Zonk, you are correct that the VA is a seperate department, but you're mixing apples and oranges. Health care for DoD service members (TRICARE) is absolutely a component of each services defense budget and is included in the numbers I cited above. It's risen from 3% to roughly 10% of the annual DoD budget, and can't really be cut- it's a function of rising health care costs in the larger economy.

I don't know whether VA or DOE budgets are included- I suspect they are, since it uses ~900B as the FY12 defense budget number and the president's budget was only $672B (base budget of $553 billion and $117.8 billion for Iraq/Afghanistan). Either way, it's a conservative estimate that, if anything, probably overstates the total defense costs.

Edit: Found the page that talks about what is included, and VA is. As well as foreign military aid, civil defense, etc. DOE appears to not be included, but it's "just" ~11B/year.

The people in this thread who wanted him to get a moment of silence at the WBC?

Team Venezuela was playing and they asked for it, for my money he wasn't so thuggish as to automatically discount it- by Latin American standards his human rights record was pretty mediocre- that's not "good" of course, but despite the frothing on the right he was no Pinochet or Castro on that score- plus it was Miami, and giving him a moment of silence in Miami would get the Miami Cubans really really really riled up...

hey the entertainment factor should always be considered.

The people in this thread who wanted him to get a moment of silence at the WBC?

I thought having the VZ flag at half mast was appropriate and have said only bad things about Chavez here. Do I think him "saintly"?

Do I think him "saintly"?

Clearly.

Been running into the sentiments expressed here--are they true or false?

The people in this thread who wanted him to get a moment of silence at the WBC?

I thought having the VZ flag at half mast was appropriate and have said only bad things about Chavez here. Do I think him "saintly"?

I dunno. Do you?

I do think suggesting that a person be given a moment of silence at a public event consists of "defending their memory" however.

I thought having the VZ flag at half mast was appropriate and have said only bad things about Chavez here. Do I think him "saintly"?

The most troubling aspects of Chavez rule wasn't so much his domestic rule in Venezuela- he wasn't any more thuggish than usual for Venezuela, what really angered people in Venezuela was that some of the people who used to benefit from government there no longer did, and some people who never benefited from the government/oil money did instead- not coincidentally that was also the source of his popularity in Venezuela-

the troubling thing was sucking up to/support of almost every "anti-imperialist" tin pot dictatorial regime on the globe-
no matter how thuggish you were, no matter how many dissidents/common citizens you killed/jailed/tortured - if you hated America he had your back-
he claimed to be pro-democracy; pro social justice; etc etc., and yet he'd support regimes like Iran, Libya, Syria... why? Because they were anti-American, and to Chavez being anti-imperialist means being anti-American, in a way he had the same type of myoptic/tunneled world view that someone like Dick Cheney does.

unless there has been a change from including them in the defense numbers to not including them this wouldn't affect the trendline much.
Plus a lot of the surge in the VA budgets from the 60s-70s-80s was the aging of the WWII generation
the current surge is pretty much linked to the surge in medical costs in general

OK - digging through the sources used in the table here -- some is included, some is not... Looks like the total 2012 number they used does include the VA, pensions, and supplementals (hence, 900 billion rather than the 550 billion that is the 'actual' DoD budget).

I'd argument it's still low -- the DoE number (10 to 20 billion -- more of the DoE's budget goes towards non-nuclear costs that funnel directly to the military, too) is missing. There's also a few billion (3-4-5 billion) that comes out of NASA (defense satellites and such... which DoD doesn't cut a check out of its budget for, but actually comes from NASA's budget). We also need to figure out how to allocate significant portions of DHS, CIA, FBI, etc. In addition, the Dept of State is the one that actually pays for things like military aid to allies -- not DoD -- and that's another 6 billion or so...

Finally, there's also the question about how you line item the deficit costs for past expenses?

