VENEZUELA referendum

bobbyjoe

What do ye think of Chavez's chances in the Venezualan referendum.

He thinks that the US oil companies should pay more than 16% royalty for the oil, this has made him some big time enemies.

Interesting article
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=358&row=0

Is the US more interested in having the government it wants, or what the people want?

Beruthiel

bobbyjoe wrote:

Is the US more interested in having the government it wants, or what the people want?

do you even have to ask that question?! of course the US is more interested in what's best for them

chewy

well a similar referendum in boliva to ask who should get the benefits of the oil ddin't go very well and it was fuged towards the benefit of the multinational oil companies but i think chavez will win

Hobbes

chewy wrote:

well a similar referendum in boliva to ask who should get the benefits of the oil ddin't go very well and it was fuged towards the benefit of the multinational oil companies but i think chavez will win

Assuming that there is no behind the scenes intervention, then I'd say Chavez will win.

sovtek

Let's see...Chavez gets elected and then overthrown in a coupe. The US immediately praises the members of the coupe...and then backtracks when Chavez is put back in power to the delight of the majority of Venezualans.
That ignores possible CIA involvement in the coupe as alleged by Chavez.
Given this I think it's safe to say the US is only interested in it's narrow economic interests.

ReefBreak

Beruthiel wrote:

of course the US is more interested in what's best for them

sovtek wrote:

Given this I think it's safe to say the US is only interested in it's narrow economic interests.

Without actually getting into the debate in question, I find this sentiment to be quite obvious. Every government of every country in the world is more interested in what's best for them - including Ireland. That being said, the US obviously has a lot more muscle to influence others, and that's the case here.

Zombrex

ReefBreak wrote:

Without actually getting into the debate in question, I find this sentiment to be quite obvious. Every government of every country in the world is more interested in what's best for them - including Ireland. That being said, the US obviously has a lot more muscle to influence others, and that's the case here.

Not every country in the world talks about bring democracy and stability to other countries and then uses their muscle to over throw (or attempt to over throw) democratically elected goverments that threaten US business interests. Not every country in the world has the CIA.

There is a difference between doing what is best for your country and doing what is best for your country while screwing over everyones else.

shotamoose

The reports I've read have suggested that Chavez is likely to win. I don't think that'll be the end of it though. Stories circulating in the Latin American press seem to be suggesting that the CIA are pondering their 'reaction', based on the ever-so-slightly alarmist theory that Chavez intends to kick off a wave of socialist revolution across the continent.

Lennoxschips

With "socialist revolution" probably meaning decent health care, good schools and enforcement of taxation laws.

Stop the commie bastard!

DadaKopf

Chavez' "socialist revolution" actually involves what seems to be genuinely pro-poor economic and social policies and improved administrative efficiency more-or-less in line with World Bank recommendations. So much so that the World Bank has begun disbursing money to his government again.

Admittedly, in the recent past, Chavez has taken strong stances on liberalization of the oil sector and on royalties, but with the exception of the US and the Western oil companies, most analysts agree that Chavez has done very well to channel that money into a macroeconomic stabilization fund. By playing his economic cards right, Chavez' new finance minister has averted crisis after crisis - crises that were caused by the old government's collaboration with the IMF.

The most, perhaps, distasteful aspect of Chavismo is the strong role the military plays in the various social projects underway. However, if this election goes in Chavez' favour, it'll mean he and his supporters have things all sown up in Venezuela. It's just possible it may signal a new phase of stability in the country which should attract some more inward investment needed to boost the economy - something which his government is attempting, albeit on the basis of the national goal of poverty reduction and equality.

It's important to look at all this in the general context of the region. Latin America is going through a phase of 'democratic consolidation' - although their forms of democracy are usually hidden oligarchies. It'll be interesting to see where Chavismo goes.

But, with the US-backed coup by the Colombians a few months ago, the next coup attempt may only be months away.

chewy

does anybody know much abou this lula guy in brazil i think... he got elected on the basis of promising all these reforms... but has changed now and is policies have moved the right (i think?)...

its like mandela , a saviour/figurehead for their country but hes sold out to privitation left righ and centre?

shotamoose

chewy wrote:

does anybody know much abou this lula guy in brazil i think... he got elected on the basis of promising all these reforms... but has changed now and is policies have moved the right (i think?)...

