Chavez-Here we go again....

[BL611]

Jesus, it seems like the left never learns when it comes to authoritarian dictators. As long as their antagonistic to America and capitalism, they must be brave freedom fighters, right? You would think that Stalin, Mao, and the rest of the gang would have taught people a lesson that a couple of economic redistribution programs does not make up for a complete disregard for democracy and human rights in the effort to concentrate power...

The facts are Chavez has been condemned by Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch for his human rights violations, he has been condemned by the International Labor Organization for his attempts to subvert union autonomy, and he ERADICATED the Senate,I'm pretty sure if Bush said "you know what this bicameral legislature thing just makes things too complicated, lets just get rid of the Senate", most people probably wouldn't be too happy.

Are Chavez's views on neoliberalism agreeable? For the most part, yes. Has Chavez done some good things for SOME of his nations poor? It looks like it. Is there a media bias against Chavez in this country? Quite possibly. But none of that changes all of the apparent red flags of his regime that should caution any reasonable person who understands where his approach historically leads. I'm sure most of you will just call me a freeper, or say I've been brainwashed by the MSM, but hopefully some of you will look at Chavez a little closer before you anoint him a hero.

[springsteen4senate]

1. I donno too much about him to judge....

but I am a little skeptical. We certainly do have common enemies though in Shrub and Robertson.

[BL611]

4. Thats not a great way to judge things

Remember Saddam and Bin Laden were supported by America because they were "the enemy of our enemy" too, needless to say, that didn't work out too great....

[springsteen4senate]

7. ur right

[Douglas Carpenter]

122. and let's compare his record to the largest recepients of U.S. aid

I would be very suspicious of all this U.S. media concern about Chavez's human rights record which incidently has improved dramatically since his government took office. And for the record Chavez's record with the above mentioned human rights groups is no worse and probably not as bad as the U.S. and many other western democracies and far worse than that of the leading receipients of U.S. Aid.

link: http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Propaganda/Venezuela.asp

"Reporting on the ongoing issues, such as the protests and Chavez’s economic policies in Venezuela have shown similar signs of one-sidedness, from both the mainstream media of western countries such as the U.S. and U.K., and from Venezuela’s own elite anti-Chavez media, which “controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and ... played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April 2002.... The media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president — if necessary by force.”


here are the three largest receipient of U.S. aid (after Iraq) in order:

1. Israel - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=isrlpa

2. Egypt - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=egypt

3. Columbia - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=colomb


and here is the report on the U.S.'s own human rights record:

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa

[Douglas Carpenter]

191. Chavez's Venezuela has more free speech and press than the U.S.

would ever allow. If anyone of us tried to practice the degree of freedom of expression that is openly expressed in Venezuela 24 hours a day/7days a week -- we would be in jail very, very fast.

This is the exact same nonsense being perpetrated on gullible Americans that was sold during the days of Nicaraguan democracy and independence and Chilean democracy and independence. In spite of the fact that the local private elite-owned media is overwhelmingly hostile to the point of supporting force and violence against the popular democratically elected government (something that would never be allowed in the U.S. or almost anywhere else for that matter) we hear the same Orwellian-automaton chants about dictatorship over and over and over and over again.

link:

http://mondediplo.com/2002/08/10venezuela

snip: "Never even in Latin American history has the media been so directly involved in a political coup. Venezuela’s ’hate media’ controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and it played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April. Although tensions in the country could easily spill into civil war, the media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president - if necessary by force."

snip:

"After Chávez came to power in 1998, the five main privately owned channels - Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), Globovisión and CMT - and nine of the 10 major national newspapers, including El Universal, El Nacional, Tal Cual, El Impulso, El Nuevo País, and El Mundo, have taken over the role of the traditional political parties, which were damaged by the president’s electoral victories. Their monopoly on information has put them in a strong position. They give the opposition support, only rarely reporting government statements and never mentioning its large majority, despite that majority’s confirmation at the ballot box. They have always described the working class districts as a red zone inhabited by dangerous classes of ignorant people and delinquents. No doubt considering them unphotogenic, they ignore working class leaders and organisations."

snip: ""Take to the streets" thundered El Nacional on 10 April (in an unattributed editorial). "Ni un paso atrás! (not one step backwards)" responded the hoardings on Globovisión. Another TV company broadcast: "Venezuelans, take to the streets on Thursday 11 April at 10am. Bring your flags. For freedom and democracy. Venezuela will not surrender. No one will defeat us." The call to overthrow the head of state became so obvious that the government applied Article 192 of the telecommunications law. More than 30 times -for all television and radio channels - it requisitioned 15-20 minutes’ air time to broadcast its views. But the broadcasters divided the screen in two and continued to urge rebellion."

[sirjohn]

208. BS

[Douglas Carpenter]

211. do you have ANY facts to refute this??

First compare the human rights record according to ANY credible independent international human rights group with that of Venezuela under Chavez with that of the U.S.

Then ask yourself, what if 90% of the American media was not only openly hostile to the government but actually called for its violent, unconstitutional and forcible overthrow? What if demonstrators openly advocated the assassination of the head of state? This would be allowed in America?

[sirjohn]

227. Your example is upside down

Number one, I hope such an advocacy is NEVER permitted in the USA. We effect change through laws because we are a democracy. Are you advocating violence?

2) Do you have proof that 90% of the Venezuela media are calling for violence against Chavez?

3) Taking your hypothetical to be true, which it's not, because of his state-run media campaign, - but why would 90% of them be calling for it were he not the budding Stalin that he is? It should take only a majority vote to effect a change in government. So who is their readership? How are they selling papers?

4) Maybe the 90% of the American media are not calling for the same in the US because they don't think it's necessary (as you seem to do).

5) In a democracy only a 51% vote is required. The folks who are in outrage (the minority) have a problem because the majority disagrees with them. Violence is only advocated by people who don't have the votes they need to effect change democratically.

5) Wild-eyed ideology only can take a movement so far. To prevail you have to convince people to agree with you, and the majority in the US don't want people like Chavez running our country, including 98% of us Democrats.

[Douglas Carpenter]

228. no I do not think political violence should be advocated. of course not

but constant threats of political violence has long haunted most if not all of Latin America. In the case of Venezuela it has been encouraged against the democratically elected government by the large sectors of the media owned by elite (see references above) interest in country where 80% of the country is poor and until recently unrepresented in the affairs of state

President Chavez's human rights record according to every credible international independent human rights organization is no worse than that of most western democracies including the U.S. And it is downright pristine compared to that of say Columbia, the largest recipient of U.S. aid in Latin America, by far.

What makes Chavez wiled-eyed? What is the basis for this claim? Except that his government has shifted the powers of state to the benefit of the poor majority over the benefit of the affluent minority and he has dared to challenge the dominant ideology of neoliberal economics something believed in by only a minority of people in either America or the developing world. If the Thomas Friedman's of the world would take a walk around the block from the five-star hotels and talk to ordinary people and set aside their blind commitment to ideology and selfish interest, they wouldn't believe in it either.