The 900 billion cited here is still low -- add the other appropriate bits and pieces and you would generally come out at around 1 trillion -- that's NOT including debt the defense share of debt servicing. Let me divy up debt servicing - and also go the other direction will further allocations that aren't charged to the "defense budget", but only exist because of 'defense' -- and I bet I can get that number up to 1.5 trillion without resorting to anything outright false (i.e., allocations that would certainly 'pass' common accounting standards and practices muster).

I dunno. Do you?

Heh - no. Though, if so, I need a second career designing movie posters: "Probably Less Evil Than Pinochet!" "Clerks 3: More Fun Than Getting Stabbed"

I do think suggesting that a person be given a moment of silence at a public event consists of "defending their memory" however.

First, let's swap moment of silence with having the Venezuelan flag at half mast for the game (not the series as Northey asked for in a post I said I was down with). Okay, with that in mind:
This guy was popularly elected. To the best of my knowledge (correct me here if need be), while he abused the powers of the state in many ways, this was not a wholly manufactured outcome - he drew on real support from the poor to win a slim majority of votes. We were hosting a delegation (the baseball team) representing his nation on the day he died. Show them / their nation that you acknowledge it, then move on. It's not honoring the guy or defending his memory, it's courtesy.

the troubling thing was sucking up to/support of almost every "anti-imperialist" tin pot dictatorial regime on the globe

One of many troubling things, yes.

I do think suggesting that a person be given a moment of silence at a public event consists of "defending their memory" however.

The moment of silence wouldn't be for the man; it would be for the head of state of a participant nation in an international sporting festival. The office of head of state of Venezuela warrants respect; accordingly, a moment of silence wouldn't have been remotely out of line. It's actually rather crass and classless that one wasn't conducted.

Alternately, Chavez was democratically elected,

If it's ok, I won't ask "Do you know who else was democratically elected?"

ridiculous false equivalence, considering he gained that power by murdering the legitimate president, unlike Chavez

Chavez first tried to gain power via coup d'etat, just like that other guy!

The earlier point still stands: Neither Chavez nor Pinochet deserve a moment of silence.

Been running into the sentiments expressed here--are they true or false?

See my #122. They are technically true, but Chavez started running the country when it was at the end of a long disaster of debt crises, hyperinflation, and banking failures, and also right before oil prices exploded. In other words, lots of things got better in Venezuela under Chavez, but it's not at all clear or even especially likely that Chavez was the cause of any of it.

As a comparison, from January 2002 to today the poverty rate in Argentina has dropped from about 50% to about 8%. Their economy is doing OK, but the relative decline says a lot more about the Argentine economy in 2002 than it does about the economy in 2013.

The earlier point still stands: Neither Chavez nor Pinochet deserve a moment of silence.

Nah, it's just more of America and Americans getting showy and strident about ####, with no sense of balance or respect for other peoples, and no sense of its own resolute hypocrisy.

Say, was Chavez ever excommunicated, or did he remain a proper Catholic until the very end? You know, like Pinochet, and Hitler, and the like?

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. None. You clearly don't even know what the word means, or what its purpose is, or under what circumstances it is used.

Well obviously I could never claim to have the depth of knowledge of Papist machinations to match someone like yourself or noted theologian Jack Chick. It is a fact that Hitler, Pinochet, and Chavez, all Catholic, were never excommunicated, is it not? I do recall hearing that Josef Goebbels *was* excommunicated, is that correct? If so, I wonder what he did to distinguish himself in the eyes of the Papacy as opposed to less theologically troublesome actions of Hitler, Chavez, and Pinochet.

I believe in modern times excommunication is saved for the truly vile and dangerous individuals, like these. Or Joe DiMaggio. Good thing Hitler never did anything so heinous or he'd have run afoul of the wrath of Christ!

And, Hilter privately hated Catholicism, and all of Christianity, because "It came from the Jews". Look it up.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison."

