Consider: Christians are persecuted in every dictatorship on earth -- not just 'religious' dictatorships (such as Saudi Arabia), but even in 'secular' ones: China, North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and now Venzuela is starting down that same road.

Wasn't Chavez elected?

I know the Bush administration has called him a dictator, but is there any evidence the insult is true?

Yes, Chavez was indeed elected. Note I said that "Venzuela is starting down that same road."

Although Hitler was never elected (the left tries much to hard to make him look like Bush -- he was appointed), the Nazi party did win some considerable influence via elections. Did that Nazi electoral participation prevent Hitler from becoming a dictator?

Likewise, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe was also elected at least once -- several times, if I recall correctly. Yet is no question he is a dictator today.

And let's not forget Saddam's period 're-elections' (He was apparently loved by 99% percent of the voters. Gotta wonder what happened to that final 1%.)

Did that Nazi electoral participation prevent Hitler from becoming a dictator?

I guess the question in my mind is whether Hitler behaved differently when acting in a democracy than in a dictatorship.
His behavior immediately preceeding his dictatorship was what we might expect of a dictator (locking up political opponents) but I'd argue that Hitler acted differently most of the time before dictatorship when he and his party were constrained by a democracy, even if their ideology wast he same the whole time.

So the criticism of 'dictatorship' is an accusation of massive election fraud and an illegitimate democracy? Got it.

So the criticism of 'dictatorship' is an accusation of massive election fraud and an illegitimate democracy? Got it.

What do you mean Ryan? You sound sarcastic, as though I had said something absurd.

Can a dictatorship involve election fraud and thus an 'illegitimate' (your word, not mine) claim of democracy? Unless you want to say Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the USSR (which both had 'elections') were 'democracies', then surely even you must admit this is true.

What do you mean Ryan? You sound sarcastic, as though I had said something absurd.

Not in the least. Just clarifying. I had heard previously that Venezuela was a democracy so I was surprised to hear people call Chavez a dictator. Which is why I, ya know, asked a question. Next time I'll just google it and save myself the argument. This blog is more a place for arguments, I suppose. Fair enough.

This isn't the first time that you've read an attack into my posts (or other people's) that wasn't there. Granted, I've misread one or two of your posts as well, but I apologized and clarified afterwards rather than continually insisting that you've said somthing that you didn't or impugning your character.

Can a dictatorship involve election fraud and thus an 'illegitimate' (your word, not mine) claim of democracy?

Yes, of course. Most elections involve some degree of fraud, even in the US. After a certain point the election process no longer serves its intended purpose(s).

I don't claim to know where Venezualan's elections fall on the spectrum between ballot stuffing and wholesale elections for show. This is what I was trying to ascertain. But then it seems I should have done my own research rather than asking here.

And had I known you would have been this determined to misrepresent my comment

Which I did how, exactly? I have no clue what you're refering to.

Ryan, aside from Quixtar IBOs, you, at times, are one of the most intellectually dishonest people I have met here.

There are some important differences between myself and a Quixtar IBO. For starters, my spelling is at least at a highschool level. That's a type of honesty, no?

Seriously though, usually I ignore personal jabs and focus on facts, since I've learned that's the most effective means of problem solving. However if you're going to make that comment you should certainly offer support for it rather than generalizing. I can't refute generalizations except with more generalizations. You seem to want to attribute all my mistakes to intellectual dishonesty. You've made mistakes yourself on this blog, but I haven't been so quick to impugn your character for them as you have mine, being content to settle for resolving matters of fact. Do you really think people should respond that way to your mistakes, when you make them?

And yes, your various misrepresentations are simply that: lies.

Which "misrepresentations" are we referring to again?

As I don't see any "lies to myself" to correct nor any unfairness in my argumentation that I should remove I'll accept your disinvitation and leave your blog. Your ball. Your field. I'll go home. Sorry for creating what you perceive as a waste of your time. Best of luck to you, and all your efforts. (Meant sincerely, since I do think that you hold the welfare of others highly, and your anti-Quixtar posts seem to do some good. )

Ryan,

Which "misrepresentations" are we referring to again?

I heard your closing quip...

So the criticism of 'dictatorship' is an accusation of massive election fraud and an illegitimate democracy? Got it.

... as a summary of my words. Specificly, that you were saying I (or people calling Chavez a 'dictator') defined "dictorship" to mean primarily or only "an accusation of massive election fraud and an illegitimate dictatorship."

But this is not at all what I had said.