It doesn't help that the IMF have him by the 'nads. Bearing that in mind, I think he's done a pretty good job.

Flukey

Most of South America at any one time have bad economies. Some of that is down to, what we might call, outside interventions of the type have been discussed in this thread.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

DadaKopf

What's Iraq got to do with Venezuela apart from its place in America's National Energy Strategy?

US involvement in Latin America, and Venezuela specifically, is long-documented. Any Google search will throw up thousands of links. Any academic journal database will throw up dozens, hundreds.

US justifications for involvement in Latin America is a long story but more or less breaks down into: laying claim to Latin america to check the British and German empires and navies; anti-communism; anti-narcoterrorism; and, now, 'democratization'.

There is more than enough evidence to prove the National Endowment for Democracy's hand (a CIA front organization) in funding the anti-Chavez opposition groups. There is ample evidence to reveal the close connections between the former Venezuela military high command and the US military via the Southern Command and other channels.

Even a superficial reading of the Venezuelan political economic and social landscape will reveal how the elite, emerging middle-classes, the military collaborate among themselves and foreign actors to maintain power and, especially, how Venezuela's oil attracts foreign interests, particularly US interests - ever since the issuing of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 and the discovery of oil in the early twentieth century, actually.

Hmm, just like Saudi Arabia.

Lennoxschips

daveirl, the CIA has been involved in every coup in Latin America - this has been well documented. After Chavez was overthrown by a military coup, the White House almost immediately announced it as a victory for democracy. Anyone who thinks the CIA is not involved in Venezuela has their head in the clouds. But of course, there is no hard evidence, because the CIA is a secretive organisation and make a habit of covering their tracks. So we have to wait twenty to thirty years before retired CIA agents start publishing their memoirs before Chavez is vindicated.

The Corinthian

Lennoxschips wrote:

daveirl, the CIA has been involved in every coup in Latin America - this has been well documented.

Would that include the coup that Chavez himself attempted in 1992?

DadaKopf

Of course not! The Bolívarian Revolution was a middle-level officers' coup! And what a failure it was.

Yes, indeed, Lennox, it's not good to be so glibly general about these things .

Lennoxschips

Well yes, the CIA was involved in that one too, because they helped put it down.

The Corinthian

Lennoxschips wrote:

Well yes, the CIA was involved in that one too, because they helped put it down.

Except that they weren't and you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Lennoxschips

Fantastic, we've reverted to name calling.

The Corinthian

Lennoxschips wrote:

Fantastic, we've reverted to name calling.

What do you expect? You come out with a completely unsubstantiated presumption that is not supported by any even vaguely credible sources (or perhaps even any at all) and you want to be taken seriously? The only thing I’m unsure of is whether you came out with it because you actually believe it or because you just thought you’d chance your arm and bluff.

Lennoxschips

It's a well known fact that the CIA and the US government has always backed the Venezuelan political elite who were in power in 1992, both financially and politically. They often proclaimed their "unique" and "friendly" relationship with each other, with oil flowing freely to the US. If you want to believe that the Venezuelan government received no political or financial support from the US in putting down the Chavez military coup, then I respect your opinion, but I disagree. I would personally be shocked if the Venezuelan government at the time received no support at all, as you claim, especially when one considers that Bush I was in the White House.

The Corinthian

Lennoxschips wrote:

It's a well known fact that the CIA and the US government has always backed the Venezuelan political elite who were in power in 1992, both financially and politically.

Well known? Why don’t you supply some credible sources then to back up your claim that it was a regime propped up by the US?

That there was no antipathy between or even that relationships were friendly hardly proves anything - or does a nation need to be embargoed before you would consider it free from Yankee domination?

Otherwise ‘well known’ is just another way of you saying ‘because I said so’.

They often proclaimed their "unique" and "friendly" relationship with each other, with oil flowing freely to the US.

Yes. That’s called trade. Heard of it?

If you want to believe that the Venezuelan government received no political or financial support from the US in putting down the Chavez military coup, then I respect your opinion, but I disagree. I would personally be shocked if the Venezuelan government at the time received no support at all, as you claim, especially when one considers that Bush I was in the White House.