You see, your problem is you don't realize Jesus couldn't have been Jewish

Hitler was well aware of arguments that were central to the Institute: that Jesus was an Aryan, and that Paul, as a Jew, had falsified Jesus’s message, themes he repeatedly mentioned in private conversations, together with rants against the church as a Jewish subversion of the Aryan spirit (though the reliability of his reported private conversations is uncertain). In a diatribe alleged to have occurred in October of 1941, the month Hitler made the decision to murder the Jews, Hitler proclaimed that Jesus was not a Jew, but a fighter against Jewry whose message was falsified and exploited by Paul: "St. Paul transformed a local movement of Aryan opposition to Jewry into a super-temporal religion, which postulates the equality of all men . . . [causing] the death of the Roman Empire."

As Goebbels remarked on multiple occasions, "Christ could not possibly have been a Jew. It is not necessary to prove that scientifically, it is a fact."

Here's an irrefutable statement from this guy: "I am now, as before, a Catholic and will always remain so." It would have been a happy accident of history if only his transgressions against Papist doctrine were egregious enough to prompt Christ's Representative On Earth to utter, "Nope." But then again there was a war going on, you'd hate to pick the wrong side.

"When Dr. Edoardo Senatro, the correspondent of L'Osservatore Romano in Berlin, asked Pius XII whether he would not protest the extermination of the Jews, the Pope is reported to have answered, "Dear friend, do not forget that millions of Catholics serve in the German armies. Shall I bring them into conflicts of conscience?" The Pope knew that the German Catholics were not prepared to suffer martyrdom for their Church; still less were they willing to incur the wrath of their Nazi rulers for the sake of the Jews whom their own bishops for years, had castigated as a harmful influence in German life." (The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, p 304, you can read it yourself on Google Books here.)

Hitler, Himmeler, Hoess, Streicher, all openly professed Catholics, as were approximately 33% of the German populous as a whole. The Pope's pusillanimity in offering any sort of specific rebuke against these men and their feckless slaughter of millions, including many of the same populations previously targeted under Catholic Inquisitorial wrath, is their yellow star which cannot be so easily removed.

I called you a semi-plagiarist, tongue-in-cheek, in that you clearly go off and do a hours of reasearch, borrow ideas from here and there, and then try to pass off some huge multi-thousand word boxing post as something you dashed-off "extemporaeously".

See, this is why I wish you'd just let me call you on the phone and have a discussion about boxing. My particular area of scholarly emphasis is 1890-1930 with two main focuses, the technical transition from bare-knuckle to small-glove techniques, and Jack Dempsey's early years fighting in hobo camps (for which I've subjected my wife to numerous diversions while we went camping in Colorado and Utah, so that I could comb old newspaper archives). I've also served as a consultant on a 2007 documentary on Jewish boxers in the first part of the 20th century, which included personally tracking down the whereabouts of this man, a concentration camp survivor who was made to fight for the amusement of camp guards, and who later fought Rocky Marciano (he refused, through his son, to be interviewed). I know my stuff and what I don't know I'm happy to admit I don't (i.e. almost anyone of the last 15 years or so - I'm frequently asked how I think Floyd Mayweather ranks among the all-time welterweights, and I have to honestly reply, "I don't know," since I've hardly seen him fight), and your clownish jibes about "semi-plagarism" were so obviously stupid and ignorant that your backpedaling would have implicated anyone who cites a player's WAR or a summary of the playoffs from more than a few years back. I sure as hell can dash off a few thousand words on any of several boxing topics extemporaneously, especially if they're in my wheelhouse, like my previous posts on Jack Johnson's championship reign.

You want to insist on being a jerkass and jumping into this thread on #34 with personal attacks right off the bat? Fine. I'm not going to be cowed by any sackless internet blowhard.

Whatever. All bigots are small men. You're a f*cking bigot.

I appreciate how you lean on slurs and insults when you initiate these exchanges - please note that you did so on this thread without any prompting on my part. How like Christ you are. I suppose I could have turned the other cheek in response to your puerile comments, but I'm not the one who is supposed to adhere to that now am I.

You hate Catholics. I'd bet that's not the only group you hate, but its the only group you
can get away with mocking in polite society.

