Here is a pretty good article in the Telegraph, by Nancy Soderberg (who she?), arguing that taxpayers of the UK should not be giving money to Argentina. It is a country that, with hardly a shred of legal or other justification, wishes to claim back territories (the Falkland Islands) that it unsuccessfully attempted to capture 30 years ago by force of arms:

"Argentina, after all, is acting with scant regard for the international community. Over the past decade it has pursued a deliberate strategy of playing games with financial markets. Its default on £51 billion of debt in 2001 turned it into a financial pariah, a status that was not enhanced by two subsequent unilateral debt restructurings. To this day, Argentina remains shut out of the world’s capital markets. To make matters worse, it also nationalised private pension funds, thereby providing itself with a captive domestic market into which it could sell its debt."

"The government has since been sued by creditors around the world as they try to force Argentina to honour its obligations. In the Southern District Court of New York alone, there have been more than 170 bondholder lawsuits, resulting in more than 100 judgments. Today, Argentina still owes more than £15 billion in old debts ranging from Paris Club loans, to bondholders, and to foreign investors holding arbitral awards from the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). In each case, Argentina has refused to play by the rules. It has demanded a Paris Club restructuring without the mandatory IMF monitoring, it has ignored New York court judgments, and it has insisted, in blatant disregard of its treaty obligations under ICSID, that arbitral awards be brought to Argentina for “approval” by its own courts."

Argentina is refusing to let UK-registered vessels enter any of its ports, and has also sought to enlist other Latin American countries in putting the squeeze on the UK. Now of course some of this can be dismissed as "sabre-rattling", and no doubt, in their quieter moments, many Argentine people who have endured a variety of useless or vicious governments will think that the latest antics of their government are absurd. But it is clear that bullies need to be confronted eventually. The UK government should terminate any aid to Argentina without delay. Indeed, it should terminate aid, full stop, to any country, democratic or otherwise.

One of the things that stuck in my mind when reading the late Christopher Hitchens' brilliant "Hitch 22" memoirs was his description of how he felt about the Thatcher administration in confronting the military junta of Argentina in 1982. I think it was Hitchens' first realisation that his youthful leftism meant he had to take sides with some pretty stupid people, and that he began a long, slow reappraisal of some of his ideas. As the Falklanders no doubt asked themselves in 1982, do we really want to be taken over by this lot?

Of course, it is all about ooooiiilllll!

For a bit of background, here is a reasonably fair account of the history of the Falkland Islands, which have been attached to the UK since the 1830s, an era when Argentina had only begun to exist as an independent nation in its own right.

On the 15h of February, I was sitting in a pub in London. As is often the case nowadays, this pub had flat screen televisions on some of the walls, and they were switched to the BBC's 24 hour news channel. This too is common, as is the practice of switching down the sound and turning on the simultaneous subtitles that are transmitted with the broadcast, theoretically for the benefit of the deaf, but also useful in other places (such as pubs) where it might not be possible for viewers to listen to the audio. For live broadcasts such as news, the audio is being thrown through computer voice recognition software and the subtitles generated automatically. It appears that particularly egregious or hilarious errors are then corrected by a human, but not until after viewers had seen them.

In any event, the news was of Sean Penn's trip to Argentina, where he had been prancing around, referring to the conflict over the "Malvinas", and just generally behaving like a self-important Hollywood star talking about things he does not understand. Yawn, actually. What was more interesting to me was the BBC coverage. The studio talking head in London said a few words, and then crossed to someone somewhere else, a South American reporter who was presumably somewhere nearer to Buenos Aires. (I didn't record the names of the talking heads, unfortunately). The two had a conversation on air. The South American correspondent more or less repeated what had been said already. Then he uttered this lovely line.

Actually Sean Penn has gone to Uruguay today, or Paraguay - it is one of the two...

Huh? I mean, huh? Disregarding the fact that the BBCs South American correspondent should actually know where Sean Penn has gone before going on air to talk about Sean Penn, there are other things that helpful to know. Uruguay - nice place on the coast on the other side of the River Plate from Buenos Aires - in fact in many ways almost an extension of Buenos Aires and so clone that one can almost sneeze and discover that one is there. Exactly the sort of place that a shallow Hollywood star likes to go to to be fawned on by the President. Also, the "He has gone there today" thing. You have a schedule of events in BA and someone throws an event in Uruguay in the middle of it. That works.

Paraguay on the other hand - dubious and rather lawless inland place that Sean Penn wouldn't be seen dead in.Getting there from BA is a bit more work, and going there is not quite such a casual thing, so it is much less likely he would have an engagement there the day after one in BA.

They are not, in fact, very similar, and they are impossible to confuse if you know anything at all about them. However, they are small countries between Argentina and Brazil that have similar names, which I suppose makes it likely that today's BBC reporters will confuse them. (Is this guy based in Rio or something? Or is he in the next studio just pretending to be in South America. One does at least hope they can occasionally employ people who can deduce B from A, but not here.

Perhaps the budget has been cut. If so, am I admitting that my feelings about this are mixed?

My wife and I are off to Cuba next week for a fortnight.

We have to be quick if we're to catch a glimpse of the place before it changes irreversibly. Every piece of news seems to be in the right direction for Cubans, the wrong direction for tourists seeking picturesqueness.

President Raul Castro has pledged to legalize the purchase and sale of homes by the end of the year, bringing this informal market out of the shadows as part of an economic reform package under which Cuba is already letting islanders go into business for themselves in 178 designated activities, as restaurateurs, wedding planners, plumbers, carpenters.

And:

Since last October, Cuba's streets have turned on a new look with the opening of new private restaurants, fast food stalls, beauty salons and electronic repair shops.

Yes, got to move fast before Cuba's USP as the Western Hemisphere's only communist paradise slips away. Perhaps to pass to Venezuela.

But Venezuela hasn't got the Hemingway connection to trade on.

I am only a very occasional Guardian reader, of things like classical CD reviews and cricket stories, but thanks to Mick Hartley, of whose blog I am a regular reader, I found my way to this classic of the grovelling courtier genre, perpetrated by a ridiculous creep named Stephen Wilkinson.

Wilkinson's piece concerns the content of a two and half hour speech recently given by Fidel Castro's younger brother. Although, Raul Castro is young only in the Young Mr Grace sense. Which is what I think we should now call this junior monster: Young Mr Castro. If a full-on comedy TV show about the Castro brothers happens, let it be called: Are You Being Shafted? But I digress.

The only people who will be unreservedly admiring of this piece by Stephen Wilkinson will be the geriatric despots on whose behalf and in pursuit of whose money it was presumably written, although if they realise how little anyone else will be impressed by it, other than for its comic appeal, even they may grumble. What Stephen Wilkinson feels about having written such a thing, one can only imagine.

The one honourable excuse for it that I can think of is that Wilkinson is a spook, keeping an eye on Cuba on behalf of the civilised world, and sucking up to its current rulers by recycling their interminable speeches and futile policy spasms into English. Alas, Occam's Razor says it's for the money. Mick Hartley draws our attention to commenters, here and here, who note that Wilkinson has an academic fiefdom to keep fed and watered, which is falling on hard times. He needs cash and cannot afford to be choosy. Come to think of it, he probably is a spook, part time, also for the money.

Meanwhile, few Guardian readers will warm to paragraphs like this, with its talk of "large landowners":

Among the economic changes he mentioned, two stand out - new laws being drafted to permit the sale of houses and cars and another to allow the transfer of more state land to farmers who are successful. The first will be a huge fillip for the internal market and the latter will create the conditions for large landowners to emerge for the first time since 1959. When taken with the new proposals to allow people to employ workers, it does not take a vivid imagination to see how substantial the economic transformation could be. In Cuba, 90% of the workforce is currently employed by the state - the target is to reduce that to 65% in five years.

Those of us who favour freedom and oppose despotism will be pleased about this further clear admission of utter ideological defeat. But we won't be that happy about such proclamations either.

What took these stupid old brutes so long to get with it about how economic life actually works? And are these brutes, who took so long to see sense, likely to preside over reforms like this with any success? It seems most improbable. And following the recent experiences of Russia, we will surely now fear an outburst of kleptocracy rather than of anything seriously resembling a free market. State assets, we must surely fear, will now be looted by the old Bolshevik nomenklatura, and the idea of a free market economy will then be as much discredited in Cuban eyes, as welcomed. The best thing about the next version of Cuba is that it may at least become somewhat easier to escape from, although not even that may be so, because leaving includes finding somewhere else to go. Might that soon become harder?

Many commenters at the Guardian focus particular derision on this particularly over-the-top claim from Wilkinson:

What we are witnessing here then is possibly something unique in history: a nation in a process of massive change and adaption.

What sort of ridiculous state of mind to you have to be in to write nonsense as totally and completely nonsensical as that?

In order to be sporting to the Guardian, Mick Hartley also links to another Guardian piece about Young Mr Castro's speech, entitled Cuba's theatre of the absurd, in which Carlos Eire writes that the present situation in Cuba is: absurd. Reform? Been there, seen that fail. According to this profile of him, Carlos Eire has written a book which just might be worth a look:

His memoir of the Cuban Revolution, Waiting for Snow in Havana (Free Press, 2003), won the National Book Award in nonfiction for 2003, but is banned in Cuba, where he is considered an enemy of the state.

