Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Hugo is All Heart.

Hugo Chavez is going to bring relief to the poor people of Massachusetts in the form of heating oil which will be provided to them at 40% below market value.

What a guy. The fact that Mass. is already 2/3 socialist seems to give him the idea that he can buy a people's revolution in the state. Ok, so it is more just a desire to make Bush look bad but the tactic is the same. He is being aided by the local democratic congressman
William Delahunt who feels that this is in no way politically motivated. He must be a real genius.

Let's take a quick look at the country where "Hugo Chavez's oil" comes from. In 2004 it's consumer inflation rate was estimated at 22.4%. In the same year Venezuela had an unemployment rate of 17.1%. In 1998 she had 47% of her population below the poverty line. In 2004 the government was spending billions more in expenditures than was being taken in for revenue. The economy of Venezuela was pulled out of recession only by high oil prices and most of the economy is dependent on resources (strange, given his anti-free trade stance).

Hugo has valiantly ignored the poverty in his own country to help the poor in America for absolutely no political reason. He will fail of course. If Massachusetts has a people's uprising, all of the money will run south and America will be rid of a major source of left-wing lunacy in the Congress and Senate. My only worry is that Massachusetts will aim that Big Dig north and ask to join Canada. Just what we need.


At Wed. Nov. 23, 03:33:00 a.m. 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah from Mass here, and really appreciated those snarky comments about our state from a *Canadian* for chrissake. That aside, joining Canada doesn't seem like a half bad idea, thanks for raising it. Maybe we could work out some kind of even swap for some equitable chunk of whatever rat-ass province you hail from, as long as your neighborhood is in it. So cut us some slack and have a nice day, eh.

At Wed. Nov. 23, 11:17:00 a.m. 2005, Blogger Apesnake said...

You don't need to put asterisks around the word "Canadian" it is just an adjective but thanks for thinking you need to add the emphasis.

The very fact that you think joining Canada is a good idea is evidence that what I said about Massachusetts is kind of on target. Nice auto insurance policy you have there. No matter how bad you drive you get the same rate so that everyone gets equally high insurance rates. Brilliant.

If cutting you some slack means not criticizing you then... No. I criticize everyone. I am a critic who is given to criticism, eh.

My neighborhood is in the rat-ass province which I hail from - oddly enough. As for joining the States, Hey if you can send Pat Robertson and the rest to Mexico I'd say sign us up. My province is New Brunswick by the way - a region that had location and resources on its side and still managed to have its economy murdered by generations of socialist governments here and in Ottawa so when those who have benefited from the wealth of the free-market system dream about the workers paradise we have up north it really makes me laugh. That and your attitude that supporting the troupes and supporting al-Qaeda are somehow compatible positions. That makes me laugh too.

Face it, Massachusetts is Canada.

It is a pointless discussion anyway because now that Massachusetts is playing footsie with Hugo Chavez even Ottawa would not want you. Even they have some standards. Try Quebec once they separate.

Thanks for your comments.

At Wed. Nov. 23, 01:13:00 p.m. 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your one current reader here again. I'm at work, and no doubt you might impugn my work ethic if I were to feed your right-wing sense of outrage by engaging you in actual debate, but in brief:

1) Those were *stars* not "square" quotes, and Canadian is a noun in that sentence, not an adjective, since you seem to be one of those bloggers who obtains some sense of superiority from grammatical nitpicking.

2) You know nothing about Mass auto insurance, obviously. I am a good driver with no violations, moved to Mass from a southern state at the age of 18, and my auto insurance rates dropped 60%. I would say that other states penalize young drivers, even if they are good drivers. Oddly, our Republican governor wants to do something similar in health insurance, forcing everyone to pay for health insurance. I disagree with this. But it is very thoughtful for you to be concerned with our auto insurance rates. If you don't want to pay them, please don't move here. It is truly that simple.

3) Fine, don't cut us slack. Your snarkiness is easy but cheap.

4) The full noun phrase you failed to parse is "some equitable chunk of whatever rat-ass province you hail from". There may be an equitable chunk of your rat-ass province that does not include your neighborhood. That is a logical distinction that you should attempt to grasp before displaying your quick with.

5) New Brunswick. Been there. It's very easy to blame the rest of Canada on your problems, isn't it?

6) Pat Robertson is indeed a nut.

7) I certainly don't think of Canada as a utopia.

8) "That and your attitude that supporting the troupes and supporting al-Qaeda are somehow compatible positions." You will note that I never commented at ALL about troops (or troupes) or al-Qaeda OR Iraq OR the price of cheese. You assume an attitude that I've never expressed. If this is a habit to which you are prone, it is indeed no wonder to me that you've made so many assumptions about Massachusetts. 2/3 socialist indeed, you would make a great Trotskyite.

9) Funny, I didn't actually tell you my opinion of Chavez: I think he's a demogogue. But in all honesty, I'd rather we do business with him than the Saudis, which have far closer ties to actual terrorists. If Alberta gets those oil sands processed, I'd rather we do business with Canada.