Quick to climb on the cross I see. You've obviously chosen to overlook my repeatedly stated distaste for the Irish, to say nothing of Bud Selig's cadre of cronies and Red Sox fans. You should know better than to think I'd be concerned about utterly specious and self-serving claims of bigotry on this forum.

They are technically true, but Chavez started running the country when it was at the end of a long disaster of debt crises, hyperinflation, and banking failures, and also right before oil prices exploded. In other words, lots of things got better in Venezuela under Chavez, but it's not at all clear or even especially likely that Chavez was the cause of any of it.

Then at the very least, his policies didn't stand in the way of the business cycle and normal recovery mechanisms working.

If the guy halved the poverty rate, he halved the poverty rate.(*) I'm not sure what the footnotes and caveats add to the analysis.

(*) Assuming he did, of course.

We were hosting a delegation (the baseball team) representing his nation on the day he died. Show them / their nation that you acknowledge it, then move on. It's not honoring the guy or defending his memory, it's courtesy.

Yes, exactly. I would have thought this would be obvious.

First, let's swap moment of silence with having the Venezuelan flag at half mast for the game (not the series as Northey asked for in a post I said I was down with). Okay, with that in mind:
This guy was popularly elected. To the best of my knowledge (correct me here if need be), while he abused the powers of the state in many ways, this was not a wholly manufactured outcome - he drew on real support from the poor to win a slim majority of votes. We were hosting a delegation (the baseball team) representing his nation on the day he died. Show them / their nation that you acknowledge it, then move on. It's not honoring the guy or defending his memory, it's courtesy.

Ok, so you DO want to honor his memory, even if you want to rationalize it as courtesy. Fair enough, and this explains why you were defensive in 153.

Given a free choice, I'd rather live under the guy who volutnarily relinquishes power.

So, not Barack Obama, then.

I note that Nixon did voluntarily relinquish power.

JFK relinquished power, but not voluntarily.

Do you know who else was democratically elected?

Hey, buddy - I've got punchlines too.

(Anyway - he wasn't initially, but whatever. My real point is what Vlad quoted.)

There's also a few billion (3-4-5 billion) that comes out of NASA (defense satellites and such... which DoD doesn't cut a check out of its budget for, but actually comes from NASA's budget). We also need to figure out how to allocate significant portions of DHS, CIA, FBI, etc. In addition, the Dept of State is the one that actually pays for things like military aid to allies -- not DoD -- and that's another 6 billion or so...

This is incorrect. Foreign military aid is included in the data, and satellite procurement, operations, and sustainment is included in the services budgets. The Air Force pays for WGS, AEHF, SBIRS, etc, the Navy pays for MUOS, etc. There may be some gaps with the NRO stuff, since their budget comes from both DoD and the intel community, but that's a pretty small budget anyway.

DHS, CIA, FBI etc are not military organizations and as such are a seperate problem. DHS in particular should probably be eliminated completely.

Ok, so you DO want to honor his memory, even if you want to rationalize it as courtesy. Fair enough, and this explains why you were defensive in 153.

You're a funny dude.

Apparently, 153 demanded some sort of "I'm laughing with or at you" font; mea culpa.

Nah, it's just more of America and Americans getting showy and strident about ####, with no sense of balance or respect for other peoples, and no sense of its own resolute hypocrisy.

I don't buy that the moment of silence is about the nation, not the individual. AG nailed it in #50: "I don't understand this. The country didn't die. Obviously lowering the flag is to respect the man, and I don't see him as deserving of respect."

Having said that, SBB, where do you draw the line on moments of silence? Mugabe? Assad? Ahmadinejad? Stalin? Hitler?

DHS, CIA, FBI etc are not military organizations and as such are a seperate problem. DHS in particular should probably be eliminated completely.

The Coast Guard is now under DHS rather than Defense. No idea how this fits in the data above, but it's a $9 billion budget item.

Having said that, SBB, where do you draw the line on moments of silence? Mugabe? Assad? Ahmadinejad? Stalin? Hitler?

Where do you? (Sincere question.)

Been running into the sentiments expressed here--are they true or false?

Mussolini made the trains run on time. And see #162.

Having said that, SBB, where do you draw the line on moments of silence? Mugabe? Assad? Ahmadinejad? Stalin? Hitler?

Is Chavez in these peoples' league? I sure don't see it.

He died with his nation at peace, and was the head of state of a non-outlaw nation playing a game in an international tournament. Frankly, I don't even know what diplomatic protocol is on the matter, but if the US didn't follow it in favor of pitching a politically-motivated, theatrical hissy fit, I find that crass and classless, as noted. There's essentially no basis for not having the moment of silence if that is what protocal calls for.

Where do you? (Sincere question.)

Why must we honor any of these guys at a baseball stadium?

Given a free choice, I'd rather live under the guy who voluntarily relinquishes power.

So, not Barack Obama, then.

Yes, how dare he win re-election.

I note that Nixon did voluntarily relinquish power.

Right, after it'd become dead certain that he was going to be impeached. That was about as "voluntary" as a Vietnam era draftee who weighed all the factors and decided at the last minute not to skip to Canada when he saw his local draft board official waiting for him at the border.

Why must we honor any of these guys at a baseball stadium?

I don't think it is honoring the guy, but I understand why someone might.
That aside, would you do this with the Canadian flag if their PM died in the morning?


Andy, I think you're reading Ray wrong.

Right, after it'd become dead certain that he was going to be impeached. That was about as "voluntary" as a Vietnam era draftee who weighed all the factors and decided at the last minute not to skip to Canada when he saw his local draft board official waiting for him at the border.

For once, Andy, we agree - although I fear you cannot detect sarcasm.

Neither party voluntarily relinquishes power. It's fun when scandal forces them out, though.

This is incorrect. Foreign military aid is included in the data, and satellite procurement, operations, and sustainment is included in the services budgets. The Air Force pays for WGS, AEHF, SBIRS, etc, the Navy pays for MUOS, etc. There may be some gaps with the NRO stuff, since their budget comes from both DoD and the intel community, but that's a pretty small budget anyway.

DHS, CIA, FBI etc are not military organizations and as such are a seperate problem. DHS in particular should probably be eliminated completely.

Well, 'small' in that we're probably talking single digit billions, right?

I understand what you're saying about CIA/FBI - but certain activities (drones, for example, come out CIA) have no purpose other than 'defense'....

But we're losing perspective here....

Remember this all came about regarding a discussions of budgets and deficit spending.

It seems that we can all agree that at MINIMUM - the total annual "defense spending" is at least 900 billion... I say it's more than that, at least 1 trillion -- but no one seems to be disagreeing that it is at least 900 billion.

TANF -- 'welfare' -- total annual cost: 17 billion (including administration of the program, etc).

Even Social Security -- all outlays, from regular benefits (about 70% of total outlays) and SSDI ("disability" payments -- about 20%) -- is 'only' 800 billion... and keep in mind, those benefits aren't coming out of the 'federal budget'... the program is line-itemed specifically via payroll taxes (indeed -- those payroll tax receipts actually fund the defense 900 billion through intra-governmental lending).

For once, Andy, we agree - although I fear you cannot detect sarcasm.

Well, about six years of reading the things you've written with a straight face has possibly disabled my radar. But be that as it may, I'm glad you haven't yet morphed into Rabbi Baruch Korff. (smile)

You hate Catholics. I'd bet that's not the only group you hate, but its the only group you
can get away with mocking in polite society.

I've never understood this one. Being a Catholic isn't being born with immutable characteristics -- it's adopting a system of beliefs and joining an organization that has always reveled in wielding earthly political power -- other than of course when, as in the child molestation cases, they aren't asserting an inherent ecclesiastical right to preempt civil law.