Disagree all you want, but you’ve presented nothing other than this disagreement as your evidence. In essence a suspicion or paranoia based your being ‘shocked’ if it was otherwise and nothing else. Sure we believe you :rolleyes:

I know bullshìt when I smell it, and boy, you’re shovelling plenty here.

DadaKopf

Lennoxschips wrote:

It's a well known fact that the CIA and the US government has always backed the Venezuelan political elite who were in power in 1992, both financially and politically. They often proclaimed their "unique" and "friendly" relationship with each other, with oil flowing freely to the US. If you want to believe that the Venezuelan government received no political or financial support from the US in putting down the Chavez military coup, then I respect your opinion, but I disagree. I would personally be shocked if the Venezuelan government at the time received no support at all, as you claim, especially when one considers that Bush I was in the White House.

Lennox, like I said, that coup was a middle-level officers' coup. It's important to look at the composition of the Venezuelan military if you want to explain what happened and your statement there is too simplistic.

The Venezuelan military is characterised by a high degree of class and racial fluidity, it's an institution based more on merit and ability than patronage, populism or corruption. What you had in the Venezuelan military before the 'Revolution' was a division between the top brass and everyone else, a military high command closely associated with the country's economic elite, mostly white, and the rest of the army, very much populated by the black and indigenous Venezuelans with hardly any - if any - connections to the elite. They felt closer to their own sort - the bottom to middle ranks who came from squalor.

Repeating a situation that occurred in Argentina in the 1980s and early 1990s, the middle-level officers, including Chavez, attempted to overthrow the military high-command by cutting off the chain of command's head and holding the government to ransom. It may have worked if he had waited another year, by which time all the military would have been behind the movement.

Since the 1980s, in Argentina and Venezuela, the lower ranks had become increasingly discontented with the high command who were felt to have distanced themselves from their constituency; they were having the life of Reilly propping up the regime while the military budget, and soldiers' incomes were declining as a result of neoliberal IMF adjustment policies. Again echoing Argentina, the military revolt was motivated by (1) declining incomes of soldiers of middle to lower ranks, (2) a feeling by the military that the institution was falling into disrepute, (3) and, as they saw it, they were the country's most efficient and disciplined organization, it was their responsibility to safeguard the country's (and their) interests by ousting the Pérez government whose ineptitude had landed the country in grave economic crisis.

It bears repeating time and again that the military is not, and hardly ever was, simply an armed wing of the economic elite. It's an institution that has its own politics and its own interests, which change depending on circumstance. And circumstances have been changing. It's one thing to say the parties in government received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, it's completely different to say the army is just an armed wing of the economic elite who run those parties, the trade unions, the media.

DadaKopf

Yes. That’s called trade. Heard of it?

It's not exactly trade and you know it. Any economic analysis will tell you first off that Venezuela is an economy dependent on the US, not just for oil but for other commodity and intermediate manufacture exports. By that token, the US is somewhat dependent on Venezuela because a large proportion of its oil imports (currently at around 50%) come from Venezuela. Moreover, as the 5th largest oil exporter in the world, Venezuela can affect world prices.

But it's not exactly trade because, despite statements by various US politicians, organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (the CIA) have frequently interfered in the country's sovereignty to affect the outcomes of elections. Other interventions have ranged from military training and arms sales to giving money to PDVSA (State-run oil company) trade union organizers (allied to the elites) to continue the 2002 employee lock-out in an attempt to destabilize Chavez' government. All this because Chavez was looking for double-royalties from ExxonMobil and those lads so he could raise funds for his various social 'missions' to reduce poverty.

Personally, I wouldn't call that trade.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

It's not exactly trade and you know it. Any economic analysis will tell you first off that Venezuela is an economy dependent on the US, not just for oil but for other commodity and intermediate manufacture exports. By that token, the US is somewhat dependent on Venezuela because a large proportion of its oil imports (currently at around 50%) come from Venezuela. Moreover, as the 5th largest oil exporter in the world, Venezuela can affect world prices.

That is trade, the strength of the trading bonds and intertwined dependencies may lend greater significance to the relationship, but that does not mean that one should not get carried away with conspiracy theories either.

organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (the CIA) have frequently interfered in the country's sovereignty to affect the outcomes of elections.

