an outgrowth of the attitude that a mere democratic majority (of the actually-voting voting population) suffices to permit the government to do anything it wants under the guise of having a popular mandate for it.

Dalibor Rohac and Juan Carlos Hidalgo note several “striking parallels” between Ukraine and Venezuela. On the two countries’ economies:

In 1990, Ukraine’s GDP per capita was $8,200, which was roughly identical to Poland’s.Today, Poland’s GDP is $18,300 and Ukraine’s has gone down to $6,400. Unlike its post-communist neighbors to the West, Ukraine did not pursue deep institutional reforms and its economy was seized by a narrow group of oligarchs, with close connections to political power and to the Kremlin. The son of the President Viktor Yanukovych, Oleksandr, has become one of the richest men in the country during his father’s time in the office, while incomes of most Ukrainians stagnated.

In Venezuela the economic situation has deteriorated sharply since the death of Hugo Chávez last year. The country has the highest inflation rate in the world (officially 56 percent in 2013, although according to Steve Hanke’s Trouble Currency Project, the implied annual inflation rate is actually 305 percent). After years of nationalizations, expropriations, and currency and price controls—all under the name of “21st Century Socialism”—the private sector has been decimated. Hour-long lines in supermarkets are a daily occurrence and shortages of basic food staples and medicines are widespread. And just like in Ukraine, corruption is rampant as the ruling elite rake in the profits from oil revenues. This has resulted in the rise of a new privileged class called the “Boligarchs.” so-named because they’ve prospered tremendously under the so-called Bolivarian revolution.

(Photo: A man attends a protest against the government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas on February 23, 2014. By Raul Arboleda/AFP/Getty Images)

A Historic Non-Event

Jack Hamilton marks Jason Collins’ momentary return to the NBA:

Years from now memories and box scores will attest that Collins entered that game and was the best thing anyone could hope for:

He was himself. He was himself without any hint of incident, turmoil, or gawky spectacle. In the aftermath of his coming out last spring, the vast majority of NBA players voiced strong support for their friend and co-worker, but that landmark Sports Illustrated cover also provoked its share of ugliness. Certain members of the media howled about how they could care less about Collins’ sexuality, and shame on all of us for turning Collins into a “hero” since sexual preference (suddenly) mattered so little to them (that is, straight dudes). As we’ve seen repeated in the wake of Michael Sam’s announcement, there were passive-aggressive grumblings about “distraction”: Hey, I’m not saying it’d bother me, just the guys who work with me, even though they’re saying the opposite. There were no “distractions” last night—Brooklyn came away with a victory—and no one was unduly concerned with sexuality, outside of the energized anticipation of seeing a brave and important person make history.

Update from a reader:

Taking nothing away from Jason Collins, but he wasn’t the first active player of a major American sport to come out; Glenn Burke was (Los Angeles Dodgers and Oakland As from 1976 to 1979 ). He was out to his team, family and the front office of the Dodgers. He even talked to reporters about it. But they wouldn’t print it.

The Obamacare Debate Is Not About Healthcare

“We’re at our worst when it comes to politics,” declares Paul Bloom in an essay about reason and morality:

Most of us know nothing about constitutional law, so it’s hardly surprising that we take sides in the Obamacare debate the way we root for the Red Sox or the Yankees. Loyalty to the team is what matters. A set of experiments run by the Stanford psychologist Geoffrey Cohen illustrates this principle perfectly.

Subjects were told about a proposed welfare program, which was described as being endorsed by either Republicans or Democrats, and were asked whether they approved of it. Some subjects were told about an extremely generous program, others about an extremely stingy program, but this made little difference. What mattered was party: Democrats approved of the Democratic program, and Republicans, the Republican program. When asked to justify their decision, however, participants insisted that party considerations were irrelevant; they felt they were responding to the program’s objective merits. This appears to be the norm.

The Brown psychologist Steven Sloman and his colleagues have found that when people are called upon to justify their political positions, even those that they feel strongly about, many are unable to point to specifics. For instance, many people who claim to believe deeply in cap and trade or a flat tax have little idea what these policies actually mean.

So, yes, if you want to see people at their worst, press them on the details of those complex political issues that correspond to political identity and that cleave the country almost perfectly in half.

Recent Dish on Bloom’s work here.

Exit Alec Baldwin, Pursued By A Bear

The latest installment in the saga of a brilliant comic actor felled by his extreme temper unfolds this week in New York magazine. The “greatest actor in the world” has declared that he is now withdrawing from public life, and eschewing “show-business” for the artist’s life. I hope he finds happiness, really hope he can do what he does best again, and I sure don’t begrudge him his utter frustration with the price of celebrity in 2014.