I had given you four signs of a nascent dictatorship -- not one. The one you apparently chose as the summary of my position was not even one I had suggested was a strong indicator.

The "got it." didn't sound like a request for clarification. Forgive me -- it's not the usual way one clears up an ambiguous statement by one's opponent:

"So [restatement here]? Got it."

That sounds like you are summing up your opponent's position. Dismissively, I might add. (And I don't mind that it's dismissive. No tone police here. But I do mind that it wasn't what I had said. And said so.)

Perhaps I have misheard you here. Perhaps I have jumped the gun. But you don't even seem to acknowledge this point, asking, repeatedly "Which 'mirepresentation'?" and saying I cited no specifics.

Despite the fact that I'd already written:

But I also pointed out other signs [of dictatorship], such as apparently preferring to trade, align foreign policy, and hang out with dictatorships, control over the press, and seizure of private property... [Y]ou seem to be pretending I offered only one -- the weakest one I offered, the very characteristic I even admitted one could 'quibble above' -- i.e. not a sure-fire indicator... you apparently insist on pretending that was the main or only evidence I had offered, as though I said such allegations were the whole case for, or definition of, a dictatorship.

Might I be wrong about the above charge of misrepresentation? Possibly! But you completely skipped over this section, highlighting everything else, and then asking where on each I indicated you had misrepresented my view, as though I hadn't spent three of the first five paragraphs of my comment explaining exactly that.

Hint: Read the paragraphs you seem to have strangely omitted from your response.

This is what I mean by pretending I hadn't spoken. And I complained: "Dialogs with you mostly consist of me re-stating my original points..."

And here we are again, you saying: "Where did I misrepresent you?" and me having to again re-explain and re-quote about a third of my previous comment to you. Geez, even if I was wrong about that specific allegation of misrepresentation, you could at least acknowledge that I had already spelled one out.

Frankly, I have no idea, Ryan. I give up utterly. Am I just one of the most unclear writers to walk the face of the earth? Are you doing this intentionally? Are you really completely unable to see that your:

"So ... ? Got it."

... response would normally be read as a summary or restatement of my position? Or are you really, actually, truly unable to read this:

[Y]ou apparently insist on pretending that [election fraud] was the main or only evidence I had offered, as though I said such allegations were the whole case for, or definition of, a dictatorship.

... as a complaint my position had been misrepresented???

I have no idea. Sadly, whether the fault is partially yours or entirely mine it seems likely, in any event, since you won't even address my specific complaints (or acknowledge I've made them!) that we are indeed doomed.

You say I don't give specifics. How can I? I make these points almost every time we have a conversation, me making a point, you acting as though I've never said such a thing, misrepresenting my view and/or answering questions no-one is asking, me re-quoting the original statement again... time after time.

And here we are again. I write three paragraphs about how I felt I was misrepresented, and your response is basicly: well, you don't see any specific allegation. Anywhere.

Ugggh. This is endlessly frustrating, Ryan.

You're right, let's call it quits. Frankly, I didn't demand you leave the blog -- you were only "put on notice" -- i.e. given a first warning (as the comment rules state, it typically takes repeated offenses to warrant a ban).

I had also hoped someday I might be able to get at the bottom of why we seem to be having this miscommunication, but it seems you can't even see the complaint itself, so I'm not sure how we could ever get around to addressing whether it's right, or sensible, or not.

(Yes, you said you were looking for "clarification" -- presumably of why people called Chavez a dictator. My complaint wasn't that you were asking about Chavez, and I don't understand why you re-explained that: of course you were asking that question! Wasn't my answer clearly on that same topic? Why are you revisiting that? My complaint was that you seemed to have falsely restated my position, not that you wondered why some people were calling Chavez a dictator. You answer questions nobody raises, but apparently endlessly evade the actual points I write to you.)

Nonetheless, I can understand you wanting to leave if I had, or even if you felt I had falsely "impugned your character". Speaking of which...

No sarcasm here: In any event, I *should not* have outright accused you of intellectual dishonesty. It simply seemed that way to me, at 3:18AM after doing all my work for the day, and I said what I was thinking. I should have given you the benefit of the doubt (or made up a doubt to have), and you are quite right to criticize me on those grounds.

You are right on this point, I am wrong, and I am sincerely sorry, and owe you an apology. Ryan, I am sorry about that and ask your forgiveness.

No excuses.

