This in a nutshell is the greatest problem with aiding the poor in Latin America.
When Ortega was in power before he also did precious little to help the poor. Some got a few plots of land, but Ortega managed to distribute some $24 million in disbursements from the Central Bank to himself and his allies.
Then there is his pact with the PLC, the major opposition party in order to strengthen themselves at the expense of other parties. This was a pact he made with disgraced corrupt former President Arnoldo Aleman, an act which benefited them both - at the expense of Nicaragua's democracy.
Ortega now opposes abortion and helped make it illegal in Nicaragua even if the mother's life is in danger. I have precious little confidence that this will help the poor. I have little doubt it will help Ortega.
There's also this, which was what put me off Ortega long ago:
After Daniel Ortega Saavedra jogged through Central Park, his aides joked that the Nicaraguan President needs to stay in shape because, if the Reagan Administration gets its wish, the Sandinistas may have to resume the rough life of guerrillas some day.
If the revolutionary leader does return to the hills, he will do so with a full supply of designer eyewear.
His motorcade of 17 cars pulled up to the Cohen's Fashion Optical store on the Upper East Side the other morning. The store's manager, Noel Cottington, said he helped Mr. Ortega pick out something sophisticated and yet simple, lightweight and yet bulletproof.
After an eye examination, the Sandinista leader bought six pairs, at $300 apiece, of Silhouette frames with lenses made of polycarbonate - a sturdy plastic that is familiar to New Yorkers as the material used for many of the panels that protect taxidrivers and passengers from each other. ''It's indestructible, so it must be bulletproof,'' Mr. Cottington said, adding that the dark, conservative glasses gave Mr. Ortega ''the usual Wall Street look.''
Rosario Murillo, Mr. Ortega's wife, chose three pairs of Gucci frames, as well as three Fiorucci frames for the couple's daughter back home.
The bill was more than $3,500. Mr. Ortega paid with a Diner's Club card from the Nicaraguan Mission.
It's good to be the king . . . er president.
This article got me thinking about the War on Poverty in this country in the 60s and Nixon's (and other members of the GOP) feelings about the program. He too thought it was political patronage for the Democrats. All those neighborhood empowering community action programs might consolidate Dems power. So he quickly cut off the money. What I like to think of--and this might be the brighter side--is the unintended consequences of such "empowerment." Once the poor have their microloans, they may not be so easily controlled. They might even vote for conservatives.
Well, Daniel Ortega Saavedra may be an effective revolutionary, but he knows jack shit about materials science.
Polycarbonate's protective properties are virtually nil when reduced to the thickness of eyeglass lenses or frames. To call them bulletproof is ignorant or romantic at best, but would be more accurately described as unfathomably stupid, the statement of someone who lacks even a high school level of knowledge of physics, and who is too fucking lazy to put even the slightest effort into fact-checking.
Plus, what the hell? Is he going to be wearing a full-face helmet otherwise? What do you think the odds are of an assassin aiming directly for his eyes? And hitting them!?
Jesus titty-fucking Christ!
Extravagant? Yes.
Indefensible? Yes.
Bulletproof? Get the fuck outta here!
Whoever's byline that was, you are entirely justified to ignore anything else s/he has written.
One of the other problems in these programs is, will it really help? I realize it's giving more to the people in the way of infrastructure and food than any conservative government did. At the same time, the article is mentioning the fact that the food runs out long before the demand does. In addition, the article does mention plenty of the poor saying they have gotten nothing at all. I'm inclined to believe that, while this is all helping more than doing nothing, this probably is ultimately either a political effort to increase Sandinista support or a superficial effort that Ortega could trumpet as showing how much he's doing for the people without necessarily doing so much (and those two things aren't mutually exclusive).
Right, I think there's no question that this is of limited help and that Ortega is using it for his own political agenda.
As for the 1980s, Randy is probably right that ultimately Ortega might not have done much to help the poor anyway, but of course he didn't really have much of a chance either once the Contras got going so we can't really know. I do think that the death of Fonseca in 1976 doomed that revolution because the power structure was not well-defined below him. Ortega was in charge of the military branch so he took over after the revolution. But he was almost certainly not the right man for the job.
In any case, my view on these things is that I'd rather see something done than nothing and this is at least a little something. As opposed to the Nicaraguan opposition, who basically don't care if anything is ever done for the poor.
I think Jeff is ultimately right about this. Empowering the poor, even a little bit, through the microloans and other programs is ultimately a good thing, regardless of what the poor actually do with that empowerment.
The only thing I'd amend (and I wanted to say in the first comment, but don't think I quite expressed myself well enough) was that I think we really have to be careful with claims about what Ortega is doing for "the poor." No doubt he's helping "some poor," but this definitely shouldn't be phrased as him helping "THE poor," who would be (and are) far too heterogeneous as it is to make any government program of this scale and style to be far-reaching across large segments of society.
Murderface,
Well it was 1983 and it was the salesman who extolled the virtues of the polycarbonate.
Ah, but it was the irresponsibly credulous reporter who legitimized that foolish claim. And the limitations of wafer-thin polycarbonate were just as well-known in 1983 as they are now. Plus, your apologia for the claim ignores the even more glaring logical error: Why bulletproof only your eyes?
All this is pretty far afield from the main point of Erik's post or the intention of your original comment, but that kind of asinine breathless technology reporting is something I'd expect from -- I don't even know who -- Maxim maybe?
Not the Grey Lady of 25 years ago, that's for sure. Maybe the current incarnation of the NYT could sound so stupid, but it's surprising to see it coming from back then.
Apologia? No, I'm explaining not justifying.
Fair enough.
Commenting by HaloScan