I really would not be quite so blindly trusting of the media whether in America or anywhere else. And I would suggest that if Americans actually knew what Mr. Chavez actually advocated many of his ideas would resonate in North America as well.

[sirjohn]

229. Believe what you choose, of course, but you're

not going to convince any reasonable person with those arguments.

What exactly do you want? You can't convince anybody but the most wild-eyed fanatic that there's less freedom of the press in the USA than in Venezuela.

Twisting and tweaking words and quoting kooky websites as authorities, isn't going to get our party back in power.

It's about winning, not creating an alternative universe where we can create a "perfect" world - in our minds - and then complain about how bad off we are, while the American public is laughing at us.

Did I meet you once in Fairfield, by any chance?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. It would be helpful

if you cited sources to back up what you say. I will disregard your first paragraph which is irrelevant to the argument and only inflammatory to many leftists who would strongly object to your characterization.

[BL611]

5. Check any of the organizations

I mentioned websites, as far as the Senate thing thats general knowledge.

[struggle4progress]

169. Please provide link for "the Senate thing thats general knowledge"

[The Magistrate]

215. Several Small Points, Sir

Members of "the gang" you mentioned all shot their way into power; Col. Chavez won a free election, and has been sustained in office by a free election. It makes a difference in kind.

Col. Chavez has played the game by Marquis of Queensbury rules. His enemies are not shot or disappeared into cellars or tortured in town squares; all these things are standard operating procedure for authopritarian regimes in his region, and were the standard practice of a great many regimes in Central and South America eagerly and resolutely supported by the United States government, and in neighboring Columbia can still be observed today, through the cur-out of "private" paramilitary forces operating with full co=operation of the nation's military.

The real objection to Col. Chavez is the direction in which he asserts state power: for the benfit of the lower classes, rather than of the upper. That hman rights organizations find fault with him does not surprise or discommode me: those groups finf fault with just about all givernments; it is their job, and no government does not abuse its authority in some degree. that si the nature of the beast. But the distinctions in degree are the crux of the matter. A pick-pocket, a strong-arm robber, and a drug gang enforcer are all criminals, after all, but the dirst is a good deal safer to encounter or live alongside....

"You want to be the great humanitarian? You want to save the world? Pick up the gun."

[Douglas Carpenter]

217. exactly

"The real objection to Col. Chavez is the direction in which he asserts state power: for the benfit of the lower classes, rather than of the upper."

[tularetom]

3. I tolerate Chavez for the same reason I tolerate Hillary

The wingnuts fucking HATE both of them. The sight of either one is enough to make them apoplectic. The thought of them being that pssed off and unhappy makes me happy.

[BL611]

8. Refer to post #4

[Militant_Left]

6. Chavez is the indigenous people taking back their lives...

their hopes, their dreams. Capitalolists, facists, and racists can't stand it.

And who should care if they get trampled in the process. For once, we the people of the land, to whom it rightfully belongs, are taking it back and it is for our good.

[BL611]

9. Yes "dictatorship of the people"...

That always works out great...

[Solon]

90. So the people shouldn't be allowed to choose their....

presidents(dictators to you)? I thought democracy was a laudable goal, but apparently you don't respect the choices of people to freely elect whom they choose. I guess they(brown, poor) people just can't be trusted with the vote, right?

[rman]

116. similar to the neocon meme "democracy is the tiranny of the majority"

Democracy bad, down with democracy. Right? Right.

[Joe Chi Minh]

158. Why do you think it doesn't, Mutley?

The Russian people would have even Stalin back in less than a heart-beat, satanic as he was. Old lady's in their eighties and nineties, peddling the last of their nick-nacks by the side of the road, just to survive!

Without the Russian people under Stalin, where would we Europeans be? In the thrall of an imperial Germany. And without the USA under Roosevelt (in the teeth no doubt of many Nazi-symapthisers in high places)? In the thrall of an imperial Russia.
And if the Chinese leaders had been less smart and less principled, they'd have capitulated immediately and totally to the satanic West's urgings to "liberalize" their economy, American-style, with all the consequent sufferings visited on billions of the Chinese people. A less than stable world would have ensued, even by our standards. And who but Western-style congenitally violent and felonious robber barons and their organised-crime buddies would have taken over the reins, after so many decades of relative peaceful co-existence - bearing in mind the country's size and power.

The western media demonised Communist tyrants (who didn't actually need demonising by others), but did you see the masses mourning and weeping at their deaths: Stalin and the North Korean guy. And what about Pol Pot? They still evoke his name with horror, yet in their fathomless, demonic cynicism they made sure he died in God's own time, in his bed!

Same with the Ayatollah Komenini. Did you ever see such an outpouring of grief for a right-wing leader - apart from Churchill, who was rejected after the war, nonetheless, as peace-time leader of Britain.

Not that Putin hasn't proved that he is at least something of a patriot, by thwarting the traitorous sale of the nation's natural resources to robber barons, domestic and foreign.

I don't imagine this post will be well received by most middle-class Democrats, but frankly, I'd prefer to live under Stalin than as one of the millions of Americans sleeping on the streets, or as an African American in the South, before the 1970s. Anywhere, in fact, in the US, with those "sundown" laws obtaining in many towns in the North, as well. The poorest matter more than the rest of us, not less.

Nice photo of Robert Kennedy, though.

[struggle4progress]

168. Venezuelans Trust Chávez More Than Opposition

(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Adults in Venezuela appear to express a preference towards their president, according to a poll by Consultores 21 released by Quinto Día. 43 per cent of respondents say they trust the government headed by Hugo Chávez, while 29 per cent side with the opposition.

Chávez has been in office since February 1999. In July 2000, he was elected to a six-year term with 59.5 per cent of all cast ballots. In August 2004, Chávez won a referendum on his tenure with 59 per cent of the vote. The special election was called after opposition organizations in Venezuela gathered 2.5 million signatures to force a recall ballot.

Venezuelan voters renewed their National Assembly on Dec. 4, 2005. The pro-Chávez Fifth Republic Movement (MVR) secured 114 of the 167 seats at stake. Five opposition parties—Democratic Action (AD), the Social Christian Party (Copei), Project Venezuela (Proven), Justice First (PJ) and New Time (UNP)—boycotted the election, which saw a turnout of less than 25 per cent ...

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/10678

[William769]

20. Yea just like Castro.

:eyes:

[Mika]

22. And you've been to Cuba when?

Don't speak for the Cuban people, they are quite capable of doing so themselves.


Been there. Seen it.

[William769]

34. Been there also.

It's a shame they they are literally dying to get to our shores.

[oasis]

37. That's what you saw while you were there? What was your mission?

:shrug:

[William769]

39. The first time was the boat lift in the 80's

Have been on several since then. Living in South Florida, I do my part to help the people that want to be free.

[oasis]

41. Do you support a U.S.embargo/sanctions against the people of Cuba?

[William769]

45. No!

[Judi Lynn]

46. What about the many, many people who drown trying to come HUNDREDS

of miles from Haiti, sometimes going down in boats carrying dozens, and the Dominican Republic, or drown in the water between Mexico and the U.S., or who die of exposure in the deserts trying to get to the States? Are THEY trying to be free, trying to 'scape their terrifying governments?

All THESE people stand the risk of being thrown in prison before being sent right back to their homes in the Caribbean, (where they may very well be slaughtered by _Bush's new criminal government in Haiti) or Central America, or South America, or Mexico, and NONE of them has been offered the broad assortment of inducements like those from the Cuban Adjustment Act, like the ones dangled in front of Cuban immigrants, like instant legal status, access to US-taxpayer funded Section 8 housing, food stamps, welfare, social security, financial assistance for education, medical treatment, etc., etc.

If THESE BENEFITS WERE OFFERED to the same people who now get tracked down and sent back instead, usually, we'd have so many people here there's be no room to move around.

Yeah, free. Free enough, like Elián Gonzalez's drunken old greatuncle, Lázaro, to have been travelling BACK TO CUBA FOR VACATION all these years before _Bush cracked down and limited their trips to once every three years. Why would they dare risk their "freedom" by showing up where they were scared to death? Wouldn't they be thrown in prison? Tortured? Fed to the sharks? I shudder to think of it.

[William769]

48. Look I can't save everyone.

Cuba just happens to close enough to help & I have cuban ties.

Here's an idea instead of bitching at me go get yourself a boat & lend a helping hand.

[Judi Lynn]

54. Better yet, end the Cuban Adjustment Act, the embargo, and travel ban.n/t

[William769]

74. Don't you think I would like to.

[Mika]

179. No I don't think you would. Your "relatives" would not be here then.

Judi Lynn-->"Better yet, end the Cuban Adjustment Act, the embargo, and travel ban."

William769-->"Don't you think I would like to."



I don't think that you do.

Your "relatives" that you smuggled in would not have access to Social Security, welfare, sec 8 assisted housing, drivers license, green card or citizenship qualification if there were no Cuban Adjustment Act.

This is what is wrong with the policy. It gives access to all of these US taxpayer services to any and all Cubans no matter who they are (criminals and such - those who were disqualified by the US for a legal visa) or how they got here (smuggled in, as your "relatives" were by you). Can you imagine the influx of "escapees" from other countries (many US allies with much worse conditions than Cuba) if that were offered to them?

Why didn't your "relatives" get a legal US immigration visa? The US offers over 20,000 per year (more than any other single country).

[Judi Lynn]

197. I was puzzled by that response, too! Also, food stamps are offered

on the spot.

I was truly bewildered to read a year or two ago, in the Florida on-line papers, that Florida State Senator David Garcia's grandmother went to get her food stamps and met some government employees who didn't treat her with the deference she requires, and she GOT SIX OF THEM FIRED.

Good god almighty. What unbearable, obnoxious nerve.

You have to wonder if things are getting out of hand if a Cuban-American state senator won't even keep his grandmother away from picking up freebies at the food stamp office. We really need to tighten our national belt where these programs are involved!

[Mika]

61. So, you participate in human smuggling/illegal immigration ops.

Cubans are offered over 20,000 legal immigration visas by the US every year.

Most of the people coming from Cuba by illegal means (human smuggling ops) have either failed a legal visa application (failed by the US interests section's own background investigation) or would have failed (due to a criminal record or some other disqualifying factors).

The Cuban Adjustment Act allows any and all Cubans who make it to US shores to stay - NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEIR CRIMINAL BACKGROUND MIGHT BE.

It is very interesting that you have worked to undermine US laws and undermine US security (as one doesn't know if one is helping smuggle a Cuban agent or not, or if the smuggled-in have serious criminal histories).


Very interesting admission indeed.



--- Plus, seeing Mariel harbor for illegal ops isn't exactly seeing Cuba or getting a chance at understanding what Cuba is about.

[William769]

73. Say what you want I hold no regrets.

& by the way I have seen more than just Mariel Harbor.

[Mika]

117. You might not hold regrets, but you have endangered others because..

.. the largest crime wave ever to hit S Fla came right after Mariel.

Thanks to the ass hats who helped them get here illegally.. many fell victim to this wave of crime.

Many were agents of the accused dictatorship in Cuba. You helped them, and still hold no regrets?

Hmmmm.

[William769]

127. Not all from the Mariel boatlift were criminals.

I can safely say the people I know of being transported were relatives.

[Mika]

177. Maybe so, but you still smuggled them into the US illegally

IMO, Illegal human trafficking is one of the lowest forms of human endeavors. :puke:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

223. CoughUndergroundRailroadCough

At the least, you're overgeneralising spectacularly.

And "one of the lowest forms of human endeavours"? You don't think murder, rape, drug smuggling, theft etc or on a larger scale war, genocide, torture are lower?

[Selatius]

181. No, but it doesn't refute the fact that there was a crime wave.

That crime wave resulted in human misery and the deaths of many people in the ensuing drug wars and gang turf wars. I REMEMBER how bad it got in the 1980s in many inner-city urban areas.

[Mika]

183. Correct. Plenty of scum were smuggled in

Plenty of scum were doing the smuggling. Many were being paid to do so.

[Judi Lynn]

198. So convenient. Never any questions asked, unlike the conditions

ALL OTHER TRAVELLERS FROM EVERYWHERE going EVERYWHERE must endure. And a lot of benefits await them at the end of their trip, if they make it to dry land, in order to attract them here. That's some racket.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

78. I was in Guantanamo for a year, long before it became a concentration

camp (during Clinton). We had thousands of Cuban refugees there.

They were economic refugees, just looking for a better way of life. When they got help up in tent cities for months, many just wanted to go home. They just wanted to be able to make some money. The huge majority were NOT political refugees.

[Mika]

62. Actually, Cubans can apply for a legal visa (unless they don't qualify)..

.. and in that case they shouldn't be allowed to get into the US.

Why would you help smuggle people into the US who have not qualified for a legal visa?

[Judi Lynn]

70. I've heard that although 20,000 visas are available every year to Cubans,

which is WILDLY out of proportion compared to all the other countries in the world, Not that many visas are actually used. These open spots are part of an agreement made with Cuba some time ago, and Cuba doesn't contest them, as I understand it.

You can bet those 20,000 visas would be wolfed up by people in desperately poor countries instantly each year they are available.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

209. About ten years ago, my church in Portland sponsored a genuine

Cuban political refugee, one who had actually served prison time for anti-government activities.

Despite being no fan of the Cuban government, she thought the whole Elian Gonzalez case was silly. "Those people weren't political refugees," she said. "They just wanted to shop at K-Mart."

[TheWatcher]

221. No one should know that better than you.

[sasha031]

10. replace the word Chavez in the second paragraph and insert US

on your 1st sentence and I will say these facts are true and unfortunate. I think it would be a nice change if we Americans focused on the flaws of the US and stop worrying about other nation for once.

[BL611]

12. Yes we should look at our own flaws

how lionizing someone like Chavez is conducive to that, I don't know...

[Solon]

92. That's easy to answer depending on your political proclavities...

Chavez, in addition to Lula of Brazil, Bachelet of Chile, and Morales of Bolivia have an opportunity to create a Pan Latin American economic bloc that would serve as a counterweight to the U.S. efforts at hegemony through the FTAA and bi-lateral agreements.

Such an agreement may well fall apart if a right-wing government were to take power in Venezuela. Chavez is not only outspoken, and to many, a galvanizing force, but also a unifying one as well. Part of that is the fact that the base of his power is local, the grassroots, the people themselves.

[katsy]

11. Amnesty International

Violations in Venezuela since 2003 = 5

Violations in the United States since 2003 = 15

IMO, there is no perfect government.

Venezuelans elected Chavez. I applaud him for the good he has done. If he continues to have the support of the majority of Venezuelans, more power to him. If not, he'll be voted out. In any case, it should NOT be the business our our government to overthrow foreign leaders because they don't agree with their politics.

Amnesty: http://www.amnesty.org/

[BL611]

13. I never said we should overthrow him

I said we shouldn't admiire him.

[katsy]

21. I didn't say you did.

But it's a pattern here in america to interfere.

I admire him for standing up for the majority of his people. IF he continues to put social equality ahead of corporate profits, I'll admire him even more.

He panders to the least among his society and I admire that.

Not everyone feels as I do and that's their right.

[0007]

143. Here's one that does.

[pberq]

145. How about admiring him for his good points and

not admiring him for his mistakes?

For me, the fact that he is standing up to BFEE is a big plus on his side.

Of course we must oppose human rights abuses no matter who is responsible. But that doesn't me we have to flat out condemn him, given the positive things he is doing.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

224. I agree up to a point.

I think Chavez is doing many good things. But a human rights abuse is a human rights abuse, no matter who commits it, and I think one should be very careful not to condone anything just because you approve of the person who's doing it.

[stillcool]

14. All people are fallible...

and capable of great things. Because we in this country get such a narrow view of the world through what is considered media, to make an assumption based on that drivel, would be ludicrous. Absolute power, as we can all see, corrupts absolutely....regardless of one's philosophy or ideology. As far as Bush getting rid of the Senate...what do you think Alito is all about?

[madfloridian]

15. Here is one article about packing the courts there.

When either end of the spectrum does it there is danger.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/venezu12258.htm

"Since winning a national referendum on his presidency in 2004, Hugo Chávez and his majority coalition in Congress have taken steps to undermine the independence of the country’s judiciary by packing the Supreme Court with their allies. They have also enacted legislation that seriously threatens press freedoms and freedom of expression. Several high profile members of civil society have faced prosecution on highly dubious charges, and human rights defenders have been repeatedly accused by government officials of conspiring against the nation. Police violence, torture, and abusive prison conditions are also among the country’s most serious human rights problems.

The Venezuelan Congress dealt a severe blow to judicial independence in December 2004 by packing the country’s Supreme Court with twelve new justices. A majority of the ruling coalition, dominated by President Chávez’s party, named the justices to fill seats created by a law passed in May 2004 that expanded the court from twenty to thirty-two members. In addition to the justices named to the twelve new seats, five justices were named to fill vacancies that had opened in recent months, and thirty-two more were named as reserve justices.

The political takeover of the Supreme Court compounded the damage already done to judicial independence by policies pursued by the court itself. The court, which has administrative control over the judiciary, has failed to provide security of tenure to 80 percent of the country’s judges."

And a link to the About section on Human Rights Watch...so you can judge for yourself if these people are being unfair.

http://www.hrw.org/about/info/board.html

There are two sides to every issue.

[Judi Lynn]

79. Here's an interesting bit of information on HRW which was posted

last week by a tremendous DU'er. It definitely represents the views of a number of people, by all means:

~snip~
Who is Human Rights Watch and how were they able to gain access to Jenin for an inquiry at the very time that Israel was denying entry to a delegation chosen by the UN Security Council? Human Rights Watch was supposedly created to monitor “human rights abuses” worldwide. In reality, it is an institution that has acted at every turn to reinforce the policies of the United States and justify its “humanitarian interventions.” It is composed almost entirely of US citizens and its board includes multimillionaires, former U.S government officials and mainstream academics.

Human Rights Watch began as Helsinki Watch in 1975. It was a powerful Cold War instrument against the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc countries of Eastern Europe. Its network became a web of support for pro-capitalist forces and political dissidents in every country.

Multibillionaire George Soros has played a major role in the development of Human Rights Watch and in linking it with his own personal NGO network. Open Society Institute. Aryeh Neier, the director first of Helsinki Watch and then Human Rights Watch moved on to head the Open Society Institute. Many other directors share positions and change titles within a small world of US-based NGOs.

HRW’s Middle East North Africa division has used its position to build support for the continuing US war and sanctions against Iraq. According to the reports of four major UN agencies (WHO, FAO, UNICEF, WFP), UN Security Council sanctions, kept in place at US insistence, have caused the deaths of over 1.5 million Iraqis. Withholding food and civilian supplies is a war crime. However, Human Rights Watch has proposed that to help weaken Saddam Hussein and “encourage Iraqi officials to overthrow him. Saddam Hussein be indicted by an international court for war crimes.” (HRW press release, January 5, 2000). If the US objective is an invasion of Iraq, Human Rights Watch is only too happy to oblige with reports and suggestions.

Human Rights Watch claims its reports are objective, balanced and evenhanded. When it comes to Palestine this has meant equating the violence of the illegal Israeli occupation with the resistance of Palestinians to overwhelming military force. Once Human Rights Watch declared that “no massacre” had occurred in Jenin, the demand for an inquiry and international action against Israeli crimes virtually disappeared. Media coverage shifted sharply. The Bush administration made a new round of demands on the Palestinians to condemn violence while calling Ariel Sharon “a man of peace” and expressing sympathy for Israeli “self-defense” measures. HRW statements echoed these shifts.
(snip/...)

http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0003220.html

[madfloridian]

84. That site says they got it from a website..

I would like to see more on that before I agree.

Here is her disclaimer which does not invite too much confidence...maybe I am over cautious.

"Please note that this version was taken from a website. It obviously contained some errors and some of the formatting has been lost. Only the obvious errors have been remedied."