But he accuses me and Anderson Cooper of falsely accusing him of homophobia. He insists he did not call that photographer a “cock-sucking faggot.” Rather, he called him a “cocksucker” and some other word he can’t quite remember. And he had no idea that “cock-sucker” was an anti-gay slur in any case. Yes, he did refer to someone has a “toxic little queen” but again he was utterly unaware that the phrase had anything to do with homosexuals. He is now researching homophobia he was so oblivious to it before: “I want to learn about what is hurtful speech in your community.”

A couple things: as I said before, I have no window into Alec Baldwin’s soul and have no reason to believe he is, in some permanent or fundamental way, homophobic. So much of his public life would seem to portray the opposite. My point is nonetheless that he deployed homophobic curse-words in public against other human beings, in order to cut them down to size. All he has to say is that he has a hot Irish temper, that it got the better of him, that he realized he has some buried issues that he needs to grapple with … and get on with his life. The gay community would have welcomed him with open arms. But he cannot accept the truth of what transparently occurred, because it would dent his pride. So he still bizarrely insists his Twitter tirade against a nasty British tabloid hack had nothing to do with homophobia:

At the time, I didn’t view “toxic little queen” as a homophobic statement. I didn’t realize how those words could give offense, and I’m sorry for that.

Really? He had no idea that this was homophobic:

George Stark, you lying little bitch. I am gonna f%#@ you up … I want all of my followers and beyond to straighten out this fucking little bitch, George Stark. @MailOnline … My wife and I attend a funeral to pay our respects to an old friend, and some toxic Brit writes this fucking trash … If put my foot up your fucking ass, George Stark, but I’m sure you’d dig it too much … I’m gonna find you, George Stark, you toxic little queen, and I’m gonna fuck…you…up.

My italics. And so – drum-roll – comes the classic non-apology apology:

If I offended anyone along the way, I do apologize.

And, of course, after a non-apology will come a non-exit from public life. If you want to exit from public life, you can do it. You can stop giving paparazzi what they live for; you can let old stories die and rebuild your career with good work; and you can give to charity with total anonymity. Alternatively, you can write a long screed in New York magazine, claim that you were completely and falsely smeared, re-visit every tortured detail of the story that made life more difficult for you, detail your expansive holiness, throw barbs at lots of people who once worked with you, and loudly tell the world you’re taking your marbles and going home.

He is a good actor, isn’t he?

Update from a reader:

A Jezebel commenter nails it:

Alec Baldwin is less sad if you imagine Jack Donaghy saying the things that come out of his mouth. “I won’t be in tomorrow, Lemon, I’m being subpoenaed by the Gay Department of Justice.

Alex has apparently morphed into Jack Donaghy, or was that portrayal truer to life than we knew?

Ads In The Age Of Cryptocurrency

Paul Ford ponders how new currencies like Bitcoin might actually make us appreciate online advertising:

Advertisers pay to reach highly valued online audiences; they use a variety of technologies, many surprisingly ineffective, to find these individuals. Could cryptocurrencies help? [Digital advertising and finance analyst Larry] Smith asks us to consider the following scenario: imagine a brand like Dunkin’ Donuts that wanted to create a loyalty program. Now imagine that brand creating its own currency: DunkinDollars. Finally, imagine an online advertising campaign where people who clicked on an advertisement would be given the virtual coins. Small amounts of money might be distributed without friction. If large brands could create their own currencies and allow individuals to participate in this marketplace, they could create consumers who were truly invested, in every sense.

The entire web of advertising would suddenly become a more interesting place. Before, the ads seemed to hunt you, but now you would have reason to hunt for ads. The coins you earned could then be exchanged for branded goods, but they could also be exchanged on an open market, like a kind of penny stock. “Pay consumers for clicks and acquisitions,” says Smith, defining this new kind of model.

Trying To Shatter Tradition

S. Brent Plate meditates on Ai Weiwei and the paradox of iconoclasm:

In the modern age, as art has become sacred, the smashing of the artistic tradition becomes itself an iconoclastic act. One of Ai’s great works is a large-scale, three-panel photo artwork from 1995 titled Dropping a Han Dynasty Urn. It is iconoclastic, smashing an object of the past and by extension smashing the tradition itself.

[Last] week, Ai’s artwork [was] back in the news. On Sunday, Dominican-born artist named Maximo Caminero walked into the Pérez Art Museum in Miami and smashed one of the vases that was part of Ai Weiwei’s Colored Vases display. Caminero’s complaint? That local galleries put all their time and effort into international artists of high esteem, and forsake the locals. Here’s the thing:

iconoclasm is itself an iconic act. One image replaces another. Ai was careful to have his iconoclastic act documented, skillfully shot on camera and reproduced for many to see. Likewise Caminero did not sneak into the gallery under cover of night to do his smashing; he went in the middle of the day on Sunday and was sure that others were watching (we are waiting for the video surveillance footage of Caminero to emerge and watch that go viral). Tradition is itself a series of creative and destructive acts, stability and instability; the icons are the tradition as much as the images of iconoclasm. Nothing stays the same.