Good for him. Although I personally fear that his complaints about Cuba are that it has betrayed socialism, failed to do enough of it, etc., instead of him pointing out that the problem is Cuba having done socialism.

Besides which, as Hartley surely realises, it is not much of a defence of something that presumably still wants to be thought of as a serious newspaper that only half of its recent commentary on some stupid speech by a stupid old Bolshevik was grovelling bilge, as opposed to all of it.

As for Cuba itself, there is, I would say, now some hope at least, not because of these "reforms", but because of who is proposing them, and the weakness and abject bewilderment and self-contradiction they reveal. Cuba is now presided over by men so old that they are palpably losing all grip. That's new. And cause for at least some optimism.

From - where else - The Guardian: Bolivia enshrines natural world's rights with equal status for Mother Earth

"Bolivia is set to pass the world's first laws granting all nature equal rights to humans. The Law of Mother Earth, now agreed by politicians and grassroots social groups, redefines the country's rich mineral deposits as "blessings" and is expected to lead to radical new conservation and social measures to reduce pollution and control industry.

The country, which has been pilloried by the US and Britain in the UN climate talks for demanding steep carbon emission cuts, will establish 11 new rights for nature. They include: the right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to balance; the right not to be polluted; and the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered."

The first comment to the Guardian piece said, "So much for evolution."

"Controversially, it will also enshrine the right of nature "to not be affected by mega-infrastructure and development projects that affect the balance of ecosystems and the local inhabitant communities".

The law, which is part of a complete restructuring of the Bolivian legal system following a change of constitution in 2009, has been heavily influenced by a resurgent indigenous Andean spiritual world view which places the environment and the earth deity known as the Pachamama at the centre of all life. Humans are considered equal to all other entities."

Votes for bacteria now!

"Little opposition is expected to the law being passed because President Evo Morales's ruling party, the Movement Towards Socialism, enjoys a comfortable majority in both houses of parliament.

With the newly-enfranchised bacteria supporting him, I'm not surprised.

"In the indigenous philosophy, the Pachamama is a living being.

The draft of the new law states: "She is sacred, fertile and the source of life that feeds and cares for all living beings in her womb. She is in permanent balance, harmony and communication with the cosmos. She is comprised of all ecosystems and living beings, and their self-organisation."

Nice to see Bolivia following Britain's England's example and instituting an Established Church.

Tim Worstall writes, "You know the Bolivarian Revolution is toast when...". His criteria for Bolivarian toastiness is "when even the Guardian is running reports on how socialism makes the food supply go tits up." He links to a Guardian article about the "economic war" launched by Chavez in Venezuela which does indeed make it sound as if Chavez has defied reality once too often.

Trouble is, as The Remittance Man says in the comments, we saw the same and worse from Mugabe - and he is still in power, sort of. Indeed we saw the same and much worse in the Soviet Union and that lasted seventy years.

How do these regimes hold on for so long? Shopkeepers in Venezuela are being ordered on pain of imprisonment to sell at a loss. One would think they would just walk away. Why does it take so long for Atlas to shrug? Perhaps most of his economic war is just bluster and shopkeepers know this. Perhaps there is some mechanism of benign corruption operating that means that the shopkeepers do continue to make money regardless. Perhaps Chavez is right and they do have a lot of money stashed away and can afford to run at a loss for a time, and also have some reason to believe that this episode will be sufficiently brief that it is worth their while to do so.

Or perhaps the toast is about to burn.

Over the next two days, there are two linguistically Spanish versus Portuguese games in the World Cup: Chile plays Brazil this evening, and Spain itself plays Portugal itself tomorrow evening. Brazil and Spain are two of the favourites to win the tournament, Portugal is a good side, although perhaps without the depth of the first two, and Chile have played much more impressively than most people expected in this tournament, but are outsiders. So probably a hard fought but still one-sided game this evening, and a good game tomorrow night. Although one of course never knows.

However, disregarding the actual sport and thinking about bigger things, it seems pretty clear that the governments of the two Latin American countries are rather less profligate and rather less broke than those of the two Latin European countries.

How did we get here?

It is fascinating how so many government cannot abide the idea of constitutional limits on the power of the state. Clearly the US and Brazilian governments are beside themselves that many in Honduras seem unwilling to allow their country to go the way of Venezuela.

If I was the government of Honduras I would simply give the government of Brazil 48 hours to get their embassy the hell out of Honduras permanently, and when they do... solve the 'issue' of Hugo Chavez wannabe Jose Manuel Zelaya the way they should have initially... with a 9 mm wide object moving at 360 metres per second.

The One comes out with some jaw-dropping remarks at times.

This guy clearly is not impressed by the recent Hollywood film about 'Che' Guevara, which I will not be watching:

I wish that Mr. Soderbergh and Mr. Del Toro could live in Cuba, not as the pampered VIPs that they are when they visit today, but as Cubans do, with no United States Constitutional rights, with ration cards entitling them to tiny portions of provisions that the stores don’t even stock anyway, with chivatos surveilling them constantly. How long would it be before Mr. Soderbergh started sizing up inner tubes, speculating on the durability and buoyancy of them, asking himself, could I make the crossing on that? How long before Mr. Del Toro started gazing soulfully at divorced or widowed tourist women, hoping to seduce and marry one of them and get out? Only then could they see why this insipid, frivolous and pretentious movie they have made is nothing less than an insult to millions of people, who really do live like that, and who’ve lived like that their entire lives.

The quote was seen at the blog of David Thompson.

I have said it before and I will repeat: for all its possible charms, I am not setting foot in Cuba until it becomes a haven of capitalist decadence. Not a minute before. Even if that means paying more for cigars and the booze.

Here is a film about Cuba, starring Andy Garcia, which is much more worthwhile.

I'm sure that Hugo Chavez has done some good. Much more bad than good probably, but some good. And Ken Livingstone is certainly not totally evil. But when the two of them get together it is very implausible that it is good news for the world on average.

Though if Mr Livingstone spends a lot of time in Venezuela, that will be pleasant both for him and for Londoners, I am really quite puzzled what Latin America, or even Mr Chavez, gets from this deal:

Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London, has found a new role as an adviser to the Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez and his political allies. During a surprise visit to Caracas, Livingstone said yesterday that he would act as a consultant on the capital's policing, transport and other municipal issues.

"I believe that Caracas will become a first-world city in 20 years. I have a very extensive network of contacts both domestically and internationally which I will be calling on to assist in this," he told reporters at the presidential palace after meeting Chávez.

But the most puzling thing of all is that use of the phrase "first-world city". I was under the impression that the 'first world' was the capitalist western countries, the 'second world' the realm of state-socialism, and the 'third world' the unindustrialised rest, not clearly part of either. Continuing the metaphor of separate worlds - and wishing away trade and travel and telegraph - the Rev John Papworth has even coined "Fourth World" for the poorest of the poor and those rejecting economic development altogether.

I cannot believe Red Ken was trying to suggest that the Bolivarian Revolution will fail, and that in 20 years Venezuela will be fully part of the capitalist first world again. Surely Mr Livingstone means he wants Caracas to be a second-world city?

Here is a long and good article about the destruction of the economy of Venezuela by Hugo Chavez, the president who recently attempted - unsuccessfuly, thank goodness - to get himself voted president for life. I know I am preaching to the coverted around here by pointing out the sheer folly of what this thug is attempting, but sometimes you have to keep pointing to such examples lest people in other parts of the world forget just what a disaster state central planning is.

It never fails to strike me how such a resource-rich nation like Venezuela can be ruined by a political operator like Chavez, and contrast that with how a small colony, with hardly any resources at all apart from sheer entrepreneurial spirit, like Hong Kong, can rise to be one of the richest places on the planet.

For a great guide to some of the key drivers of wealth in countries down the ages, this classic by David Landes is greatly recommended.

Last week, as I was wandering around a slightly shabby (but brightly coloured) neighbourhood of Santiago, I encountered the following restaurant, which was sadly closed at the time of day I visited.

It is likely that if a restaurant put up such a sign in Britain or America, it would soon receive a cease and desist letter from DC Comics or some other branch of Time Warner. However, despite the fact that the Chileans were undoubtedly required to enact some ghastly DMCA-like concoction as a consequence of the negotiations that led to the United States / Chile Free Trade Agreement, enforcement is somewhat laxer than it would be in Europe or North America.

This is, in my opinion, a good thing. If such a sign were taken down, there would be no consideration of the most important question related to it, which is What in the name of Apocatequil were these people smoking?

... to be in government. Making the country a 'better place' comes a distant second.

Alex Singleton (of this parish) has an article up on Brassneck titled Hugo Chavez is blinded by ideology. He points out the foolishness of Hugo Chavez's 'concerns' about a small British owned cocoa estate in Venezuela, given that a nationalised estate is highly unlikely to be able to reproduce the alleged high quality of Willie Harcourt-Cooze's operation.

But that presupposes that Hugo Chavez gives a damn about the economic consequences of his actions. I think he is far from 'blind' to the implication of his policies, more likely he simply does not see them as particularly relevant to politics... and everything Chavez does is about politics. The only real reason that a small British owned operation would attract the attention of someone like 'El Duce' is he sees political benefit in being seen to move against a 'foreign' business, never mind how many locals it employs or what local goods and services the business uses. It is important to remember that his power base is motivated primarily by envy and not by their own wealth directly, or lack thereof.

In other words, the sort of people in Venezuela who support a demagogic national socialist like Chavez would react well to sticking it to a Brit and the net economic weal of the nation has very little to do with it. Chavez is the government and getting people to support the government is all that matters to a creature like him. And as that is what his supporters want, if such an approach writ large destroys the Venezuelan economy, people are only getting exactly what they voted for. Personally I think his supporters deserve every day they live in abject poverty, something that will continue for the foreseeable future under their government of choice... pity about the rest however.

Granted I am somewhat indifferent to democracy, seeing it as nothing more than a tool for securing limited government (at best) or a mechanism for legitimising proxy theft (at worst), but as so many leftists make such a song and dance about the importance of democracy, it is remarkable to see people like Mexican Hugo Chavez wannabe Lopez Obrador casting it aside when he does not like the way it is headed. His supporters simply seized control of the chambers of both houses of Congress back on 10th April so that they could block government proposals to ease restrictions on private investment in the state oil industry. Obrador does not like the fact he cannot democratically get the results he wants, so he just stops debate on the subject in congress completely. Fair enough. If I was the Mexican government, I would just start ruling by edict until the democratic institutions become functional again, or failing that, just send in the riot cops with instructions to bust some heads to remove some political trespassers.

People opposed to Obrador have made a very effective advertisement likening him to sundry totalitarian thugs. However Obrador has demanded this advertisement be ordered off the air by Mexico's federal electoral authority, indicating as well as disliking democratic processes he cannot control, he also does not believe in freedom of expression. Quelle surprise.

Well due to the magic of the internet... here it is.

Cool.

Here's this gem from Reuters:

Cuba seeks more user-friendly socialism

There is something almost pathetic about the following paragraph from Reuters, as if the ability of people to trade with one another is some sort of wonderful present given by Father Christmas, rather than an extension of the basic right of every human to sustain life and flourish happily:

Bans on the sale of computers, DVD players and other products have been lifted, and Cubans who can afford it can now stay at tourist hotels and buy a cellphone.

Agriculture is being decentralized, farmers can decide for themselves what supplies they need and the prices paid to them are rising to boost food production.

Seriously, these steps represent real progress. If the reforms are real, it clearly makes sense for the US and other countries to lift sanctions against the country. A sharp dose of free trade should put a stake in the heart of the failed Marxist experiment in that island for good.

Meanwhile, let's hope sanity eventually returns across the Atlantic in Zimbabwe. Surely, one of the great lessons of the 20th century, continuing to this day in Cuba, Zimbabwe or for that matter, Venezuela, is that state central planning is a disaster, whether applied to agriculture or anything else.

Fungible: Etymology: New Latin fungibilis, from Latin fungi to perform
: being something (as money or a commodity) one part or quantity of which can be substituted for another of equal value in paying a debt or settling an account - oil, wheat, and lumber are fungible commodities.

Hugo Chavez, the paleo-socialist who is working tirelessly to turn Caracas into Pyongyang, has threatened to cut off oil sales to the United States due to actions brought against the Venezuelan government in British, Dutch and US courts by ExxonMobil. Following the freezing of $12 billion in assets by a British court, Chavez said:

"If you end up freezing (Venezuelan assets) and it harms us, we're going to harm you," Chavez said during his weekly radio and television program, "Hello, President." "Do you know how? We aren't going to send oil to the United States. Take note, Mr. Bush, Mr. Danger."

Chavez has repeatedly threatened to cut off oil shipments to the United States, which is Venezuela's No. 1 client, if Washington tries to oust him. Chavez's warnings on Sunday appeared to extend that threat to attempts by oil companies to challenge his government's nationalization drive through lawsuits.

And your word for the day, Mister Chavez, is 'fungible'.

If his intention is to sell Venezuelan oil to no one, he will push up the price to everyone, that much is true. And of course that also means he is cutting off the cash flow being used to finance the Glorious Bolivarian Revolution. Your call, El Presidente.

If on the other hand he intends to sell Venezuelan oil to anyone except the USA (and presumably the UK and Netherlands as well as they have also been crossed off his Christmas Card list), then... who cares? As oil is fungible, it just goes into a big global market and what does it matter if Venezuelan oil goes to China instead of the USA when all it means is that someone else's oil will take its place?

Fidel Castro is on the mend and is ready to resume a political role, according to Brazillian President Luis Inacio Lula de Silva.

Although his future has been a matter of speculation, Dr Castro on December 17 gave his strongest hint he would not return to power, in a letter read on television. "My basic duty is not to cling to office, nor even more so to obstruct the rise of people much younger, but to pass on experiences and ideas whose modest value arises from the exceptional era in which I lived," he said in a signed letter.

Very modest value indeed.

Venezuela is a case study of how democracy is no sure defence against tyranny and how it can actually be the means by which it comes about. I realise we already have the example of Germany in the 1930's, but unlike the NSDAP, the democratic majority for Chavez was far less ambiguous than the ones that incrementally brought Hitler to power.

It was interesting to note how many on the left (with many honourable exceptions I must add) have supported the establishment of a state television monopoly in Venezuela once the Chavez regime announced it was going to shut down anti-government station Rádio Caracas Televisión.

However is good to see people on the street marching in defiance of Hugo Chavez. Will it make any difference? In the short run, probably not, but it is never wrong to make a stand against a tyrant regardless of how popular he may be.

This has to rank as one of the strangest reports I have read so far this year:

Two circus clowns have been shot dead during a performance in the eastern Colombian city of Cucuta, police say...

Last year, a prominent circus clown, known as Pepe, was also shot dead by a unknown assailant in Cucuta.

I find clowns deeply irritating but surely lethal force is a little excessive. Don't they have custard pies in that part of the world?

In the latest pull-out-of-the-middle-and-bin travel supplement in the Radio Times, there is an advert for going on holiday in Cuba:

Warm golden sand touched by shimmering seas, endlessly clear and calm. Sparkling contrasts. A deep sense of harmony. Cuba is life.

Unless you are one of the poor bastards who actually has to live there.

A Cuba tourism website was mentioned at the bottom of the advert. I went there, seeking further Cubanities to sneer at. I was not disappointed. In the Knowing Culture section, I read:

Cuba's cultura is very prestigious. It happy people live very rooted to its traditions and customs. If you want to know about that go and visit the museums.

"Rooted to its traditions and customs" as in "bugger all has happened for the last fifty years". Say what you like about communism, at least it avoids disfiguring the landscape with a lot of mucky economic development. Well, muck they can do. It's the economic development they avoid. Film companies love communism, because huge swathes of ancient places get preserved by it as if in aspic, needing only a scrub-down and then some mending and a lick of paint to bring the distant past back to instant and authentic life.

As the heading says here, about some very boring-looking historical building:

Arranged Historical Place as Museum

A phrase that would do well as a description of Cuba itself. One instinctively knows which questions not to ask.

Meanwhile, back at the Knowing Culture section, the blurb ends thus:

If you take a tour of our cities you will see the development of music, dance or plastic arts, manifestations that have left a trace in the world.

Mostly in Miami.

So, potential tourists living outside Cuba have no problem accessing the internetted tourist version of Cuba. But what is internet access like for the the natives?

With less than 2 per cent of its population online, Cuba is one of the most backward Internet countries. An investigation carried out by Reporters Without Borders in October revealed that the Cuban government uses several levers to ensure that this medium is not used in a "counter-revolutionary" way. Firstly, it has more or less banned private Internet connections. To surf the Internet or check their e-mail, Cubans have to go to public access points such as Internet cafes, universities and "youth computer clubs" where their activity is more easily monitored. Secondly, the computers in all the Internet cafes and leading hotels contain software installed by the Cuban police that triggers an alert message whenever "subversive" key-words are spotted. The regime also ensures that there is no Internet access for dissidents and independent journalists, for whom communicating with people abroad is an ordeal. Finally, the government also relies on self-censorship. You can get 20 years in prison for writing "counter-revolutionary" articles for foreign websites. You can even get five years just for connecting to the Internet illegally. Few Internet users dare to run the risk of defying the regime's censorship.

Which would explain the "deep sense of harmony".

"Castro Reportedly in Grave," begins an Associated Press headline. Unfortunately, the next word is "Condition."

- James Taranto

The message is simple: get out now.

Chavez is calling for 'Socialism or Death' and that in fact means 'Socialism and Death'. As it appears a majority actually supports him, not much will be gained by putting a bullet between this man's eyes as clearly the problem lies deeper than the life of a single tyrant (though that is not to say that shooting tyrants is ever a bad idea).

If you are have property, sell it if you can, but get the hell out. If you are creative and intelligent, there is a whole world out there in which to rebuild your life. There may come a time in the future when you can come back, either to help pick up the wreckage of the totalitarian experiment voted for by a kleptomaniac majority, or to woo back your nation at bayonet point, but for now, for God's sake get out with what you can as soon as you can.

And if you are a shareholder in a multi-national company... feeling a little stupid now, eh? At least try and do the decent thing and torch as much infrastructure you own tonight to leave as little to sustain the parasites who are about to nationalise your operations in Venezuela.

Reason magazine's Brian Doherty (he of Burning Man fame) has written a nice piece looking at the controversial role the late Milton Friedman played in advising economic reforms to the government of the late, and not-very-lamented, Augusto Pinochet of Chile.

The New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis declared in 1975 that "The Chilean junta’s economic policy is based on the ideas of Milton Friedman…and his Chicago School...if the pure Chicago economic theory can be carried out in Chile only at the price of repression, should its authors feel some responsibility?" Such attitudes haunted Friedman to his death and beyond.

The reaction of some of the usual conservative suspects to Pinochet’s death didn’t help debunk this unfortunate association. Since he was a pro-American autocrat, who ultimately honoured a plebiscite and stepped down, portions of the American right have always had an unhealthy affection for the general. National Review ran both a symposium and a stand alone piece by former editor John O'Sullivan marking Pinochet’s passing, neither of which were much outraged about his crimes. O’Sullivan explicitly said , in the sort of bizarre moral prisoner exchange that partisan squabbling generates, that sure, Pinochet should suffer for his villainy - but only if Castro and Allende’s associates do as well.

I agree with pretty much every word of Doherty's analysis, and his punchline is good:

Undoubtedly, Friedman's decision to interact with officials of repressive governments creates uncomfortable tensions for his libertarian admirers; I could, and often do, wish he hadn't done it. But given what it probably meant for economic wealth and liberty in the long term for the people of Chile, that's a selfish reaction. Pinochet's economic policies do not ameliorate his crimes, despite what his right-wing admirers say. But Friedman, as an economic advisor to all who'd listen, neither committed his crimes, nor admired the criminal.

Those leftists who nitpick at the late economist for his role in advising the Chilean regime have only the tiniest of legitimate reasons for bashing Friedman, I think. Considering that he was a man who made the case for abolishing the draft, decriminalising drugs, promoting school choice and so forth, his credentials as a pro-liberty guy were pretty much impeccable.

Other people will debate whether Augusto Pinochet, who died yesterday, was a wicked man who led a regime that killed three thousand people, or whether he should have killed rather more than three thousand as his communists foes have never had much of a moral problem with killing their enemies. My own opinion is that one should never kill an unarmed enemy - no matter what he or she might have been planning to do.

In the interests of honesty I should note that was not my opinion at the time. Many other communists regarded the independent Marxist President Allende as too rash and it is worth noting he was never a member of the official Communist party of Chile. Indeed when I heard the story about a group of communists mostly from outside Chile had been building forces from all over Latin America and beyond, had been told that President was about to deliver a speech and that they should come (leaving their firearms behind) and, when they got to the place the speech was supposed to take place, they were greeted with 50 calibre machine guns - well I laughed. But I was a child when I heard that story and children tend to be cruel.

Everyone has different levels of being shocked. For example, Pinochet either did not care (or did not want to know) about torture and summary execution. But when he got to hear of a rape of a prisoner he went through the roof (I heard this story from the prisoner via a BBC radio interview years ago) - the 'holy army' of Chile, based on the army of pre World War I Prussia - with joining up to the officer corps at the age of 15 and a monk like existence to one's early 20's, must not behave like 'Argentines', the prisoner must be released - and whoever was responsible must be...

On the democracy issue: It is true that Allende got more votes than any other candidate for President in the 1970 election (he got about a third of the vote), but he had violated the Constitution so much since then that the Congress had voted to outlaw him. Of course Pinochet did not turn over power to the Congress - he dissolved it (whatever it thought of Allende, the Congress with its majority of socialists and Christian Democrats would not have favoured someone who had just killed a lot of people - that it a problem with picking up a gun and doing some killing, how do you put it down again and not get punished?). By the way it was not, as is often claimed, the "first military coup in the history of Chile" as there was the coup of 1924 (but perhaps that does not count, as it was a leftist coup).

But then what do you do? I suppose one could rule as a military dictator for life - without any constitutional settlement, but (for better or worse) that is not what Pinochet wanted to do. Yes there was repression and yes there was terrorism (not all the violence was one way - even though Pinochet had used the element of surprise to kill or arrest a lot of the communists before they had a chance to organize their war effort).

After the economy recovered from the mass takeover of private property, both the official nationalizations, and the unofficial takeovers by armed mobs that Allende had organized, and from the hyper inflation, which was neither 'caused by the CIA' nor caused by 'Marxism' - Allende and his people just liked printing money like crazy, there is not a word anywhere in the writings of Karl Marx that urges such a policy,. Pinochet got a Constitution passed by the voters in (if my memory serves) 1981 so that he could point to popular support, but then the economy fell off a cliff again.

The reason for this is interesting. For a man who is supposed to have been close to Milton Friedman (in fact they only met once, and Friedman often openly said that he opposed military government) Pinochet ignored a central teaching of his - one must not rig exchange rates.

The truth is that Pinochet did not know much about economics. And the advisers that he had ('Chicago boys' or not) did not agree with Milton Friedman on this - they thought 'rigging' the exchange rate to the Dollar was a good way of getting rid of high inflation.

Actually the supply of fiat (government command) money is the only thing they should have been looking at. But they wanted to be clever and run an exchange rate scam.

I do not know why people do this. Nigel Lawson (to give one example) actually wrote against this practice when he was editor of the Spectator, but as Chancellor he himself rigged the exchange rate of the Pound (with the D-Mark) which led to the expansion of the money supply and a classic boom-bust cycle (which the economically illiterate blamed on tax cuts).

True the Chilean economy recovered (when the rigging was stopped), but Pinochet never really had majority support again. As he found out in the 1989 vote. The economy had recovered, he thought he was going win - but he lost.

Various Christian Democrats (really social democrat) have held office since 1990, these days an official social democrat holds office which (no doubt) means there will be an ever bigger rise in government health, education and welfare spending. No conservative has won a contested election for President of Chile in my life time - although they might have won in 1964 (if the Americans had not backed the Christian Democrats so much).

So was it all for nothing?

No, the compulsory pension system still has some real investments (rather than being entirely a government Ponzi scheme like the British and American systems). And the government does not have a monopoly of health or education (although there is pressure for more statism in both).

Most importantly there is still private property in the means of production in Chile. True, the copper industry in mostly state owned. The American backed Christian Democrat government of 1964-1970 started the nationalization of that - and the military got too much money out of the copper mines to really want to turn most of them over to private enterprise - actually they may happen under the civilians as selling the mines is a good way of getting money to spend on their welfare schemes, but most other things are private.

Chile still has some of the highest living standards in Latin America (and it would not have without Pinochet's time in power). And as for killings - those people opposed to Marxism who did not leave Chile would have been killed if the Marxists had remained in power, and that would have been a few million dead rather than a few thousand. Although, as I said at the start, that does not make killing a few thousand people right.

So the social democrat who promised the people more government health care, education and welfare, higher minimum wage and so on, has been defeated. Even taking account of Chavez rigging things it seems likely that (with a claim of some 60% of the vote) he really did win.

Chavez promised the same things as the social democrat of course, but he offers more entertainment value. Jumping about the world and allying himself with anyone (Putin in Russia, the mad Mullahs of Iran and so on) who hates Uncle Sam.

At least Chavez understands that these people do hate America (and Western values in general), unlike so many people in Washington who think they can 'talk' to the Iranian regime (what would be there to be talk about - whether the evil infidels of the world should be buried or cremated?). Or President Bush who "looked into the soul" of Mr Putin and discovered that he was a "good man".

As for the elections: I am often attacked for saying nasty things about the way people sometimes vote, but the case of Venezuela is a tough one for the "the people may make mistakes but they mean well" crowd.

President Chavez was first elected in 1998. He had previously led a military coup effort (which, on its own, should have sunk bid for the office of President of the Republic). He was up against a rather boring social democrat type - but there was nothing evil about that man. Venezuela was at peace (so there was no "it was the war stupid" factor), and no one could seriously believe that Chavez would be less corrupt than his opponent or that he would be any better at what is now called the "management of the economy".

So why did the majority of people vote the way they did? They voted that way because Chavez played class war "the poor against the rich" - forget that the Venezuela government had spent vast sums of money, it still was not enough.

Why was it not enough? Was it because there were still lots of very poor people? Certainly, but in their hearts these people knew that they would still be just as poor under Chavez (and if they did not know in 1998 they certainly knew last Sunday - when they voted for him again, in spite of all the billions that have gone on his overseas alliances and in corruption). The majority vote they way they do because they see that there are well off people - and they want these people to suffer as much as they do.

A vote for Chavez is not a vote to make oneself better off (and it never was), it is a vote to make other people as poor and as unhappy as one is oneself.

Voting for people like Chavez is not a 'mistake', it is something very different.

I hear that the anti-leftist candidate for President of Ecuador has been overwhelmingly defeated by the leftist candidate (an academic 'economist' who thinks, among other things, that free trade with the United States would be bad for Ecuador).

The last time saw the anti-leftist candidate (a very wealthy businessman) via television, he was on his knees (quite literally) begging for votes and promising people "jobs, homes, health care, education" (etc.) if only they would vote for him. And he has gone down to defeat by about two thirds of the voters.

He might as well have given a very different speech.

"Subhuman scum, when you vote for the leftist (which I am sure you will) he will put into place policies that will make you suffer greatly - some of you may even starve to death. This is exactly what deserve - as you lust after goods that are not yours and are prepared to use violence, or to have other people use violence on your behalf, to get those goods. I have sold all my property and have taken the money out of the country, I am speaking to you via satellite from the Cayman islands".

Certainly he would still have lost, but he would not have humiliated himself by going on his knees, begging and promising the moon. And he would have saved the fortune the election campaign cost him.

There is a long and detailed report in the London Times today about the scale of gangland and police violence in Brazil's Sao Paulo. If ever there was an account ramming home the distance between the image of Brazil as a fun-loving, sun-soaked nation and a country of enormous social and economic problems, this surely is it.

Brazil is one of those country's that I would love to visit some day (I am a bit of a nut about Brazilian music). But stuff like this does not exactly get me rushing to get on the aircraft.

Interesting article here on what might be in store for Cuba as and when Fidel Castro finally dies. My hope, probably naive, is that that country finally gets a break and enjoys the fruits of free enterprise. One thing that makes me annoyed is whenever I hear of affluent Western travellers go on about how they dream of going to Cuba before it "gets spoiled by U.S.-led development". Yes, I am sure all those crumbling houses in Hanava, all those ancient 1950s cars and cute old guys with no teeth look so, you know, authentic in contrast to the frightfully ghastly prosperity of Miami or for that matter, Hong Kong.

Like a good friend of mine, I am only going to Cuba when or if it becomes a shameless hotbet of capitalist vigour and not one minute before.

What the hell is one supposed to make of this?

The point at which Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez decided that London should serve as a model for services and governance in Caracas was not immediately apparent. He came in May, visited City Hall amid much controversy and fanfare, and was soon gone.

But the result of his visit is likely to be an extraordinary deal struck with London Mayor Ken Livingstone that would see Caracas benefit from the capital's expertise in policing, tourism, transport, housing and waste disposal.

London, meanwhile, would gain the most obvious asset the Venezuelans have to give: cheap oil. Possibly more than a million barrels of the stuff.

South American diesel would be supplied by Venezuela - the world's fifth-largest oil exporter - as fuel for some of the capital's 8,000 buses, particularly those services most utilized by the poor.

This is gesture politics at its most contemptible. It is particularly bad given that the poor of London are, by any meaningful yardstick, considerably better off than their counterparts in the South American nation. The idea that Venezuela, a nation led by a thug who's democratic credentials could be best described as flaky, is some sort of benefactor to the oppressed masses of London, is an utter joke. It is also particularly ironic that as part of this "deal", London will "help" Venezuela's tourist industry. No doubt Venezuelans cannot wait to discover the joys of the British welcoming service ethic.

We tend to dismiss the antics of Ken Livingstone as political theatre. If he wants to stand on platforms with Irish Republican murderers, we giggle. If he provides platforms for gay-hating Islamic preachers, we are all supposed to roll our eyes in amusement. Good ol' Ken, what a laugh.

Incidentally, I wonder what the British government thinks about this?

By 'our side' I mean the people fighting the Marxist FARC in Colombia - particularly President Uribe. I not expect mainstream politicians to be libertarians (although it would be nice), but I do expect them to have some common sense.

President Uribe is highly intelligent man who has had considerable success in fighting the communists in Colombia. However, his latest idea (as reported in this week's Economist print edition) shows a lack of common sense (a state of affairs all too common in politicians - including highly intelligent ones).

President Uribe wishes to cut the top rate of income tax - good for him. However, the President wishes to 'balance' this by extending sales tax to cover various basic foods. Have no fear, the poor would be able to claim back the money they pay in tax.

So a new tax will be introduced (a tax on food), and this will be 'balanced' by a new welfare benefit (for make no mistake, this is what this payment will be). A complicated bureaucratic mess. Sadly it is often the most intelligent of politicians who think up ideas like this.

If someone wants to cut the top rate of income tax (from 38% to 32% or whatever) then they should do so. But if they fear a 'loss of revenue' (and cutting the top rate of income tax always 'costs' less in revenue than many people predict) they should cut government spending (which they should do anyway).

They should not introduce a new tax, certainly not a tax that will be presented (by the communists, but not just by them) as a tax on the basic needs of the poor - trapping the poor into going 'cap in hand' for a new benefit (if they can deal with all the paper work).

There is still no official word that statist Cuban dictator Fidel Castro has passed away, so any obituaries will have to remain on ice. It is not our habit at Samizdata.net to concede a thing to dictators, but one has to credit Castro for his tenacity in clinging on to power, especially after the collapse of his Soviet patron in 1991.

One must never forget though that the Cuban people have had to pay the price for Castro's tenacity.

What to do about Castro has been a policy question that has vexed every US President since John F. Kennedy. Until the end of the Cold War, the US certainly could not ignore a violently pro-Soviet state on its doorstep, but after 1991, a policy of benign neglect might have worked to undo Castro. However, one of the features of US policy has been its vulnerability to poltics, in this case, the political wishes of the large Cuban exile population in the politically sensitive state of Florida. (For example, President Clinton felt he had to sign the Helms-Burton Act which regulates the US embargo against Cuba, in an attempt to secure the state for the 1996 Presidential elections.)

Peggy Noonan has more on the political impact of Castro on America. I like her policy prescription as well.

As in: Allow Americans to go to Cuba. Allow U.S. private money into Cuba. Let hotels, homes, restaurants, stores be developed, bought, opened, reopened. Use Fidel's death to reintroduce Cubans on the ground to Americans, American ways, American money and American freedom. Remind them of what they wanted, what they thought they were getting when the bearded one came down from the Sierra Maestre. Use his death/illness/collapse/disappearing act as an excuse to turn the past 40 years of policy on its head. Declare him over. Create new ties. Ignore the dictator, make partnerships with the people.

Yes give more money to Radio Marti and all Western government efforts to communicate with the people of Cuba. But also allow American media companies in. Make a jumble, shake it up, allow the conditions that can help create economic vibrancy and let that reinspire democratic thinking. The Cuban government, hit on all fronts by dynamism for the first time in half a century, will not be able to control it all.

That is how to undo Fidel, and Fidelism. That's how to give him, on the chance he's alive, a last and lingering headache. That's how to puncture his mystique. Let his people profit as he dies.

If he is actually ill, why not arrange it so that the last sounds he hears on earth are a great racket from the streets? What, he will ask the nurse, is that? "Oh," she can explain, "they are rebuilding Havana. It's the Hilton Corp. Except for the drills. That's Steve Wynn. The jackhammer is Ave Maria University, building an extension campus."

Imagine him hearing this. It would, finally, be the exploding cigar. That's the way to make his beard fall off.

Now that would be poetic justice.

The President of Chile has "given in" to student and school pupil 'strikes' and protests. Of course the story is really a little more complicated than that as Madam President (Michelle Bachelet) was really as the same side as the people making noise waving placards on the streets. Otherwise the "strikes" would not have been much of a threat. It would have been a matter of "oh you do not want all this taxpayers money spent on you - fine, we will close the establishments you are not bothering to go to".

The moderate left has been in power since 1990 and have increased education (however this spending is calculated), but that is not enough for the protesters. They complain that state schools are not as good as private schools and this has an effect on their chances of getting into a good college and getting a good job.

So what do they want done?

Do they want self management of the schools? This method does not really work in making state financed institutions act as if they were not state financed (cats do not bark) - but it is a standard suggestion (going back to the "market socialists" in Austria in the 1920's), and it might have positive impact at the margin.

Errrr no. State schools in Chile already have some self management - the protesters wanted national government control (and President Bachelet has agreed).

Perhaps the protesters wanted to introduce examinations into state schools (some people argue that selective state schools are a way of helping upward social mobility).

Again no. The protesters want all entry examinations for state schools banned - how that is supposed to help make state schools as good as private schools is something that is not explained.

The real story is that after sixteen years of rule by the moderate left less moderate leftist forces are taking over. And President Bachelet is tilting a bit that way. My guess is that most of these school pupils and college students are most likely nice people. Not only nice as individuals, but capable of voluntary interaction in civil society. If there were less taxes and more voluntary (whether religious or secular) schools they might do better.

However, politics ruins everything. No doubt even in most of the private schools and colleges people are taught that representative government is what people should look to - not each other. As long as government is democrat it can be "a force for good" (unlike the old military dictator - no doubt the young are not taught anything good about him).

But democracy does not alter the laws of political economy. Government may (or may not) be a lesser evil - a way of countering other force (whether by bandits or by invaders), but it can not be a force for good - giving people nice things better than they could provide for themselves and for each other. This belief in government (as long as it is democrat government) as a provider of nice things is the central myth of our age. To win an election (we are told) one must pander to this belief. If this is true and remains true, civilization will fall. Hopefully, it will change.

How else? You might ask. But this abstract in McKinsey Quarterly caught my attention with its astounding wrong-headedness:

How Brazil can Grow -

The most important obstacle is Brazil's huge informal economy which, distorts competition by putting efficient, law-abiding companies at a disadvantage. Macroeconomic instability­reflected in the high cost of capital­is the second-most-important hurdle, followed by regulations (such as rigid labor laws) that limit productivity.

Could it possibly be that it's the top-heavy regulatory state and shocking tax rates on officially recognised activities that are keep the poor poor, small companies small, and the poltically unconnected outside the system hoping not to be noticed? It couldn't be state favouritism and that same capricious regulatory apparatus that keep the risks high and capital proportionately expensive? It would also be interesting to know in what sense 'efficient' and 'law-abiding' go hand in hand in such circumstances. It is implied that unlawful, invisible, enterprises are inefficient ones (in whatever sense that is). How do they know?

The UK's Channel 4 news channel tends, in my experience, to cover the news with a fairly obvious leftist slant, so it was quite a surprise this evening to watch the programme's longish report about what is going on in Venezuela, focussing on the activities of President Chavez and his increasingly dictatorial leanings.

I have a very rough-and-ready theory, which holds that countries blessed with vast natural resources are, in some senses, cursed. Venezuela is one of the world's top oil producers and at a time when crude is trading at the present high levels, it means that a demagogue like Chavez can buy favours with selected groups for quite a while. A country not so blessed -- such as Hong Kong say -- has to live on its free market wits. In some cases an oil-rich place -- such as Dubai, which I mentioned a while ago -- is led by folk with the wit to develop its economy with a mind on what will happen when the black gold runs out.

This blog does not seem to like Chavez very much. As and when his government falls, it will not be a pleasant process.

Interesting how these things get around. The word of these amazing photos of Mexico City got to me from him, who got it from him, who got it from him, who apparently found them here, which is where, for me, the trail went cold.

The picture Patrick Crozier chose to reproduce is particularly extraordinary. Talk about 'fake but real'. Something to do with how the guy photoshops the pictures to make things clearer, I am guessing. I often do the same with shots I take from airplanes.

Architecturally, I think this is particularly bizarre. There are times, may the God Who Does Not Exist forgive me, when I yearn for a violent revolution in sleepy little Britain, just so that the planning permission (i.e. non-permission for almost anything remotely interesting except when the government wants it) system collapses, and people could build, in Britain's still overwhelmingly green and pleasant land, whatever crazy thing they liked. Just as a for instance, why are there not more castles built nowadays, with cylindrical and pointy towers?

Mind you, extraordinary things are still being built in Britain, by the sort of people who are still allowed to do such things.

Despite the urging of much of Brazil's ruling classes to support the measure, the world's first national referendum which put the proposition to ban the sale of firearms was smashed decisively by a 2:1 margin.

The people who are baffled why so many common people in a murder wracked country like Brazil would oppose such a measure need to realise that it is precisely because the country has such problems with violent crime that people need the means to protect themselves.

As I have said on other occasions - the right to keep and bear arms: it's not just for American anymore.

Maybe more Brazillians in London should be armed as well...

A new film is to be made about Che Guevara, the man whose image adorns the T-shirts of many a young student "radical" or someone trying to appear hip (even if they haven't much clue about his real life). This story, drawn from a report at the Venice Film Festival, suggests that the man will be portrayed warts an' all, making use of declassified CIA files. Good. It is something of a pet issue here at Samizdata that while the monsters of Fascism are rightly excoriated in film and print and unthinkable of a youngster to wear a picture of Adolf Hitler on his shirt, it is considered okay to do the same with the portrait of a mass murderer like Lenin or Chairman Mao. Of course in some cases the results of this mindset are unintentionally amusing.

Maybe the message is getting through. Totalitarian socialists are not hip, and not clever.

I love this headline:

Castro Lauds Cuban Municipal Elections

I bet he does.

Under Cuba's one-party system, city and provincial leaders, as well as representatives of the National Assembly, are elected by citizens on a local level. Anyone can be nominated to these posts, including non-members of the island's ruling communist party � the only one recognized in Cuba's constitution.

So, in theory, anyone can stand for election, and if they win they can then take part in choosing anyone as President.

Well, not quite.

Cuba consistently defends its system as democratic, but critics of Castro's government argue that tight state control, a heavy police presence and neighborhood-watch groups that report on their neighbors prevent any real political freedom on the island.

It is easy to sneer, and I hereby sneer, at elections like this. But what also strikes me is that fraudulent though this system obviously is at the moment, it might eventually mutate into something genuine. To put it another way, window dressing can end up taking over the shop.

What if Castro dies � Castro will, I predict, eventually die � and there is no longer any widespread agreement about who it is proper to vote for, and who those voted for should themselves vote for when they choose Castro's successor?

At least Castro now feels sufficiently pressured by the challenge of true democracy to feel the need to arrange his own fraudulent version of it. And the experience of participating in this charade is quite likely to make at least some of those taking part in it wonder how it might feel to vote in a real election.

Harry Hutton mostly does sarky, misanthropic humour, so this on the spot reportage from Colombia might very well get missed by a lot of more earnest types than him who would appreciate reading it.

Here is John Pilger arguing that American military aid has caused a humanitarian disaster in Colombia. The trouble with this is that, since the really huge flows of US arms and money began, the level of violence has plunged.

Kidnapping fell 42% last year, and 26% the year before that; the number of massacres was down 53% in 2004, and murder fell 17.7%; street crime, the number of displaced persons, crime against taxi drivers... all down. And every single Colombian I have spoken to, without a single exception, has told me that the situation has improved. I had dinner with some foreign human rights workers, who told me that this was also their strong impression.

Harry's commenters have mostly concentrated not on whether the above reportage is true, but rather about the rights and wrongs of legalising the drugs, the proceeds of which are so much a part of the problems of Colombia. Or maybe not, because Colombia has always been a violent place. I favour total drug legalisation for all the usual libertarian reasons, but whatever you think about that, this is an interesting piece of reportage.

A few other commenters have also pointed out what a lying twat Pilger is. It is good that such drivel as his can now be challenged quickly by bloggers who, unlike Pilger, actually know what Pilger is talking about. Had I come across it by some other route, I would have dismissed Pilger's piece as almost certainly being made-up rubbish, purely because of who it is by, but it is nice to be sure.

Yet another attempt is underway to portray Ernesto 'Che' Guevara as someone who was actually admirable, rather than someone who should be remembered, if at all, as an inept communist thug and mass murderer who deserves to be buried under the scrapheap of history.

Fortunately not everyone is fooled.

Just when you think that language cannot possibly become any more twisted or discourse any more debased, up pops a reminder that we still have a long way left to fall:

The 1971 shooting of students by government forces in Mexico's so-called "dirty war" has been classified by an investigating prosecutor as genocide.

While marvelling at this breathtaking and brazen ridiculousness of this charge, I note that it is merely the opinion of a prosecutor as opposed to an official verdict. However, if it becomes an official verdict I trust that no-one will be surprised.

Like the word 'rape', the word 'genocide' has increasingly been deployed as a political trigger word and abused to the point where it has not just been devalued but is perilously close to being stripped of every smidgeon of meaning. I suppose we will have to find a new term to describe the extermination of an entire race now.

This particular case may or may not go any further but it almost does not matter. The point is that the bar has been lowered again and the occasion will not go unmarked among that class of jurists and campaigners who weave together the fabric of supranational laws.

Within ten years, charges of 'genocide' will be laid against people who tell racist jokes.

According to the great leader's physician, Fidel Castro can live to "at least" the age of 140 years old. His proof? Castro still has the strength to go on protest marches. God help us if participation in moonbat gatherings is all it takes to guarantee more than a century of life on this planet; if you think old people are crazy these days, just wait until they're all sporting "Not in my name" badges and spouting communist rhetoric.

Speaking of which, how long do we reckon it will it be before Fidel's fans start trotting out this doctor's expert opinion as further evidence -- along with the country's literacy rates and supposedly world-class, "free" healthcare -- that Cuba is a great nation from which we could all learn so very much?

Online purveyors of imperialist Yankee running-dog capitalism are not welcome in socialist paradise:

A new law has been passed in Cuba which will make access to the internet more difficult for Cubans.

Only those authorised to use the internet from home like civil servants, party officials and doctors will be able to do so on a regular phone line.

So there we have it. A country that has (allegedly) 100% rates of literacy but you are not allowed to actually read anything.

Seeking out fiskable material in the Guardian is altogether too much like spearing fish in a barrel. It's almost unfair. Callous, even. In fact, spoilt for choice, I generally elect to leave the tiddlers and save my energies for the succulent, fat ones that drift serene and oblivious to my cravings for their ample and oily flesh.

Dinner is served, courtesy of one Brian Wilson who takes his readers on a moist-eyed trip down memory lane:

Twenty-five years ago this month, I visited Cuba for the first time. The occasion was the World Festival of Youth and Students, which drew 20,000 to Havana from 150 countries - probably, to this day, the country's biggest display to the world of its revolutionary wares.

Come on over, Mama, whole lot of schtoopidity goin' on.

Yet, for our Brian, these were the salad days:

But for me, that visit was the start of a life-long love affair.

Ah yes, the romantic boulevards of gay Havana, where Brian strolled arm-in-arm with the Revolutionary Vanguard of the Hoopty-Squat Dirtbag 25th of November People's Liberation Front Army (or something).

There is no need to confuse that statement with uncritical acclaim for everything about the place. But criticism should never ignore the fact that Cuba's primary service to the world has been to provide living proof that it is possible to conquer poverty, disease and illiteracy in a country that was grossly over-familiar with all three.

Where's the 'living proof', O Besotted One? Why isn't every Cuban Embassy on the planet besieged with sick, starving, illiterate people all clamouring for passage to Havana and salvation?

I have now had half a dozen such sessions with Castro. He talks a lot but then he has a lot to talk about. He is a man with an unquenchable thirst for knowledge. I have got to know quite a few surprising characters whom few would recognise from the caricatures - Castro as an admirer of Churchill; Castro as a pragmatist who recognises the inevitability of globalisation and wants Latin America to mould it; Castro whose withering remarks about the Soviet Union confirm just how unloving a marriage of necessity that was.

Castro the wise. Castro the good. Castro the humanitarian. Castro the divine, the charming, the witty, the profound. Castro the bon vivant; a scholar, a gentleman, a prince among men. Dammit, I've run out of compliments.

The tragedy is that the evolutionary process - not least in regard to the liberal freedoms - could be so much more rapid and comfortable, if only the US would learn to co-exist a little more graciously.

See it's that bloody George Bush again. What a monster! On his ignoble head be the plight of Cuba!

Cuba's problems are immense. Socialism in one country is still a contradiction in terms.

Oh of course, it's not the socialism that is causing the problems, it's the socialism in one country. If only the rest of the world would take Cuba's lead those problems would all evaporate overnight.

All true, all the inevitable product of 40 years of siege, but also all irrelevant to the bigger picture of what Cuba represents as a symbol of human potential.

If Mr.Wilson thinks that an impoverished, oppressive, third-world communist toilet is a 'symbol of human potential' then it isn't just Cuba that has immense problems.

I have noticed quite a lot of this sort of orgasmic waxing about Cuba's alleged healthcare and education standards in the British leftist press of late. It is almost identical to the kind of rhetoric they once employed in the service of the British sovietised models. And 'once' is the key word because here in the UK they can no longer get away with that and they know it. Their rosey propoganda has first stumbled and then ground to a halt completely in the face of a first-hand shambolic reality that even they can no longer deny.

So it's all hearts and minds over to the tropical, mysterious and (best of all) faraway island in the Caribbean whose sovietised models work as intended (so we're told) and the rude actuality of bitter experience need never darken their melifluous visions. While angry Britons prod them in the chest and tell them they're talking crapola, angry Cubans denied a similar privilege are hitching a ride on old truck tyres to get them to Florida.

Doesn't stack up, does it. But, then, it never did. Pass the hollandaise sauce.

I'm back onto Cuba again but, hey, it's not my fault. The buggers keep provoking me.

But at least I can now look back on a certain record of achievement on this particular subject. No sooner have I intimated that Cuba's allegedly splendiferous health-care and education statistics were probably a crock, then up pops cast-iron confirmation courtesy of this hilarious bit of fawnography in the Guardian:

Which only goes to reinforce what has long been obvious: that US hostility to Cuba does not stem from the regime's human rights failings, but its social and political successes and the challenge its unyielding independence offers to other US and western satellite states. Saddled with a siege economy and a wartime political culture for more than 40 years, Cuba has achieved first world health and education standards in a third world country, its infant mortality and literacy rates now rivalling or outstripping those of the US, its class sizes a third smaller than in Britain.

Which goes a long way to explaining why untold numbers of Americans are risking their lives every year in order to escape from America and get a better life in Cuba.

Er, no, wait a sec...that's the other way around:

Untold numbers of Cubans flee the island every year, trying to cross to nearby Florida - including via a truck turned into a raft this week.

Have these 'untold numbers' of Cubans all gone stark, raving mad? Who, in their right minds, would want to risk being eaten by sharks in order to get away from first-class health-care and education? Don't these insane Cubans realise just how poor, miserable, stupid and sick they are going to be in America?

Some ungrateful people just don't deserve 'social and political successes'.

Fidel�Castro, in a speech to the masses, has announced that he will not accept any more aid from the European Union as people connected with this organization have made critical comments about some of the policies of his regime.

Now if Fidel Castro actually keeps his word (I admit that this a dodgy assumption) his regime may soon fall.

Cuba has various sources of income. Some are not that important - for example the Castro regime's�drug dealing has long been limited by the desire to maintain plausible deniability (cocaine dealing having a negative public relations aspect in modern times - although at one time it was considered a respectable trade, and may one day be so considered again). Also there is little point for Latin American cocaine sellers to work via Cuba (when they can sell direct) - although some groups (such as the F.A.R.C. and the E.L.N. in Colombia) have an ideological interest in working with Cuba.

Other sources of finance are important, but also vulnerable. For example the cheap oil from Venezuela depends on the President there continuing to hold power. Now whilst it is true that large sections of the population continue to be�part of the 'Chavez cult' (the President is consided a sort of God - who is to be worshipped no matter how much harm he causes his worshippers), the majority of the population are not part of the cult and the President may feel it sensible to sell oil at market prices to whoever wishes to buy it - or the President may lose power.

Then there is the nickel mining in Cuba. Nickel is a good source of money, however the mining depends on western companies and both the E.U. and Canada seem to be getting tired of encouraging private companies to operate in Cuba (considering the way these companies tend to get treated there). The belief that Castro should be supported because he is a 'progressive' (and also as a good way of twisting the tail of the United States) is finally slipping away. Also the fad of Cuba tourism seems to be losing its shine. Pre Castro musicians are dying off and pre Castro buildings are decaying (in spite of all the aid sent to prevent their decay).

This leaves Cuba with the income sent home by Cubans living overseas.

It is ironic that�such an�important source of income for Cuba (perhaps more important than�tourism) is from people in the United States sending�money back to their families.

A regime that depends on�the population being supported by people living in the 'great enemy' can hardly be considered a strong one.

My guess (it can be no more than that) is that Fidel Castro will be out (or dead) within a year.

Only the BBC could possibly publish a full-page editorial about the 50th anniversary of Castro's revolution in Cuba without once mentioning the word 'communism'. Not overlooked, however, is a bit of fawning over the Beard himself:

Mr Castro, then a 26-year-old revolutionary, led about 120 fighters in a raid on the Moncada barracks - with a garrison of about 800 soldiers - on 26 July 1953.

So brave! So dashing! So bold! Our hero! (swoon).

Still there are some brief, grudging but nonetheless damning admissions:

His country has gone from being the third-richest in Latin America to one of the poorest.

Its economy now relies heavily on funds sent from Cubans abroad and on tourism.

Untold numbers of Cubans flee the island every year, trying to cross to nearby Florida - including via a truck turned into a raft this week.

Grim reading indeed but completey overshadowed, of course, by Castro's laudable 'humanitarian achievements':

Cuba boasts the highest life expectancy in Latin America and one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world.

It has one doctor per 166 people and one of the most extensive free public health systems in the world.

It also has one of the highest literacy rates in the world, with just over 95% of the population being able to read.

Makes you wonder why so many Cubans are so hell-bent on getting the flock out of Cuba. Perhaps they are all 'extreme right-wingers'.

In any event, I wonder if those oft-touted statistics actually bear any resemblance to reality? Or are they, like Soviet grain harvesting figures, a mere device to provide Western leftists with a tool of apologia. The 'best healthcare in the world' schtick is now such familiar copybook mummery that it is even accepted by people who should know better. Perhaps somebody should ask those fleeing Cubans what life is really like.

It has been reported that Iranian dissident TV programmes being broadcast into Iran via satellite from the USA are being jammed... from Cuba! Of course I have no doubt that the Communist Cuban government will deny they are responsible.

Fair enough. As a result, it would be really... interesting... to see some equally non-governmental action to stop them. I wonder how much it would cost to lash up 'private sector' anti-radiation missile with just enough range to reach the jammer in Bejucal, (near Havana) from not-too-far-into Cuban airspace? Let's call it a 'Rattlesnake' (as in Don't Tread on Me)

As tactical surprise would be complete, the 'Rattlesnake' would not need to be fast (more akin to a cruise missile than a Shrike or HARM), just so long as it had enough range. A simple aluminum airframe with little wings to minimize the propellant requirement, perhaps a stripped down off-the-shelf GPS unit for cruise guidance and a tuned passive homer for terminal guidance (you know, the sort of gear the US government pays hundreds of thousands for and which can be bought in Radio Shack for a few hundred bucks). If the weapon was accurate enough, a small 10 lbs improvised pre-fragmented warhead would probably be sufficient. If the whole thing could be kept under 250 lbs, it would be easy to modify all manner of private airplanes to carry it.