[Judi Lynn]

87. Looks like it was discovered at this site:

Background
HRW was set up by the United States government to monitor human rights in Eastern Europe following the signature of the Helsinki Accords. Initially, the group was called Helsinki Watch (NB: there is a British group with the same name – specializes in monitoring elections…). The United States used Helsinki Watch for propaganda purposes, and to amplify the "human rights" contradictions in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In this it was singularly successful, and it led to the broadening of HRW to cover additional regions. HRW-Americas, etc. and it also spun off the Index on Censorship, the latter to monitor abuses of "freedom of the press". HRW may claim that it is independent and nongovernmental, but its origins inidicate that these properties were absent.
(snip)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Watch#External_links

[struggle4progress]

172. HRW generally does a good job. It's true some people cherry-pick ..

.. from their reports, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if various redbaiters had trumpeted certain reports from Helsinki Watch.

As Helsinki Watch subsequently spun off the various Watch Committees with other regions as foci, the cherry-picking naturally continued.

In the 1980's, friends of mine regularly relied upon Watch Committee reports as sources of verifiable information on the human rights records of El Salvador and Guatemala, while the rightwingers sometimes crowed triumphantly when a Committee published anything on Nicaragua, although some of the Nicaragua reports were devoted to Reagan administration dissembling. The old reports remain, I think, valuable historical documents.

The researchers from HRW that I have met have been dedicated and honest. Of course, like any other nonprofit, HRW can sometimes be somewhat sensitive to its funders. I consider the appropriate reaction is to donate.

It is a mistake to attack the credibility of such organizations, simply because they sometimes produce materials our opponents can use. Accurate factual information is the only basis for ethical action.

[ronnie624]

146. Human Rights Overview

"A majority of the ruling coalition, dominated by President Chavez’s party, named the justices to fill seats created by a law passed in May 2004 that expanded the court from twenty to thirty-two members."

Yeah...so. This article in no way illustrates how this can be construed as a "human rights violation".

In addition the article is laced with descriptive words and phrases: "...undermine the independence of the country’s judiciary...", "...packing the Supreme Court...", "onerous". This to me seems designed to influence the reader's over all impression of the Venezuelan Government.

Also, using the problems of police corruption and prison brutality as a weapon against President Chavez is dishonest.

I know many like to brandish hrw.org as an unimpeachable source, but I have my reservations.

[jonnyblitz]

16. your assumption that "neoliberalism" is a good thing speaks

volumes to where you are coming from. I do believe what would replace Chavez(his opposition) in Venezuela may be more suitable to corporate interests here in the US but would be a disaster for the rank and file people in Venezuala. trying to keep from being overthrown by CIA backed right wingers can get messy and shit isn't always perfect.:shrug:

[BL611]

17. Unfortunately

I made no such assumption I said I agreed for the most part with CHAVEZ'S views on it, which as you seem to be aware of are anti-neoliberalism.

[jonnyblitz]

24. i misread that comment . my error. I apologize for that.

your alluding to him being in the same genre as stalin (who i just read a book about, yikes) and mao might be a bit much. I don't think he has come to THAT. I DO understand that leftists have "excused" dictators in the past but I am uncertain this applies with Chavez so far.

[William769]

18. I totally agree with you.

Every time I said something that was not nice about him, I got castrated! He's a DICKtator plain & simple.

[mitchtv]

23. He was elected

"dictator" is your opinion

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fishwax]

216. elections? like those matter

I mean, sure he was democratically elected, but since he's unwilling to allow corporate interests to control policy he must be a dictator, right?

:eyes:

[stepnw1f]

185. Ummm... He Was Democratically Elected

peace

[Douglas Carpenter]

193. Chavez's Venezuela has more free speech and press than the U.S.

would ever allow. If anyone of us tried to practice the degree of freedom of expression that is openly expressed in Venezuela 24 hours a day/7days a week -- we would be in jail very, very fast.

This is the exact same nonsense being perpetrated on gullible Americans that was sold during the days of Nicaraguan democracy and independence and Chilean democracy and independence. In spite of the fact that the local private elite-owned media is overwhelmingly hostile to the point of supporting force and violence against the popular democratically elected government (something that would never be allowed in the U.S. or almost anywhere else for that matter) we hear the same Orwellian-automaton chants about dictatorship over and over and over and over again.

link:

http://mondediplo.com/2002/08/10venezuela

snip: "Never even in Latin American history has the media been so directly involved in a political coup. Venezuela’s ’hate media’ controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and it played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April. Although tensions in the country could easily spill into civil war, the media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president - if necessary by force."

snip:

"After Chávez came to power in 1998, the five main privately owned channels - Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), Globovisión and CMT - and nine of the 10 major national newspapers, including El Universal, El Nacional, Tal Cual, El Impulso, El Nuevo País, and El Mundo, have taken over the role of the traditional political parties, which were damaged by the president’s electoral victories. Their monopoly on information has put them in a strong position. They give the opposition support, only rarely reporting government statements and never mentioning its large majority, despite that majority’s confirmation at the ballot box. They have always described the working class districts as a red zone inhabited by dangerous classes of ignorant people and delinquents. No doubt considering them unphotogenic, they ignore working class leaders and organisations."

snip: ""Take to the streets" thundered El Nacional on 10 April (in an unattributed editorial). "Ni un paso atrás! (not one step backwards)" responded the hoardings on Globovisión. Another TV company broadcast: "Venezuelans, take to the streets on Thursday 11 April at 10am. Bring your flags. For freedom and democracy. Venezuela will not surrender. No one will defeat us." The call to overthrow the head of state became so obvious that the government applied Article 192 of the telecommunications law. More than 30 times -for all television and radio channels - it requisitioned 15-20 minutes’ air time to broadcast its views. But the broadcasters divided the screen in two and continued to urge rebellion."

[oasis]

19. Harry Belafonte said "Dr.King is my mentor". Chavez is embraced by

the same, widely acknowledged civil right activist. That's a good enough endorsement for me.

[Cha]

26. There ya go! I just remembered

from your post when Belafonte was down in Venezuela..

"Belafonte Calls Bush 'Greatest Terrorist in World,' Praises Chavez in Venezuela"..

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1484530

[oasis]

113. Thanks Zidzi. Belafonte seems to be a pretty good judge of character.(eom)

[bpilgrim]

25. nonsense - you are buying into the false dichotomy sold by the elite & M$M

keep reading DU. there is much to learn about neo-liberalism and the reaction against it.

peace

[BL611]

32. Maybe that is your problem

using DU as your primary news source is probably no better than using FOX news as such....

[mac56]

131. You really think so, don't you?

So, is this really the best place for you?

[druidity33]

137. whoah there...

Um, did you actually compare DU to Faux News? Yeah, ok, you said primary news source... blah, blah, semantic defense, blah... but to FAUX NEWS???!!! WTF???!!!

DUers are diverse and INVESTIGATIVE... they ask for sources on everything, and PEOPLE HERE DO THEIR HOMEWORK... doesn't sound much like Faux News to me. Implied in the title Democratic Underground is its partisan leaning, but people here are more objective than any MSM source. If i could choose only one news source, DU would win hands down! DU is not one source... it is a COLLECTION of sources and voices! The comparison IMO is wholly unwarranted and to be honest rather offensive as i consider FNews the devils work and the obvious mouthpiece of the BFEE.