Why Work Without Reward?

Nicholas Hune-Brown reviews a study that allowed test subjects to “earn” chocolate by listening to a harsh noise (representing “work,” as compared to the option of listening to pleasant music, representing “leisure”).  Researchers divided participants into two categories: “high-earners, who got a chocolate every 20 times they listened to the noise, and low-earners who had to hear the noise 120 to earn their reward.” The results:

[R]esearchers found their test subjects earning far more chocolate than anyone would ever hope to consume. High-earners earned an average of 10.74 chocolates but only ate 4.26. They needlessly exposed themselves to unpleasant noises, then left the majority of their earnings on the table. Low-earners, meanwhile, earned slightly less chocolate than they could eat, but listened to about the same number of sounds. This suggests that both groups weren’t considering the optimal results, but rather how much work they could bear. Instead of trying to create the most enjoyable experience, they unthinkingly worked as much as possible, stockpiling useless treasure.

The researchers call this behaviour “mindless accumulation”—the tendency for people to forgo leisure to work towards rewards they’ll never be able to use. They argue that it’s a distinctly modern problem. For much of human history, earning rates were low and people needed to work as much as possible just to survive. The idea that you could “overearn” simply wasn’t realistic. If you’re one of today’s highly paid office workers, however, earning comes comparatively easily, yet the drive to hoard as much as possible remains. The researchers compare overearning to overeating, another distinctly modern problem caused by a life of surprising abundance.

Monopoly For The Millennials, Ctd

A reader writes:

About every six to twelve months somebody stumbles on Setters of Catan and thinks that it’s the game destined to replace Monopoly. But until it’s in Wal-Mart, there’s just no chance of that happening. Plus, it is always funny for a game that was released in 1995 to be considered new. Classic is becoming ever more an appropriate term.

Update from a reader: “Just a note that Walmart carries two separate versions of the game.” Another reader:

Imagine if popular television were as static as the most popular board games. Mickey Mouse would dominate the market the way Monopoly does, and most intelligent adults would dismiss it as a silly pastime for kids and families. Settlers of Catan has introduced many people to the fact that board games have been designed since 1940, and that’s good. But it’s actually a pretty boring game. It doesn’t even make BoardGameGeek’s Top 100 list. Settlers of Catan is better than Monopoly, but it still sucks compared to good games.

Another disagrees:

It’s a popular game because it is easy to explain, doesn’t take forever to finish and is competitive right up to the end. The game play is anything but boring.

I’ve been playing strategy board games for over 40 years. Before the German-style board games started appearing in this country, 20 years ago, it was a niche market and finding like minded players was difficult. Most strategy board games, until that time, were military themed and had hundreds of small cardboard pieces that required a lot of set-up time and took many hours (or days) to finish playing. The players were stereotypically uni-sex and geeky. Since the advent of games like Settlers of Catan, I have participated in hundreds of game nights where up to 20 people were playing 4 to 5 different games in an evening. The gender ratio is evenly split and it has become a great social event in my world.

I own many dozens of strategy board games of varying degrees of sophistication and difficulty, but Settlers of Catan continues to be a popular choice on our game nights. My 5- and 7-year-old children are already requesting that we take it out to play on weekends. I will gladly choose this over Monopoly or Risk any time.

Settlers of Catan is the 10th most popular “Gateway” game. This is a game that is great for introducing people to the world of strategy board games. Board Game Geek’s rankings are skewed because the people who hang out there are always looking for the next big thing. They are like the people who dismiss a certain type of music they adored once it becomes popular with everyone else. There is a bit of elitism going on. When geekdom becomes mainstream, you have to move more to the extreme to maintain your geek credentials.

Another fan:

I think that part of the reason for the popularity of Settlers is because of people like me.  I don’t think I’d played a board game in about 15 years (I’m 35 years old) before I tried Settlers for the first time last year.  Since then, I’ve played it about once a month.  And every single time has been with my wife and several other couples who’ve decided to make a night of it and get roaring drunk at the same time.  It lends itself to booze and laughter and the wheeling-and-dealing aspect of it makes it a much more social game than any other I’ve played.  It’s like the Wii of board games; it’s easy and accessible and anyone can do it.  There’s nothing complicated and it doesn’t take years of practice to master.  Men and women love it and you don’t need to be a nerd (which I say lovingly, but you know what I mean.)

And to link it to another long-term thread of yours, it also goes great with smoking a joint.