Indeed, but we’re specifically discussing the 1992 coup.

Personally, I wouldn't call that trade.

More personal opinions, I see...

DadaKopf

So trade isn't just the exchange of goods and services in a market but the interference by one sovereign country in another's internal political affairs and its state institutions for the purposes of affecting that country's internal affairs?

Indeed, but we’re specifically discussing the 1992 coup.

I was expanding the point to infer that US intervention in the region reveals a pattern. I already dealt with funding vis-a-vis the 1992 coup attempt.

So there's still the problem of your dubious understanding of the term 'trade'.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

So trade isn't just the exchange of goods and services in a market but the interference by one sovereign country in another's internal political affairs and its state institutions for the purposes of affecting that country's internal affairs?

Errr… no, trade is simply the exchange of goods and services between two countries and the rules that govern such exchanges (i.e. quotas, tariffs, etc.).

I was expanding the point to infer that US intervention in the region reveals a pattern. I already dealt with funding vis-a-vis the 1992 coup attempt (an article by Deborah Norden called 'The Rise of the Lieutenant Colonels: Rebellion in Argentina and Venezuela’ in Latin American Perspectives explains it all.

If there is a pattern of regional interference by the US, then that is also immaterial, or at best circumstantial, as I was specifically citing the 1992 coup. As for your ‘covering’ that, I don’t dispute that you did, but I never addressed you in the first place on the topic.

So there's still the problem of your dubious understanding of the term 'trade'.

No, the problem is with your attempt to ascribe a political definition to what is an economic term - another political science student with a one-track paradigm.

Lennoxschips

I am good friends with a Venezuelan who has moved to Europe, and he says it's common knowledge in Venezuela that the political elite end the wealthy classes which permitted the advantageous "trade" agreements are in bed with Washington DC. As Dadakopf said, US meddling in Venezuela has been going on for decades.

So I would find it very surprising that the US government and the CIA would have just stood by and let Chavez rise to power on the back of a military coup in 1992, when he threatened their cozy "trade" relations with Venezuela. The precedent is there, the US has never relented interfering in Latin America when a less then friendly government gets a sniff in power and it wasn't any different in 1992.

DadaKopf

No, the problem is with your attempt to ascribe a political definition to what is an economic term - another political science student with a one-track paradigm.

No, sir. I'd be of the political economy school. And that's not just a school for lefties. It's everyone other than neoliberals and dinosaurs.

The Corinthian

Lennoxschips wrote:

So I would find it very surprising that the US government and the CIA would have just stood by and let Chavez rise to power on the back of a military coup in 1992, when he threatened their cozy "trade" relations with Venezuela. The precedent is there, the US has never relented interfering in Latin America when a less then friendly government gets a sniff in power and it wasn't any different in 1992.

I think you’re having difficulty understanding the difference between fantasy and reality. That there are precedence of such behaviour by the US is not open to question, what is, however, is your assumption that the US are responsible for everything that takes place.

As such, you repeatedly state that the US was involved in crushing the 1992 coup; using as your only evidence these precedence’s and your ‘shock’ were it not so. So, on one hand we do have incidences where the US has had a direct or indirect hand in interference in the region, which have all been well documented at this stage, and on the other hand we have cases where we assume that the US has had a direct or indirect hand in interference because hearsay says they must be involved in everything that takes place in the region.

We call the first case reality and the second is called fantasy. I hope you can grasp that.

DadaKopf wrote:

No, sir. I'd be of the political economy school. And that's not just a school for lefties. It's everyone other than neoliberals and dinosaurs.

I may well be a dinosaur at this stage, but I think you were going well beyond the scope of economic analysis. Political and economic science are two distinct disciplines; I take it you came from the former?

shotamoose

The Corinthian wrote:

Political and economic science are two distinct disciplines;

Depends how you look at it - Adam Smith and the other pioneer 'economists' thought of themselves as writing 'political economy'. 'Economics' as a distinct subject only came into being at the end of the 19th century. Personally I think you lose a lot by artificially distinguishing them. Economic activity is soaked in politics, and vice versa.

A bit more back on topic, the Venezuelan National Electoral Council this morning
announced that Chavez won the referendum with 58% of the 94% of votes counted so far.