A 15 mile engagement envelope for a Hi-Hi-Lo stand-off attack would probably be adequate: skirt Cuban airspace, suddenly turn in for the attack, shallow dive for speed to maximise range of the missile, release the 'Rattlesnake', then dive for the deck at just under the speed your wings will fall off and run for Key West (or elsewhere) at wave-top level long before you develop any MIG or SAM 'problems'...but obviously the longer the range of the weapon, the better.

Key West, Mexico and a zillion little islands are only a few minutes flight time away for a low flying private airplane and, as I am sure any trafficker in 'herbs and spices' in that part of the world will tell you, there are an awful lot of small airfields in the Caribbean.

It is just an idea, of course... pure fantasy...I would not dream of actually inciting anyone to do this. That would be bad. I mean, if people started doing that sort of thing, folks might get it into their heads that it is okay to shoot at tyrants wherever they are found... and we wouldn't want that now, would we?

Link via Zem

I do believe that we may be witnessing the final days of Cuba's squalid communist regime:

The first wave of dissidents rounded up in a nationwide crackdown went on trial Thursday as Fidel Castro's government moved to wipe out growing opposition. Prosecutors sought life sentences for 12 of the 80 defendants.

"While the rest of the hemisphere has moved toward greater freedom, the anachronistic Cuban government appears to be retreating into Stalinism," department spokesman Philip Reeker said in Washington.

When governments start incarcerating their political opponents for life, it is because they are frightened and deeply worried and usually with good reason. I suspect the game is nearly up.

And, just as an aside, doesn't this show up the juvenile, publicity-seeking, egocentrism of the 'Bush is Hitler' mob in sharp relief? While genuine freedom fighters risk their very lives by taking on 'Il Presidente', the likes of Michael Moore can pose as 'oppressed heroic victims' while being chauffeured around to their various awards ceremonies and public speaking engagements.

The Cuban Human Rights Commission reports 65 dissidents, mainly independent journalists, have been arrested in a three day crackdown.

Castro, as cynical as ever, is taking advantage of the world's attention being focussed on the overthrow of another Socialist military dictator.

Paul Staines

So now we will see another test of George Bush's very shaky Free Trader credentials. He rightly wants Latin America to open up its markets to mutually enriching capitalism via the Free Trade Area of Americas (FTAA) agreements... but will the USA do the same for its markets?

In order to make FTAA worthwhile, Brazil has demanded the United States open its fiercely protected sugar, steel and citrus markets to freer competition.

Analysts agree that without Brazil there will be no FTAA, and it is unclear how quickly Washington can lower key tariffs.

It amazes me how so many US Republicans who cursed every breath taken by Bill Clinton, damning him quite rightly as an unprincipled political weathervane, nevertheless just gloss over George Bush's dismal record on liberalising world trade. Why is allowing the state to interfere in markets so as to make products such as sugar, lumber, steel and fruit more expensive to American consumers and industry just shrugged off?

The need for political support from key states, you say? Ah, I see. So you mean George Bush is just an unprincipled political weathervane, then. Gotcha.

Hernando de Soto seems to have had an immense impact on all of Spanish America, and most particularly on his homeland of Peru. Unfortunately you hear very little about Peru in the news other than Fujimori escapades or Shining Path villainy. This letter from Dr. Edgar David Villaneuva Nunez, Congressman of the Republica of Peru to Microsoft shows an entirely different side of government in Peru. It is much worth the read whether your interest is in the meta-context shining through it, or of the powerful set of arguments Dr Nunez makes for free software.

The story is in the letter so I will let Dr. Nunez provide the rest of the narrative.

Hugo Chavez is back in the presidential palace, as I lamented last Monday when I flippantly suggested the coup plotters should have shot him... only I was not really joking. There are all manner of rumour such as this from Instapundit on Wednesday that this is far from played out.

Hugo Chavez is the duly elected President of Venezuela. So what? When democracy and tyranny are on the same side, to hell with democracy. Democracy is not an end in and of itself, just a means to an end and that end is liberty... if a majority voted to expel all black people from the USA, would that be okay just because it is democratically sanctified? Of course not. If democracy leads to liberty, fine. If it does not, then time for a coup d'état. I am quite serious that my only problem with the coup against Chavez is they did not shoot the bastard dead. Sic semper tyrannis.

I have had a couple e-mails asking me what I thought about the situation in Venezuela and the fact Hugo Chevez seems to be back in office after the Army deposed him. I assume the reason these two readers asked me what I thought on the subject, which is a bit off my usual polemical stomping grounds, is presumably because I wrote a well received piece on the subject of Hugo Chavez back in December.

Well all I can say is what is it with kids these days? The younger generation just do not take pride in their work. Back when I was a youngster, we all knew that a coup d'etat was not over until you have shot El Presidente dead on the steps of his palace.

...when the law you break has no moral basis.

In 1991, a crime was committed in New York. The UN imposed an arms embargo on all of the former Yugoslavia and all the national governments who voted for that resolution were parties to that crime.

At the same time as this crime against the peoples of Croatia and Bosnia i Herzegovina was happening, Argentine Economics Minister Domingo Cavallo was conspiring successfully to sell Argentine weapons to Croatia via a series of dummy companies and third parties.

Now I am under no illusions that Mr. Cavallo was motivated by any desire to right the wrong done by the UN when it tried to prevent the poorly armed Croatian and Bosnian peoples under attack by the Yugoslav Army from defending themselves. Nevertheless, that was exactly what the results of his self-serving actions were. We were able to fight and survive and eventually prevail.

Yesterday Domingo Cavallo was arrested under the orders of politically motivated judges for his part in that entirely moral series of arms sales between 1991 and 1995. Argentine congressional deputy Elisa Carrio, an independent anti-corruption campaigner, welcomed the ruling that resulted in Cavallo's arrest yesterday saying "Truth and justice will prevail". Guess what, Elisa... it already has and you would not know what either looked like if they bit you in the behind.

And so, Domingo, whatever else you may have done and deserve to be punished for, I hope you beat the rap on this one because there was no moral reason for you not to have done it and several excellent reasons to do so. And given the state of the Argentine economy, I hope you stashed your end of the proceeds in Zürich, not Buenos Aires.

A salute of many popping champaign bottles to our confreres with the Movimiento Libertario Costa Rica on winning at least five (and possibly seven) of the 57 seats in the Congress of Costa Rica. Bravo!

Phil Thomas writes in with some remarks about the mess in Argentina

The antiglobalisation movement has made much of the current economic state of Argentina, claiming that the crisis is just the latest example of the economic depression and general ruin that following recommendations of the IMF and similar institutions to create and sustain robust, functional markets brings upon a nation. These activists are mistaken. It is certainly true that Argentine officials attempted to follow IMF advice in reforming many areas of the economy.

However, many of these reforms were stopped mid-stream and later abandoned, as Steve Hanke, a professor of economics at Johns Hopkins, details in a Cato Institute report. Once any attempt to provide a sound foundation for Argentina's economy was abandoned, it was only a matter of time until the system was in serious trouble. Abandoning the path of sound markets, along with a dramatic increase in taxation over the past decade, sealed Argentina's fate. In the end, blame for the current Argentine affair rests not with the international institutions or international capitalism in general, but with the Argentine politicians who saw fit to kill efforts to build a sound economy and in so doing mismanage their country into the ground.

Phil Thomas

An article in New Jersey Online (NJO link here no longer works) reports that President Hugo Chavez's ongoing strategy of bankrupting Venezuela and ensuring only a moron would invest their capital there is gathering momentum.

Chavez says his land reform law will correct the injustice of only 1 percent of the population owning more than 60 percent of the country's arable land. But business leaders says it violates private property rights by forcing farmers to conform to a national agricultural strategy or risk having their land confiscated. Fedecamaras is also protesting a law that requires the state-owned oil company to own a majority stake in all future joint ventures with private corporations.

Now this, boys and girls, is what is known as fascist economics. Nominal ownership is retained in private hands but de facto control over the means of production is in the hands of government agencies. The term 'fascist' is often used as an epithet meaning 'bad guys' or 'statist' but that merely devalues the term, leaving us with fuzzy stereotypes of Nazis á la 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'. Understood properly, fascism or 'right-socialism' is a form of socialism that concerns itself with control of assets rather than ownership. Often there is a mixture of outright left style nationalisations of 'essential' industries (such as oil companies), but a fiction of private ownership persists at lower levels.

To understand Chavez, and any number of other modern 'socialists' in Latin America, Europe or elsewhere, it is important to understand they are a mixture of left and right socialism... naturally modern socialists or 'social democrats' dislike being told some of their economic policies are fascist but there you have it. Whilst there is vast body of definitions of what constitutes fascism, most are written by self-described leftists keen to differentiate 'nice' socialism from 'nasty' national socialism/fascism. Yet as early as 1940, Fred Hayek in The Road to Serfdom exposed fascism for what it was... a variant of socialism. The often quoted slogan that 'Fascism is late capitalism' is not just wrong, it is incoherent. An economic system in which the means of production are allocated by the state's commands, regardless of who 'owns' the bloody things, is not, by definition, capitalist, late or otherwise. The defining characteristic of CAPITALism is that CAPITAL is allocated via markets in accordance with the priorities of owner of the capital.

So let's call Hugo Chavez what he really is: a fascist.