How in God's name wouldn't Catholicism and Catholics be valid subjects of mockery?

addendum to my 179:
I realized just now that I've been making an assumption that may be invalid. What do "we" normally do when a world leader dies vis-a-vis int'l competition? I intrepreted from the excerpt that there was likely precedent here - I shouldn't have assumed that.

That aside, would you do this with the Canadian flag if their PM died in the morning?

G*d forbid. If Harper did die, however, I would hope for a moment of silence. Not only is Canada a parliamentary democracy and strategic ally of the United States but MLB games are played in Toronto.

@164 you spend hours googling-up various anti-Church bullsh1t, but you don't hate Catholism and Catholics? Sigh. The Rabbi of Jerusalem personally
thanked Pius for his help in saving hundreds of thousands of Jews during the War. The Church saved far more Jews than any other institution. When the Church
spoke out, there was always the fear of harsh reprisal, as with what happened when the Dutch Bishops did, and the ensuing round-up and murder of Holland's Jews. One of which was St. Edith Stein, and her sister.

As if a little bitty bigot will listen to another side...the first book is written by a Rabbi, btw.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260344/ref=s9_psimh_gw_p14_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=18582NFVTR3NDB5CHV1D&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1389517282&pf_rd_i=507846

http://www.amazon.com/Pius-XII-Holocaust-Understanding-Controversy/dp/081321081X/ref=pd_sim_b_6


From the Inside Flap(of the first book listed)by Rabbi David G. Dalin:

Was Pope Pius XII secretly in league with Adolf Hitler? No, says Rabbi David G. Dalin—but there was a cleric in league with Hitler: the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini. As Pope Pius XII worked to save Jews from the Nazis, the grand mufti became Hitler’s staunch ally and a promoter of the Holocaust, with a legacy that feeds radical Islam today. In this shocking and thoroughly documented book, Rabbi Dalin explodes the myth of Hitler’s pope and condemns the myth-makers for not only rewriting history, but for denying the testimony of Holocaust survivors, hijacking the Holocaust for unseemly political ends, and ignoring the real threat to the Jewish people. In The Myth of Hitler’s Pope, you’ll learn: · The true history of Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust—how the Catholic Church did more than any other religious body to save Jewish lives · The real history of the Church and the Nazis—including the Nazi plan to kidnap the pope · The real agenda of the myth-makers: hijacking the Holocaust to attack the very idea of the papacy—especially the papacy of the late Pope John Paul II—as well as Christianity and traditional religion as a whole · Hitler’s cleric—Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who advised and assisted the Nazis in carrying out Hitler’s Final Solution · How Pope Pius XII rescued Jews—and deserves to be called a "righteous gentile"—while the grand mufti of Jerusalem called for their extermination Full of shocking and irrefutable detail, The Myth of Hitler’s Pope is sure to generate controversy, and more important, to set the record straight. If you want the truth about Pope Pius XII, about the Catholic Church, the Jews, and the Holocaust, and about how the myth of Hitler’s pope plays into the culture wars of our own time—and how the fact of Hitler’s mufti is a vital source of radical Islam today—you must begin here.

So, not Barack Obama, then.

I note that Nixon did voluntarily relinquish power.

Obama permitted an election. Unless you have any evidence he would have had Romney arrested and the legislature dissolved if he had lost, I'm not getting your point.

Nixon relinquished power but arranged things with his successor so he would not have to go to jail. If he had stayed in power through term, he would not have been able to have himself pardoned by his successor.

other than of course when, as in the child molestation cases, they aren't asserting an inherent ecclesiastical right to preempt civil law.

Today, more minor children are sexually abused by adults in the USA in a single day in the public schools than in the care of the Church in a year. And most of
the problems of 30-50 years ago were due to the Church changing its seminarian policies in response to pressure to do so from people who would be described
as "liberals." At the time it happened, the matter was considered more of a mental health issue than a criminal one, this also contributed. And it was always something that happened at a rate lower than in just about any other institution.

It was a horrible horrible problem. But its been almost entirely eliminated, percentage-wise.

A personal anecdote: I went to a Catholic grade school in the mid 70's. There was a rather flamboyant 40 year oldish priest I will call Fr. Larry. Father Larry gave very dramatic homilies every Sunday that all the woman seemed to enjoy, but I recall the Dads in my circle would be a little put off by the guy, they'd say there was something
weird about him. In 7th grade or so, a lot of the boys were going through puberty, and Father Larry would take them into his office for little chats about how their
bodies were changing, he'd ask a lot of very specific questions about where the boy in question was in terms of sexual development, etc. All the guys who got called in thought there was something weird about it. All of them. He never called me in. I didn't really have to shave until college, and I'm no pretty boy. But the other guys who were called into the office, would all jsut laugh it off, and make jokes about how they were gonna tell Fr. Larry that "Hey you better have a good long talk with Brian. He's been dating Mary, and might be getting somewhere, haha." But that's the point I guess. We all just laughed it off as a creepy old gay guy getting his jollies by asking some of us sexual questions. No was horrified. We just thought it was pathetic. None of the parents did anything. It was the times I guess. I'm sure the way we acted wasn't the only example of this kind of reaction.

"The Church! Nazi child molesters!" Sigh. The Gates of Hell indeed.

Having said that, SBB, where do you draw the line on moments of silence? Mugabe? Assad? Ahmadinejad? Stalin? Hitler?

Is Chavez in these peoples' league? I sure don't see it.

ditto, those 4 "gentlemen" are not where you draw the line, they are all pretty clearly well past the no moment of silence line.

Chavez, by virtue of being an anti-american blowhard has been lumped in with tyrants that he pretty clearly does not remotely compare to with respect to thuggishness, dissident squelching, property confiscatoin and the like.

He's bad on respect for private property, not nearly as bad as Mugabe (or any communist country you can name past or present)

He's bad on how he treats the media, not remotely as bad as the regime in Teheren

He does not have a secret police apparatus constantly spying/detaining/torturing people and/or quasi-official militias doing the same - not remotely in comparison with those 4 men, or even in comparison with our "ally" his neighbor, Columbia - not liek teh Castros have in Cuba either.

In terms of civil rights (freedom from arbitrary detention, torture, etc) economic rights etc., Venezuela under Chavez was pretty pedestrian among the world's 150+ countries, his record is not good, but the record of most of the world is not good, Chavez was not especially bad- if you ran a list each year of the ten most tyrannical national leaders, Chavez never comes close to making the list.

but MLB games are played in Toronto.

Is this relevant? The WBC is an MLB production, but these aren't MLB games.

Not only is Canada a parliamentary democracy

One is a parliamentary democracy that elected your guy (not mine - though I certainly don't wish ill on him), the other is a federal democracy that elected a guy neither of us would vote for or want running anything of note (and I was glad to hear of his passing). Is this about Chavez or rooting for the laundry of conservatism?

I realized just now that I've been making an assumption that may be invalid. What do "we" normally do when a world leader dies vis-a-vis int'l competition? I intrepreted from the excerpt that there was likely precedent here - I shouldn't have assumed that.

good question

however, I would hope for a moment of silence. Not only is Canada a parliamentary democracy and strategic ally of the United States but MLB games are played in Toronto.

1: Venezuela IS a functioning democracy and it does not appear that Chavez's elections were rigged (unlike say Ahmadinejad in Iran where the elections were rigged at both ends)

2: An MLB affiliated minor league plays in Venezuela.

OTOH Chavez personally was outspokenly anti-American, and was basically a supporter of anyone good/bad/godawful who was also anti-American, and so why should anyone in America want to "honor" him?

BTW: 60% of Cuba's foreign exchange comes from Venezuela, 40%+ of their international trade is with Venezuela- basically without Venezuela's oil money Cuba is screwed-

Even if Chavez's deputy Maduro wins next month, the Castro Brothers have to be worried-

If Maduro loses: The free oil and others monies get cut off
If Maduro wins: Eventually he's going to see cutting back on Cuba aid as a way of helping his Government's finances, and it'll just get ratcheted down over time, if a financial crisis looms - poof- Cuba will be cut off

He died with his nation at peace, and was the head of state of a non-outlaw nation

Let's not give Chavez a free pass on his substantial support of the terrorists trying to overthrow the democratically-elected government in Colombia.

Let's not give Chavez a free pass on his substantial support of the terrorists trying to overthrow the democratically-elected government in Colombia.

Sure, as long as you are willing to extend that to US Presidents as well.

The number of murders in VNZ reached 20000 a year, 4X what the level was pre-Chavez. If you count those dead people against his legacy, he starts to look a lot worse. When you're dead, you're dead.

The best thing you can say about Catholics is that they're as disgusted with their hierarchy as anyone. According to a just released NY Times / CBS poll of American Catholics,

Seven out of 10 say Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican have done a poor job of handling sexual abuse, a significant rise from three years ago. A majority said that the issue had led them to question the Vatican’s authority. The sexual abuse of children by priests is the largest problem facing the church, Catholics in the poll said.

Three-fourths of those polled said they thought it was a good idea for Benedict to resign. Most wanted the next pope to be “someone younger, with new ideas.” A majority said they wanted the next pope to make the church’s teachings more liberal.

With cardinals now in Rome preparing to elect Benedict’s successor, the poll indicated that the church’s hierarchy had lost the confidence and allegiance of many American Catholics, an intensification of a long-term trend. They like their priests and nuns, but many feel that the bishops and cardinals do not understand their lives....

When asked which “one thing” they would “most like to see the next pope accomplish,” the most common responses that respondents volunteered were, in order: bring people back to church, modernize the church, unify the church, and do something about sexual abuse....

Sixty-two percent of Catholics said they were in favor of legalizing marriage for same-sex couples. Catholics approved of same-sex marriage at a higher rate than Americans as a whole, among whom 53 percent approved...

The American bishops also appear to have lost ground among their own flock in their campaign to fight the White House rule that requires employers to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives — a campaign the bishops say is about religious freedom.

One year ago, two-thirds of Catholics polled said that religiously affiliated employers, like hospitals or universities, should be allowed to opt out of covering birth control for their female employees because of religious or moral objections. In the most recent poll, only about half of Catholics said they agreed.

The issue has become a political litmus test, with Catholic bishops and religious conservatives saying that their religious freedom is being threatened by President Obama’s policies. But when asked what the debate is about, only 40 percent of Catholics polled said “religious freedom,” while 50 percent said “women’s health and their rights” — an indication that Mr. Obama’s framing of the issue is holding sway even among many Catholics....

U.S. Catholics in Poll See a Church Out of Touch

A poll on the attitudes of Catholics conducted by the NYT has zero credibility. As a matter of fact, the NYT, as a news organ, has zero credibility.
Its more or less bad joke except for lefty Dems these days.

You know who poll badly? The media. Very badly.

All the News That Fits, We Print.

The number of murders in VNZ reached 20000 a year, 4X what the level was pre-Chavez. If you count those dead people against his legacy, he starts to look a lot worse. When you're dead, you're dead.

It's even more dangerous in Venezuela jails. 5500 prisoners have been killed in jail since Chavez took over. If Chavez's gangs don't get you on the streets, they'll take care of you in jail.

(Reuters) - Iran declared a day of national mourning on Wednesday after the death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who shared the Islamic Republic's loathing for U.S. "imperialism".

This was my favorite post, along with the one quoting the American Enterprise Institute on conditions in Venezuela. Because, of course, the idea of American imperialism is pure lefty fantasy. We'd never, say, invade other countries for our own gain.

As for Chavez, I like Chris Hitchens' skeptical reporting of Chavez's mental health during Bolivar's exhumation, and Chavez's belief that the appearance of the American flag in the moon landing photos was evidence that the landing never took place: After all, the flag sticks straight out. Is there wind on the moon?

flip