The opposition are obviously calling it all a big fraud, but electoral observers don't seem that bothered so far. No doubt this will rumble on, though ....

Lennoxschips

]We call the first case reality and the second is called fantasy. I hope you can grasp that.

No, it's my opinion vs your opinion - why can't you respect that? This is a politics board. First you said that I don't know what I'm talking about, then that I am "shovelling bull****" and now that I have no grasp on reality. I have no time to debate with somebody who speaks like this. I've made my point and will not continue to be slandered and insulted by a moderator.

ionapaul

Oil prices should come down a bit on the news.

Anyone ever seen Chavez's 'Hello, President' TV programme? Sounds interesting, we could do with an hour of 'Howya, Bertie' once a week

bobbyjoe

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129037,00.html


Foxnews just can't help themselves.

"CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez (search) survived a popular referendum to oust him"

Won not survived,
not popular enough though!!

mycroft

Every time I look at the site I feel the boundaries between actual fox news and the simpsons parody blur a little more........

DadaKopf

This is great. Another step in the right direction for Latin American democracy. The real test will begin in two years with the next general election, but the fact that independent observers say everything's A-OK, it should help calm things down over time. A lot will depend on how his team manages the economy, provides for the poor and placates the middle class, though.

Every time I look at the site I feel the boundaries between actual fox news and the simpsons parody blur a little more........

Totally. Although some of the BBC articles I've seen tend to be reservedly biased - especially calling him "Venezuelan 'populist' President, Hugo Chavez". The jury's still out on that.

The Corinthian

Lennoxschips wrote:

No, it's my opinion vs your opinion - why can't you respect that? This is a politics board. First you said that I don't know what I'm talking about, then that I am "shovelling bull****" and now that I have no grasp on reality. I have no time to debate with somebody who speaks like this. I've made my point and will not continue to be slandered and insulted by a moderator.

No it is not about a difference of opinions; it is about you putting forward your opinion as a fact. Saying “the CIA was involved in that one too, because they helped put it down” is not you giving your opinion, it’s you stating something as a fact - which it’s not, and you’ve singularly been unable to back up that statement with anything more than more opinion.

So yes, you’ve been shoveling bullshìt and attempting to peddle it as fact and now you’re just in a huff ‘cos someone pointed out that you were doing so.

Poor ‘lil diddums...

DadaKopf wrote:

Another step in the right direction for Latin American democracy.

Conceivably, having said that, the guy is not exactly a bastion of democracy either.

Totally. Although some of the BBC articles I've seen tend to be reservedly biased - especially calling him "Venezuelan 'populist' President, Hugo Chavez". The jury's still out on that.

I don’t know... he kind of reminds me of Marcus Caelius Rufus.

DadaKopf

Conceivably, having said that, the guy is not exactly a bastion of democracy either.

You're right. He's not. I'm genuinely concerned that he may concentrate power on himself over time. But I think he's smarter than that.

On one hand, it's premature to call him a populist and an authoritarian, on the other, it's unfortunate that he still relies on the military. He knows full what's at stake if the opposition takes over again, but it's most likely a step in the right direction because a step backwards could mean economic ruin for the country. Any indication of transparency and stability hopefully means economic growth plus poverty reduction.

We'll see.

shotamoose

Observers back Venezuela vote

Former US President Jimmy Carter has endorsed official results showing Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez won Sunday's vote to remain in office.

Mr Carter said his team of observers had also concluded there was a "clear difference in favour" of Mr Chavez.

The head of the Organisation of American States, Cesar Gaviria, also said his monitors had not found "any element of fraud".

Some people will never be convinced:

A spokesman for the Democratic Co-ordinator opposition coalition, Henry Ramos Allup, said fraud and "gross manipulation" had taken place.

"We categorically reject the results," he said.

Yeah, real democratic ...

swiss

Originally posted by The Corinthian:


No it is not about a difference of opinions; it is about you putting forward your opinion as a fact

Which, incidentally is exactly what you are doing as well when you rather succinctly accuse Lennoxschips of shovelling bullshit. It is one thing to say that an opinion is unfounded and expound on your reasons as to why you think that is the case. It is quite another to adopt the singularly patronising stance which you have taken towards him and other posters.

Please desist.