As for Chavez, it sounds to me like you are just a naturally pessimistic person... and for some reason or another wanted to pick a fight about him here on DU. Your assertions may not be groundless, but they are one sided and suspect. I am however, optimistic and see Chavez and Venezuela as a Democracy in its formative stages... led by a strong man with conviction and the support of the poorest and traditionally most underrepresented people in that region... the natives. I will watch what is happening there and in the rest of the countries in S.America and C.America with interest. In the meantime i am starting Spanish lessons in the spring.

[ronnie624]

154. What is one to make of such a statement?

A web site with the entire internet at its disposal in addition to its own vast archive is no better than Fox "news"??!:eyes: :shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. As I recall, he was democratically elected by the people of Venezuela.

Despite subversion from BushCo and the likes of James Carville. I don't consider him a "hero", but as a flawed "leader" who is trying to help the indigenous population fight against centuries of exploitation by the wealthy capitalists backed by their predatory pals in the USA backed by the thugs of the CIA.

[KingFlorez]

28. I don't get your reasoning

He was elected and isn't being a dictator. He's doing everything possible to eradicate poverty in his country.

[thoughtanarchist]

29. I have numerous problems with your post...

The first and biggest is that you have cited no sources to back your claim. I have made the effort to research the situation in Venezuela and I have not been able to find enough reliably objective sources to give certainty on your points.

Secondly your use of the term "neo-liberalism" is a subtle but insidious example of right wing spin that exemplifies how the conservatives blame their political opponents for their own shortcomings.

What I HAVE seen is that he seems care more for america's poor than our own president.

Citing "common knowledge" to back up your opinion gets you no respect here or anywhere else. Back up your assertions or don't bother posting.

I'd love to be educated on Chavez. If there's any merit to your viewpoint, let's see some reliably objective info.

[BL611]

31. I cited various organizations

in the OP, there should be information on their websites. Again non partisan human rights groups and the ILO are about as objective of sources as I can think of.

I don't see what you're saying about neo-liberalism, or how it is pertinent to the topic.

It is common knowledge that Chavez did away with the Senate, if you would like I will try to find an article that substantiates that...

[thoughtanarchist]

38. Can't you quote them?

Katsy has debunked the issue of human rights abuses by citing a statistic from one of the sources you cite.

A better record than the US of human rights abuses gives us something concrete to consider.

Your credibility stock is not going up...

[BL611]

40. What does the US human rights abuses

have to do with anything, saying that the US (I'm no Bush fan, in case you didn't know) is also guilty of abuses does not rebuke that Chavez is also guilty.

As I said if you would like me to get you a link I can, but it's as simple as you just going to the organizations website and searching for Chavez or Venezuela.

[thoughtanarchist]

42. It's a point of reference.

We know how life is in the US. A point of reference gives us an idea of the degree of oppressiveness represented by his "condemnation" (quoted because it's your term) by amnesty.

Quote your sources with what you know. "They do it too" is a diversionary tactic. It was used to try to tie democrats to Abramhof.

What's with the dance? Back up your claims.

[BL611]

50. All you had to do was say so, here's your links

www.amnestyusa.org/countries/venezuela/reports.do

www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/Venezuela2003eng/toc.htm

www.icftu.org/www/pdf/venezuelacls2002.pdf

www.ifj.org/pdfs/venezuelajuly02.pdf

www.hrw.org/reports/2003/venezuela/

www.hrw.org/reports/2004/venezuela0604/

Have Fun!

[thoughtanarchist]

66. All human rights abuses?

All that were related to political unrest? The nation was (and possibly still is) under an attempted coup. Considering that, and considering that the US is backing the political opposition (and who knows what else as far as covert activity), I'm still not convinced that he's dictator material.

Here's what I got from Amnesty. You have not yet made your case.

"Amnesty International believes that the Venezuela government had a clear duty to guarantee public order in the face of frequently violent protests - which included the use of firearms by some protesters. However, there is strong evidence that the use of rubber bullets, tear gas and batons was frequently indiscriminate and disproportionate and significantly contributed to a week of violence rather than preventing it."

I still haven't seen compelling evidence of a dictator here. What else ya got?

[Douglas Carpenter]

124. and let's compare his record to the largest recepients of U.S.aid

I would be very suspicious of all this U.S. media concern about Chavez's human rights record which incidently has improved dramatically since his government took office. And for the record Chavez's record with the above mentioned human rights groups is no worse and probably not as bad as the U.S. and many other western democracies and far worse than that of the leading receipients of U.S. Aid.

link: http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Propaganda/Venezuela.asp

"Reporting on the ongoing issues, such as the protests and Chavez’s economic policies in Venezuela have shown similar signs of one-sidedness, from both the mainstream media of western countries such as the U.S. and U.K., and from Venezuela’s own elite anti-Chavez media, which “controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and ... played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April 2002.... The media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president — if necessary by force.”


here are the three largest receipient of U.S. aid (after Iraq) in order:

1. Israel - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=isrlpa

2. Egypt - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=egypt

3. Columbia - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=colomb


and here is the report on the U.S.'s own human rights record:

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa

[Douglas Carpenter]

192. Chavez's Venezuela has more free speech and press than the U.S.

would ever allow. If anyone of us tried to practice the degree of freedom of expression that is openly expressed in Venezuela 24 hours a day/7days a week -- we would be in jail very, very fast.

This is the exact same nonsense being perpetrated on gullible Americans that was sold during the days of Nicaraguan democracy and independence and Chilean democracy and independence. In spite of the fact that the local private elite-owned media is overwhelmingly hostile to the point of supporting force and violence against the popular democratically elected government (something that would never be allowed in the U.S. or almost anywhere else for that matter) we hear the same Orwellian-automaton chants about dictatorship over and over and over and over again.

link:

http://mondediplo.com/2002/08/10venezuela

snip: "Never even in Latin American history has the media been so directly involved in a political coup. Venezuela’s ’hate media’ controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and it played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April. Although tensions in the country could easily spill into civil war, the media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president - if necessary by force."

snip:

"After Chávez came to power in 1998, the five main privately owned channels - Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), Globovisión and CMT - and nine of the 10 major national newspapers, including El Universal, El Nacional, Tal Cual, El Impulso, El Nuevo País, and El Mundo, have taken over the role of the traditional political parties, which were damaged by the president’s electoral victories. Their monopoly on information has put them in a strong position. They give the opposition support, only rarely reporting government statements and never mentioning its large majority, despite that majority’s confirmation at the ballot box. They have always described the working class districts as a red zone inhabited by dangerous classes of ignorant people and delinquents. No doubt considering them unphotogenic, they ignore working class leaders and organisations."

snip: ""Take to the streets" thundered El Nacional on 10 April (in an unattributed editorial). "Ni un paso atrás! (not one step backwards)" responded the hoardings on Globovisión. Another TV company broadcast: "Venezuelans, take to the streets on Thursday 11 April at 10am. Bring your flags. For freedom and democracy. Venezuela will not surrender. No one will defeat us." The call to overthrow the head of state became so obvious that the government applied Article 192 of the telecommunications law. More than 30 times -for all television and radio channels - it requisitioned 15-20 minutes’ air time to broadcast its views. But the broadcasters divided the screen in two and continued to urge rebellion."

[struggle4progress]

205. Interesting 2003 link on attacks on journalists. Do you happen to know ..

.. what the most dangerous place in the world for journalists is today?

[killbotfactory]

47. Chavez didn't "do away" with the senate.

It was the new constitution that was ratified by a democratically elected constitutional assembly.

Read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_of_Venezuela

[oblivious]

201. Thank you for pointing this out kbf. The Senate was appointed, not elected

I didn't know they had a Senate before. It sounds like our Canadian Senate - basically used for patronage appointements by the government in power - just a useless rubber stamp for government legislation.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[peacetalksforall]

30. After watching all the Presidents in So Am countries that bowed to the

U.S., Kiggingers, World Banks, European and U.S. oil companies, and the CIA - I am for any leader who fights them and that situation gets a double endorsement from me when I know that the U.S. led the coup against him and that this regime in our country has NO REGARD for duly elected Presidents.

The U.S. and the banks have played these countries like a fine violin because of their influence over former leaders.

Then, take a look at Haiti - the U.S. won a takeover there and brought in criminals to run things and the people speaking for democracy are getting massacred.

The U.S. policy against Central and South American has been a travesty and they have a few people who want to lead their countries into change and the propaganda armies come out armed.

It would be nice if people could speak to the specific issues that are wrong there -without condemning the person unless you can prove that what they are doing is NOT the result of culture, carryover, or new policy. However, if it is intended that the person is to be smeared, blamed, targeted ..... it may be time to give them (Bolivia, Brazil, Venezuela leaders)a chance. Their people there are probably better off than they were before because of a new hope - unless we're speaking of some of the very rich living here and there.

If the oil companies are unhappy with these leaders - there is hope.
If the water privatizers are unhappy with these leaders - there is hope.

[BL611]

35. I agree that there is a culture

and tradition of authoritarian strong men and that certain US policies has certainly contributed to the chaos, I do not believe that gives Chavez the excuse to continue in that tradition.

[peacetalksforall]

65. Have you told us exactly what you mean? I disagree completely and

that was the point of what I wrote.

A list - in context - and who says so?

Naturally, I will throw out anything that comes out of a World Bank, Rice-o-rama, the CIA or any of the ohter intelligence sources, the oil companies, the very rich Venezuelans, especially those living in the U.S. or Europe, any right wing funding system, etc. I might believe something coming from Spain.

[Maestro]

36. Personally, I am not sure about Chavez.

Thusly I have avoided most threads about him. I have too many Venezuelan friends that have told me horror stories about him. He may be anti-*, but I am not sure he is completely working for the "people."

[rman]

115. do you have many Venezuelan friends in the poor neighborhoods?

(the neighborhoods where most polling corporations - especially "independent" US polling corps - do no poll)
Do your friends tell you about the subsidized food stores, and the schools and hospitals being build in neighborhoods?
Chavez is definitely not working to make the rich richer still, but those are hardly representative of "The People".

[Maestro]

129. No, according to them

they are middle class with hard working parents; not the elite rich by any means. I have brought that up with them on several ocassions. They complain about the unrest, the ruined economy, etc... I will speak to them tomorrow and get back to you. It has been a while since we even talked about Chavez.

[Judi Lynn]

132. You'll be delighted, then, to be brought up to date on the economy:

Knight-Ridder/Tribune Information Services - November 1, 2005




Economic Growth is a Home Run in Venezuela
By Mark Weisbrot

CARACAS - "Viva Chavez," shouted Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen, as the team celebrated its World Series sweep last week. Guillen is Venezuelan, and a national hero in this country of 25 million people who seem to believe that they too, along with Chicagoans, have won the World Series.

His cheer for the country's leftist President Hugo Chavez might have caused some reaction just a year or two ago. But these days it went largely unnoticed, despite the continuing hostility between the Chavez government and the Bush administration. Relations between the two governments have been sour since the Bush administration supported a military coup against Chavez in April 2002, as well as a failed attempt to recall him last year.

But Chavez' popularity is now among the highest of any president in Latin America, with a 77 percent approval rating, according to the latest polling.

A few economic statistics go a long way in explaining why the Venezuelan government is doing so well and the opposition, which still controls most of the media and has most of the country's income, is flagging.

After growing nearly 18 percent last year, the Venezuelan economy has expanded 9.3 percent for the first half of this year - the fastest economic growth in the hemisphere. Although the government's detractors like to say this is just a result of high oil prices, it is not so simple.

Oil prices were even higher and rose much faster in the 1970s. But Venezuela's income per person actually fell during the 1970s. In fact, for the 28 years that preceded the current government (1970-1998), Venezuela suffered one of the worst economic declines in Latin America and the world: per capita income fell by 35 percent. This is a worse decline than even sub-Saharan Africa suffered during this period, and shows how completely dysfunctional the economic policies of the old system had become.

Although Chavez talks about building "21st century socialism," the Venezuelan government's economic policies are gradualist reform, more akin to a European-style social democracy. The private sector is actually a larger share of the Venezuelan economy today than it was before Chavez took office.

One important reform, long advocated by the International Monetary Fund, has been the improvement of tax collection. By requiring both foreign and domestically-owned companies to pay the taxes they owe, the government actually increased tax collection even during the deep recession of 2003 -- a rare economic feat.

As a result, the government is currently running a budget surplus, despite billions of dollars of increased social spending that now provides subsidized food to 40 percent of the population, health care for millions of poor people, and greatly increased education spending. The official poverty rate has fallen to 38.5 percent from its most recent peak of 54 percent after the opposition oil strike. But this measures only cash income; if the food subsidies and health care were taken into account, it would be well under 30 percent.
(snip/...)

http://www.cepr.net/columns/weisbrot/2005_11_01.htm

[Maestro]

159. Very nice article.

Like I said, I am just unsure about the whole Chavez thing because of what I hear from my Venezuelan friends. That is a good article that I will definitely share with them. Thanks for the link.

[Judi Lynn]

133. You might be delighted to get up to date on the economy:

Knight-Ridder/Tribune Information Services - November 1, 2005




Economic Growth is a Home Run in Venezuela
By Mark Weisbrot

CARACAS - "Viva Chavez," shouted Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen, as the team celebrated its World Series sweep last week. Guillen is Venezuelan, and a national hero in this country of 25 million people who seem to believe that they too, along with Chicagoans, have won the World Series.

