WSJ Article on Latin America

Several days ago, I read an article in the WSJ that subtly annoyed me for a while. It seemed to be a triumphalist retrospective on Latin-American populism. Without going so far as to say it, they are trying to say that Chavezism is dead. “The populist political tide that seemed to be sweeping through Latin America earlier this year is sputtering[,]” said the Journal.

Yet tonight, I see from the very location of the dateline of that article, that the pro-Chavez leftist has won with a “commanding lead” in Ecuador.

I don’t particularly care for what Chavez is doing. I really don’t think a Western Hemisphere cold war is going to improve the lot of many people, but I am shaken by America’s failure to understand the root causes of Chavez’s popularity, especially when America appears to have itself rejected unfettered “free trade” and the so-called Washington Consensus as well.

The empirical facts are in. It is Neoliberalism that is dead–not the rejection of it. It has made the poor poorer, and it was supposed to do the opposite. So has supply-side economics. The UK Tories have rejected it — the rest of the world won’t be far behind, and the US could end up alone as the last devotees of a dying religion.



…just crushed Darren McCarty after putting Cam Jansens in the hospital. I’m waiting for the title bout against Boogard.

(He went to Princeton! Weird!)

Twancy Gets Sued

It happened. They sued Nancy Grace for wrongful death. Just as I had hoped.

For those of you out there with a layman’s understanding of the law, this doesn’t mean that Twancy is 100% responsible for the woman’s death. In fact, it’s possible that she will be found liable of some infinitesimal fraction of guilt, and end up not paying any money. But just the finding of causation here would be devastating for Twancy, who makes her living out of sorrow.

I’m sure we’ll hear the usual First Amendment justifications coming from the Judith Miller Defense League, but Free Speech isn’t a legal defense to wrongful death—in fact, it’s the paradigm case of the limits of Free Speech. But I’m sure it will be part of the rhetoric used to sway the public against this “greedy” family.

I wonder why the irony here doesn’t strike her into humility? For so long, she has been the strident voice of the victim, but now she’s the aggressor.