The Corinthian

swiss wrote:

Which, incidentally is exactly what you are doing as well when you rather succinctly accuse Lennoxschips of shovelling bullshit. It is one thing to say that an opinion is unfounded and expound on your reasons as to why you think that is the case.

However the crucial difference was that I presented my opinion alongside a logical argument that went beyond the infantile “because I say so”. That tends to be the defining difference between argument and bullshìt.

It is quite another to adopt the singularly patronising stance which you have taken towards him and other posters.

If adopting a singularly patronising stance were against the charter half the posters here would be banned.

The social reasoning behind flaming is to discourage the more mindless of posters, or at least encourage them to look before they leap. If treated with kid gloves they will continue to pollute our bandwidth with sweeping statements, stupid questions better suited to Google or an FAQ and inane chatter. Flaming will at least encourage people to consider the etiquette of a forum before they decide to post, forcing them to at least check their facts and figures or to do some preliminary research.

Without flaming, the etiquette of a forum would be left to whatever ops, moderators or admins are governing said forum. Other than potentially overwhelming them, moderators are ideally secondary in defining the ethos of a forum to peer review.

Lennoxschips

the infantile “because I say so”.

That wasn't my argument. My argument was that the US has always backed the political elite in Venezuela, both financially and politically, and that it is therefore also plausible that they also backed them in 1992.

Once again, you don't have to agree with that argument, but there you go.

The Corinthian

Lennoxschips wrote:

That wasn't my argument. My argument was that the US has always backed the political elite in Venezuela, both financially and politically, and that it is therefore also plausible that they also backed them in 1992.

Actually your original argument was "the CIA was involved in that one too, because they helped put it down". When challenged on this you decided that saying that you "personally be shocked if the Venezuelan government at the time received no support at all" was a valid argument to back up your initial statement of fact.

This essentially has remained your 'argument' throughout, which would be fine if you had presented your original statement as just an opinion, but you did not, you presented it as fact. This is why I accused you of shovelling bullshìt - because you were painting opinion as fact, and continued to do so without any shred of evidence.

Lennoxschips

When challenged on this you decided that saying that you "personally be shocked if the Venezuelan government at the time received no support at all" was a valid argument to back up your initial statement of fact.

If you look at the post you've selectively quoted that from you'll see that I made exactly the same argument then as I just made now.

The Corinthian

Lennoxschips wrote:

If you look at the post you've selectively quoted that from you'll see that I made exactly the same argument then as I just made now.

Even with that it remains nothing more than an opinion which you originally stated as a hard fact. It's very difficult for you to avoid that.

Lennoxschips

You'll find that during politicial debates people often state personal opinions as fact. Actually, I was once at a debate class and it was encouraged. During a dail or US presidential debate it would not be unheard of for a candidate to say, "Our economy is going down the drain," and then make his argument later when challenged.

The Corinthian

Lennoxschips wrote:

You'll find that during politicial debates people often state personal opinions as fact.

Stating opinions as fact is an intellectual fraud. I can be a man’s opinion that blacks are all stupid, but that does not make it true.

Most notably, your subsequent defense of your opinion was little more than an opinion in itself. That the US has had involvement in Venezuelan politics in the past does not logically imply that they did have involvement in Venezuelan politics, vis-a-vi the 1992 coup attempt (as you stated). You may be shocked that they may not, but that again is simply your opinion.

So we are left with the intellectual deception of stating an opinion as fact, then (when challenged) defending that ‘fact’ with the evidence of more opinion.

Actually, I was once at a debate class and it was encouraged.

I’d ask for my money back. State anything as fact as long as you can prove it, but not if it is simply based upon opinion - as ultimately it was in this case.

Otherwise, should you state opinion as fact in debate and you become fair game to your opponents. Of course if they don’t challenge you or your opinion is not simply an opinion and can back it up, then you’ll get the points for it - if they do, you’re dead. That’s how it works in competition debating, on the college, national and international level.

During a dail or US presidential debate it would not be unheard of for a candidate to say, "Our economy is going down the drain," and then make his argument later when challenged.

Don’t confuse public speaking with debating.

DadaKopf

Oh, pipe down you two!

It's silly to fight over this. Everyone knows you can't separate facts from values.

PSYCHE!!

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

Everyone knows you can't separate facts from values.

:rolleyes: