Reply #123: "...other sites in Caracas"? When the mayor of Caracas proposed

[Peace Patriot]

condemning two Caracas golf courses/country clubs, to build housing for the poor, guess who opposed him? Chavez. Why? Because those golf courses are privately owned, and Venezuela's Constitution protects private property rights!

You may be right--that there are other sites for housing. I really don't know. Caracas is a pretty crowded city. But what business is it of ours, to be prescribing this? We are not on the ground in Venezuela. We do not have the responsibilities of president or mayor in that country. And what business is it of the NYT, and its "Judith Miller" for South America, Simon Romero, to be writing about this local issue in this way--calling Chavez's concerns a "tirade"? (--did local viewers see it as a tirade? which viewers? name one! Nope, this is Simon Romero's characterization--and that is shit journalism and propaganda.)

We can blather on about our own views of golf courses. Me, I like the sport, but I am profoundly against the misuse of water in many cases. I don't know if I would call it "bourgeois." I don't think it is here (not any more). It may be in Venezuela. But I kind of like the bourgeoisie--the class to which many poor people aspire. I think that the bourgeoisie (by which I mean small business people, skilled craftspeople and some professionals) have been responsible for enormous social and political progress throughout history. But that is neither here nor there--what I think of Chavez's remarks, or his concerns, or what he means by "bourgeoisie" (which may have a different meaning in Venezuela, re the privileged, Gucci-buying, urban oil elite, with the vacation homes in Miami, than it does to me). This is all a distraction from the real question about this article: Why are we getting yet another hit piece on Chavez from Simon Romero and the NYT?