10) Canada is not a dirty word. Neither is Massachusetts.

I'm afraid given your general snarkiness, this is the last time I read your blog. You seem more intent on scoring points on people who disagree with you than in having an actual discussion with your readers. It's really too bad.

At Wed. Nov. 23, 08:18:00 p.m. 2005, Blogger Apesnake said...

you might impugn my work ethic if I were to feed your right-wing sense of outrage by engaging you in actual debate,

So if you are against socialist claptrap you are right-wing now? That is an interesting.

1) Your quite right. The word "Canadian" is being used as a noun there. Sorry I missed that. But it does not change the fact that it does not need asterisks around it. I never said they were square quotes. I don't usually correct people's grammar (punctuation - technically) on this blog because God knows mine is not perfect but the inclusion of asterisks seemed kind of silly to me so I thought I would point that out.

You are also right that I did not read you post that carefully. The fact that you got upset because someone criticized the place where you live, quickly diminished the importance of your post in my eyes. The fact that you used the word "snarky" to describe my comments rather than, say... "inaccurate", further diminished my opinion of you. I guess that had an influence on how closely I read your comments.

2) I do not know much about Massachusetts auto insurance except what I hear from American media and those from your state who are not as happy with the system as you are. Your personal (anecdotal) experience aside, Mass has the third highest rates in America. I did not bring this up because I care about your insurance rates. I brought it up because, by dismissing my comments as snarky, I thought you considered them inaccurate.

3) Again with the descriptions. Am I supposed to care about how you feel towards my comments?

4) You admit that I "failed to parse" your sentence correctly and then insinuate that I did not grasp the logical distinction between the whole province and a part. You are trying to turn a reading error into a thinking error. Is this dishonesty or just a mistake?

5) Coming to New Brunswick is not going to give you any knowledge of how this province got to be the way it is. And I did not blame all it's problems on the rest of Canada. I blamed them on the socialism. The fundamental mismanagement and systematic corruption of generations of government programs, social engineering and left-wing nutbaritude that sees the government as the source of all good. The provincial and federal governments decided which industries and companies would be supported as winners via subsidies, tax breaks and placing regulatory road blocks in the way of their competitors. To keep buying the votes of the poor they produced an entitlement system that kept people from moving to real growing industries or training for better opportunities. But I am sure that to you that is not a reason to be critical.

6) Agreed

7) No, but given the fact that the only thing I really criticized Massachusetts for was being 2/3 socialist and for being a source of left-wing lunacy in Washington (John Kerry, Ted Kennedy) I figured that your anger was because I struck a socialist nerve. So I included the workers paradise reference. I did not think you would read so much into it.

8) I guess I was somewhat lose with my pronouns. I did not draw a strong distinction between my criticisms of Massachusetts and my comments to you personally. I was trying to defend my attribution of left-wing attitudes to Massachusetts since It was not completely clear to me if you were upset because I called Massachusetts left-wing or because I felt it was a bad thing.

9) I don't think I ever actually mentioned your attitude towards Chavez. As for him being better than the Saudis - Chavez is trying to export an economic system to developing countries that will cut them off at the knees just when they are in the process of turning themselves around. Far more people will be harmed in terms of poverty and instability than the few terrorists coming out Saudi Arabia. People dieing early in slums because their economies have been ruined don't show up on casualty reports.

10) No, but state control and corruption are.

The central point of this blog is not to have discussions with people or to acquire a large readership. Remember how I said that my grammar was not perfect and that I had been loose with my pronouns? That is the central purpose of this blog. You improve your writing skills by practicing them and I have chosen to practice mine by expressing my views on various issues and occurrences. I have the comments enabled because I enjoy the feedback even when I think it is a load of horse shit (hypothetically speaking) Given that you called my province rat-assed before knowing what it was I did not think you were looking for a discussion about my comments but rather a flame-war. And if scoring points against people who disagree with me is what you call my responses - fine. I prefer to think of it as standing up for what you have written. I will admit to errors if I agree that I was in error but I will not ignore criticism that I disagree with.

Thanks for your comments.

At Wed. Nov. 23, 09:38:00 p.m. 2005, Blogger Apesnake said...

"I never commented at ALL about troops (or troupes)"

Damn French lessons! They only taught us enough to screw up our spelling. Still, given that troupe applies to any company of people (not exclusively performers) and troop includes animals, I think that my usage is superior to that of the rest of the world. You all need to change.

At Fri. Nov. 25, 09:33:00 a.m. 2005, Blogger Apesnake said...

That was kind of amusing. I should make fun of people's homelands more often; its almost as much fun as insulting someone's mother.

Who's next? Kansas? Too easy.

California? Too easy going.

The Yukon? All the cold and permafrost of Alaska and none of the oil. They have it hard enough.

Wyoming! Damn I hate Wyoming! I hate it sooo much!!! I am going to spend some time this weekend researching why I hate Wyoming.


Post a Comment

<< Home


Day By Day© by Chris Muir.