Lastly, the pleasant stuff, should you ever drop by here, and actually read this. First, despite our sometimes apparently near-total inability to communicate, I want to thank you for some of the more insightful comments you have made, of which there have been quite a number.

I think you're a nice guy, well-meaning, intelligent, polite, and inquisitive. And yes, you are more even-tempered than I am, at least as far as I can see here. I also wish you nothing but goodness and success.

Should you ever be tempted, you are actually still welcomed here, but we will have to try to figure out what's going wrong here.

But best to you, regardless.

Just to clarify this mess so you don't leave thinking I'm some idiot or liar.

... as a summary of my words. Specificly, that you were saying I (or people calling Chavez a 'dictator') defined "dictorship" to mean primarily or only "an accusation of massive election fraud and an illegitimate dictatorship."

But this is not at all what I had said.

My apologies. I think that the confusion came about because this is essentially what I believed. I was using the (perhaps simplistic) definition of
dictatorship as "somthing that you didn't vote for" as opposed to a democracy, where you could conceivably remove an unpopular leader from power. You seem to be using a (possibly more accurate) definition of dictator such as "a government where all power is concentrated in the hands of an individual."

Because of the definition I was using, here's how I (incorrectly) parsed what you wrote;

There have been accusations of election fraud against Chavez by non-partisan sources. Because this thesis might be quibbled with, I will support this claim of dictatorship (illigetimate elections) by demonstrating that Chavez engaged in other more obvious and undeniable activities typically engaged in by people whose power is not reigned in by regular elections;

#1 Rubbing elbows with dictators
#2 Consolidation of power by limiting free speech of political opponents
#3 Redistrobutionalist socialism
#3.5 Carter likes him.

Thus indirectly proving probable election fraud (i.e. someone not restrained by democracy)
Thus probable dictatorship.

It seems you view each of these points somthing like legs of a chair rather than subpoints of an 'election fraud' thesis.

I apologize for making your hair turn grey. This is part of why I do the whole 'active listening' thing to begin with. People who work from different assumptions typically miscommunicate, whether they realize it or not. A while back when I was on speech team, sometimes people would give feedback on the speeches we gave. It's amazing how little people hear of the things you say sometimes, as logical as your arguments sound to you. As frustrating as it is, I think it's integral to the human thought process to view everything from a viewpoint, sometimes a viewpoint different than the person you're trying to communicate with.

In regards to redistrobutional socialism; I've been mulling over whether democracy can function as 'two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner' particularly in countries where
there are a few people with enormous wealth and many more who are impoverished. I don't see why not? I never really saw redistrobutional socialism as distinctly anti-democratic (whether it's unfair or not is a different question) though perhaps I'm ignorant on this point.

So I understand part of your argument to be "trade
alliances with dictatorships/ non democracies are okay (re: US and Uzbekistan for instance, or China, or even military protection of Kuwait) but foreign policy alignments are indicators of dictatorship. Fair enough. What counts as a foreign policy alignment or "hanging out"? I know that Chavez has made an agreement with Cuba regarding Cuban doctors in Venezuela. But that seems like trade. What else is there? I'll admit that while you make a convincing case for Chavez's dictatorship re: limiting free speech, civil rights and election fraud I'm less than swayed by this particular point. If the US is hostile to Chavez and works to isolate him, then it seems natural he'd seek to ally himself with people like Castro or Iran who the US has little influence
over. But as I said before, I know little of Venezuela and I might be missing somthing terribly obvious here.

[Y]ou apparently insist on pretending that
[election fraud] was the main or only evidence I had offered, as though I said such allegations were the whole case for, or definition of, a dictatorship.

I apologize. I took your other arguments to be supporting points of this main
point. That was not how you intended it.

And there's also his clampdown on the press:
Reporters can now be fined or jailed for writing
things which 'upset' people, or cause a loss of
credibility to anyone in the government.

A strong point in favor of his dictatorship and I
apologize for not acknowledging it explicitly
previously. I did read it and acknowledge it privately but as I said, I had miscatagorized it as a subpoint of "Chavez committed election fraud."

The "got it." didn't sound like a request for clarification....and I don't understand why you re-explained that: of course you were asking that question!

You seemed to imply I was taking a position or otherwise making a comment?

Thanks for the kind response. I did intend to keep
reading your blog. I just didn't want to post if I was a nusiance.

I should have given you the benefit of the doubt (or made up a doubt to have) Interesting notion. Apology accepted cheerfully.

Sometimes my arguments are a bit scattershot and put too much of a burden on the reader. I apologize for that. Thanks for the kind wishes and the welcome. You're a good writer and I hope I've at least clarified things a bit so I don't come across like a total loon. Hopefully you can see that I really do have an honest position that I'm speaking from, and you don't have to make anything up to believe in my intellectual integrity.

Ryan,

I do indeed owe you an apology. I haven't parsed all of your last comment thorougly (I have only a few moments before I must go back to the salt mines) but it seems you are indeed sincere -- just that your thought process is so utterly different than my own that I couldn't imagine it.

Basicly, since I know you're a bright person, and I know you're pretty good at researching things -- even obscure stuff -- I simply could not envision how you could apparently 'miss' such 'obvious' statements. Not just in this post, but, in many previous discussions.

I had generally sustained the belief that no, you weren't doing it intentionally, no, you weren't just stringing me along and deliberately pretending I hadn't said this or that, and making me re-write everything over and over. But at 3AM, I just couldn't buy it anymore.

(BTW, I didn't read your 'omissions' as an attack. The only thing I could parse it as, and I wasn't even certain of this, was an attempt to reduce Chavez's alleged misdeed simply to allegations of election fraud, and thus, perhaps?, draw some sort of moral equivalence between that and the other places where such allegations exist, like the US. But regardless, of the motive or intent, I wasn't liking your summary of my position. One bit. The problem is Chavez's character, promises, and behavior, not the manner in which he rose to power. The Nazis also gained power via the electoral process. I don't see the discontiuinity there that you do.)

Yes, your arguments are shattershot. And I'm sorry I lashed out. Words can hurt, and you have my abject apologies.

As I said, I wrote the above apology just taking your statement at face value. But after I wrote the above, as I was driving to work, part of my brain noticed something awry in your explanation.

After summarizing my original points about Chavez pretty well, you wrote:

It seems you view each of these points somthing like legs of a chair rather than subpoints of an 'election fraud' thesis.

You thought I listed these things to bolster my assertion that there was election fraud? For example, that I said that associating with Castro proved he stole an election? (Huh? How?) Or that outlawing free speech proved vote fraud? Or that, because he was a 'redistributionist socialist' he must have stolen the election???

Let's revisit my original statement:

I'd say it seems obvious to me that Chavez is a dictator. There's always things you can quibble about, such as indications of massive election fraud... But then there are harder-to-refute evidences, such as Chavez's alignment with Castro.... [etc.]

I simply don't see how you could read "Chavez's alignment with Castro" (for example) as me offering evidence of election fraud.

I just don't understand how one could read a statement of this form:

I believe X. Some people say there is A, but you can quibble about that. But harder-to-refute evidences include B... C... and D...

... to mean that B, C, and D prove A.

There is something that strikes me as very odd about your explanations, Ryan, and I don't know if you have one the worst cases of reading comprehension I've ever seen, or if you're just playing with me -- or perhaps if this is just something about "losing face", or something.

Mind you, I find your other points (in your last comment) very interesting, provacative, and thoughtful: I've had some of the same questions. But it sometimes comes down to these little junctures where we apparently don't agree, and when that happens, this phenomonon seems to occur.

You thought I listed these things to bolster my assertion that there was election fraud?

Since my definition of a dictator had been someone who wasn't elected (or, to put it another way, didn't fear being removed from office democratically) yes.

For example, you wrote;

Then there's there's the fact he's a redistributionist socialist. You can't do that by asking nicely, you know.

What does "asking nicely" mean?
I took this to mean that a redistributionalist socialist wouldn't get elected. (i.e. 'asking nicely' means having a platform, persuading voters as an elected official would do and telling it what's in it for them, as opposed to working through more direct cooercion as a dictator would do.) I thought you were saying that a redistributionalist socialist couldn't get elected in a fair election, thus election fraud which I didn't really agree with but accepted as your view (it may be somthing different). In defense of my earlier definition of dictator (yes, I know it's not the dictionary definition), there's a reason why so many political figures change their political beliefs after they stop running for office. Al Gore became less conservative. Private citizen George H.W. Bush said he wasn't really as opposed to abortion as president George H.W. Bush had been. Participating in a legitimate democratic process, in itself, forces people to compromise and alter their views in order to form a governing coalition. Certain behaviors of elected officials are a syndrome linked to the democratic process. A lack of such compromises could indicate that someone no longer feared being democratically removed from office. )

For example, that I said that associating with Castro proved he stole an election? (Huh? How?)

I have no clue. I explicitly said that I wasn't convinced by that point and asked for more information. I still don't pretend to understand how it supported your thesis. Possibly this is because I don't know what you mean by "foreign policy alignments" or what their significance is. Probably there's somthing I'm missing which is why I asked for clarification on that point.

I just don't understand how one could read a statement of this form:

I believe X. Some people say there is A, but you can quibble about that. But harder-to-refute evidences include B... C... and D...

... to mean that B, C, and D prove A.

I explained that already. My definition of X was, explicitly, the lack of A, where A is a legitimate election capable of removing an unpopular leader. I mean, if any leader declared tomorrow that elections in his country would no longer be the method of determining who governs, wouldn't that immediately qualify him as a dictator? (or monarch, or oligarch, or whatever?) Whereas cuddling up to foreign dictators (or Jimmy Carter) would earn a country criticism, but not the label of 'dictatorship' no matter to what extent it was engaged in. Thus, I saw foreign policy alignments as a supporting point.

Election fraud is hard to prove since there are sometimes attempts to conceal it, so more indirect evidence must be used to prove lack of A. Granted, I misread you, but I don't feel like my comments were crazy, stupid or dishonest.

I've been horribly under the gun a bit at work recently. I'll tidy up one or two of my comments on other threads later. No time now.

And yes, normally I am more deliberate in how I write. But posting in 30 minute increments on lunch breaks as I have been, my other posts have lacked an organized thesis, and context and have instead been citations lacking the context of an argument. I recognize this places more of a burden on the reader and is more prone to misinterpretation. I'll go back and write full blown essays where I can.

You thought I listed these things to bolster my assertion that there was election fraud?

And I should also mention that I don't know in what fashion your "Carter likes him" was meant, but I assumed it has to do with Carter's habit of certifying various elections. A very quick google search (now, not before) indicates that Carter or his Center seems to have been involved in certifying the elections in Venezuela and smiling favorably upon them, thus reinforcing the original view of 'election fraud' as a thesis to be supported.

Or that outlawing free speech proved vote fraud?

My exact words were; "massive election fraud and an illegitimate democracy"

I wasn't being redundant.

In other words, an election which wasn't fit to bestow soveriegnty on a ruler.

What's the point of democracy if people don't know what they're voting for or can't express their opinions safely? What moral significance does an election have if it's based on fraudulent information? And if a person needs to silence his critics violently, what does that say about the true popularity of his ideas.

Again, I may have misread you, but what I read was not nearly as wild, incompetent or foolhardy as you're trying to make out.

I've said that I needed to read you more carefully. I think now that goes both ways. My summary of election fraud + illegitimate Democracy is not simply a matter of ballot stuffing but being unable to remove an unpopular or unrepresentative ruler. and I've given that definition more than once. This definition of a legitimate democracy DOES encompass most of your other points (except for "foreign policy alignments", which I have yet to understand in any context.)

Your attempt to inaccurately reduce my summary to simple 'ballot stuffing' has caused a lot of this confusion and redundant posting.

<sarcasm>...and I appreciate the value that your comments add to this blog immensely, Tim, but I would ask you to reread the comment rules if you want to continue posting here. </sarcasm>

And I should be working now, however...
For an objective source that election fraud is not simply "ballot stuffing" (since I think you might be implying that) please note that techniques include voter intimidation and coercion.

... as a summary of my words. Specificly, that you were saying I (or people calling Chavez a 'dictator') defined "dictorship" to mean primarily or only "an accusation of massive election fraud and an illegitimate dictatorship."

This doesn't even quote me correctly in a simple retyping of my words. Should I accuse you of attacking a strawman and deliberately misrepresenting my argument? I said "illegitimate democracy" not "illegitimate dictatorship." I don't even know what an "illegitimate dictatorship" is. As it was, I just replaced the words "illegitimate dictatorship" with the actual original quote. Probably it would have been better for me to have taken an extra step to highlight your mistake, in case it wasn't just a typo. So you let me know; should I take such blatant misquotes as indicators of a deliberate intent to misrepresent me?

I realize that you've gotten in some pointless conversations with people who were simply trolling (and gifted them with some remarkably well-thought-out and time and thought intensive answers.) But up till now I've always given you the benefit of the doubt in terms of intent even when we disagreed in matters of fact, even in the face of mistakes like these (which I assume was a typo and not a dishonest act.) I've given you that benefit of the doubt on the assumption that it would be returned. Because if you toss me in the fire, Tim, we'll both burn.