Soccer Dad

Dictatorial reforms

The BBC headlines it's article about Hugo Chavez's victory yesterday:

Venezuelan leader wins key reform

Since when is a law designed to give a corrupt and ruthless dictator an unlimited term in office considered "reform?" Except by Nobel peace laureate, Jimmy Carter.

The AP's headline is much better:

Chavez calls Venezuela vote mandate for socialism

That it most certainly is.
(via memeorandum)

I was kind of surprised to see this headline at TigerHawk:

Good government initiative: We need Moammar Kadafi in New Jersey!

(via Fausta)

The thing is that Qadaffi is promoting a real reform. He wants to abolish Libya's government and direct its oil revenues to the people of Libya.

Of course, Qadaffi has been know to be ... erratic, so I wouldn't put much stock in this reform. Especially since it would mean the end to his power too. But Qadaffi, at least, is proposing reform; Chavez is celebrating tyranny.

UPDATE: So too, is the New York Times (via Judeopundit) - celebrating tyranny, that is.

President Hugo Chávez handily won a referendum on Sunday that will end presidential term limits, allowing him to run for re-election indefinitely and injecting fresh vibrancy into his socialist-inspired revolution.

The Times also puts this in:

While Mr. Chávez's support ebbed from the 63 percent he secured in a presidential election in 2006, he remains by far Venezuela's dominant political personality.

Maybe his popularity is down since 2006, but it's up since the last time he held a referendum (mentioned later in the article) in late 2007 and lost.

The Times observes:

Mr. Chávez also tried to assert control over the activities of diehard supporters who attacked opposition-controlled institutions in recent weeks. Claiming last week that one group that supports him, La Piedrita, had been infiltrated by the C.I.A., he ordered the arrest of its leader, Valentín Santana.

So the Times is also allowing Chavez to deny responsibility for the intimidation his thugs have carried out.

Even if I was critical of the Washington Post's angle on Venezuela's official antisemitic actions, at least the Post mentioned it, the Times ignores how the Chavez government targeted Jewish institutions.

Fresh vibrancy, indeed.