His cheer for the country's leftist President Hugo Chavez might have caused some reaction just a year or two ago. But these days it went largely unnoticed, despite the continuing hostility between the Chavez government and the Bush administration. Relations between the two governments have been sour since the Bush administration supported a military coup against Chavez in April 2002, as well as a failed attempt to recall him last year.

But Chavez' popularity is now among the highest of any president in Latin America, with a 77 percent approval rating, according to the latest polling.

A few economic statistics go a long way in explaining why the Venezuelan government is doing so well and the opposition, which still controls most of the media and has most of the country's income, is flagging.

After growing nearly 18 percent last year, the Venezuelan economy has expanded 9.3 percent for the first half of this year - the fastest economic growth in the hemisphere. Although the government's detractors like to say this is just a result of high oil prices, it is not so simple.

Oil prices were even higher and rose much faster in the 1970s. But Venezuela's income per person actually fell during the 1970s. In fact, for the 28 years that preceded the current government (1970-1998), Venezuela suffered one of the worst economic declines in Latin America and the world: per capita income fell by 35 percent. This is a worse decline than even sub-Saharan Africa suffered during this period, and shows how completely dysfunctional the economic policies of the old system had become.

Although Chavez talks about building "21st century socialism," the Venezuelan government's economic policies are gradualist reform, more akin to a European-style social democracy. The private sector is actually a larger share of the Venezuelan economy today than it was before Chavez took office.

One important reform, long advocated by the International Monetary Fund, has been the improvement of tax collection. By requiring both foreign and domestically-owned companies to pay the taxes they owe, the government actually increased tax collection even during the deep recession of 2003 -- a rare economic feat.

As a result, the government is currently running a budget surplus, despite billions of dollars of increased social spending that now provides subsidized food to 40 percent of the population, health care for millions of poor people, and greatly increased education spending. The official poverty rate has fallen to 38.5 percent from its most recent peak of 54 percent after the opposition oil strike. But this measures only cash income; if the food subsidies and health care were taken into account, it would be well under 30 percent.
(snip/...)

http://www.cepr.net/columns/weisbrot/2005_11_01.htm

[mitchtv]

171. reminds me of Chile's "middle Class" and Cuba's "middle class"

before them. Longing for the days of privilege. Rabidly opposing any change. Economy ruined by them,unrest started by them, complete with gringo inteference.

[Pastiche423]

43. No links - no credibility

Pure M$M propaganda. :eyes:

Do you even know what happened on April 12, 2002? And if you do, do you realize who the culprits were?


VIVA CHAVEZ!

[BL611]

51. See post #50

[Pastiche423]

56. Answer my questions

[BL611]

57. Ok there was a coup attempted against him

most likely with help from the CIA, of course 10 years earlier Chavez attempted a coup himself....

and of course none of this is relevant to the links you so wanted to see.

[killbotfactory]

44. I agree, democratically elected leaders are assholes

Thankfully, we don't have that here in the USA.

[Pastiche423]

49. Hmmm, don't you mean

Dieboldly elected leaders?

[SPKrazy]

52. He May Not Be A Hero

But he was duly elected, and he ran in the face of the fascists in his country.

They may only have choices there between fascism and socialism. But Socialism in it's pure form is a wonderful idea.

Don't know if he is "authoritarian" or that he is a dictator.

He is a hell of a lot better as far as I can tell than what we have for a leader!

[Popol Vuh]

53. I am curious

But have you ever been to Venezuela? I am going to assume you haven't. So I am also going to assume that you have no independent knowledge about Chávez. However the people of Venezuela do have independent knowledge of Chávez; they live under his leadership and despite U.S. CIA attempts of coup and subversion, the citizens of Venezuela freely chose Chávez. So he's hardly a "dictator".

Lastly, since I am pretty sure you've never lived in Venezuela, may I ask you how aware of CIA covert operations in Central & South America are you? I ask this because I believe you're trying to judge something of which you're not qualified to judge -- especially since it looks apparent that you're not considering the cause and effect of U.S. covert meddling.

[BL611]

55. As I said above

I am aware of how US policies and interference have brought chaos to the region, if the citizens choose to live under him, then he has no reason to undermine their democratic rights.

No I have never been to Venezuela, I have spoken to people who are from there, many of whom are left oriented; and they are no fans of his.

[thoughtanarchist]

67. Got evidence of undermining the democratic rights of his people?

You have posted nothing that lends credence to this assertion. You have only noted "human rights abuses" related to keeping order during times of *violent* civil unrest, and even those cite injudicious use of NON-Lethal weapons by govt. security.

You have yet to make your case.

[magellan]

75. These Venezuelans you've spoken to

Are they classified among the 80% of poverty-stricken Venezuelans? The ones who now have an opportunity to gain an education, work for a living wage, receive healthcare, etc. because of Chavez? Or are they Venezuelans who are now living in the US?

[oblivious]

58. Let's compare HRW's reports on Venezuela and the US.

Complaints about Venezuela:
1. Adding 12 new justices to the supreme court

2. regulations for the content of television and radio programs - e.g no more condoning or inciting public disturbances or publishing messages contrary to the security of the nation

3. Increased penalties for desacato (disrespect), criminal defamation, and libel

4. police killings - (a) 3 students were accidentally killed in a car chase (b) not enough progress has been made in prosecuting police and military for the former problem of extrajudicial executions

5. prisons - over crowded, gang problems

6. Border security/refugees - Columbians are crossing into Venezuela for a safer future to escape gangs (Why did they include this as a Venezuelan problem???)

7. A few NGOs have been discredited

8. doesn't get along with the US
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/venezu12258.htm

Complaints about the US:

1. Guantanamo Bay and Military Commissions - 505 men held, only 9 charged, including a 15-year-old Canadian

2. Torture policy - US says it doesn't, but this "doesn't apply to the conduct of nonmilitary U.S. personnel interrogating non-U.S. citizens outside of the United States"

3. Detainee abuse - "Reports of abuse of detainees in U.S. custody in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and at secret detention facilities continue to mount... Additional evidence also emerged in 2005 about cases of extraordinary rendition"

4. Al-Marri and Padilla -

5. Material Witnesses -

6. Incarceration - The United States incarcerates people at a greater rate than any other country, 724 per one hundred thousand residents. Seven million people, or one in every thirty-one persons, is in prison, or on probation or parole. Black men between the ages of twenty-five and twenty-nine are seven times more likely than their white counterparts to be in prison or jail.

7. The Death Penalty and Other Cruel Sentences -

8. HIV/AIDS -

9. Katrina -

10. Immigration - A law passed this year amends U.S. asylum policy in ways that violate international legal standards.

11. International Treaty Obligations
The United States submitted two human rights reports this year, one to the Committee against Torture (CAT) on its compliance with the Convention against Torture and one (eight years overdue) to the Human Rights Committee on its compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Unfortunately, the reports are little more than a compendium of laws and selected federal legal proceedings. The Bush administration says little in either report about its counter-terrorism detention and interrogation policies or about other U.S. actions, whether by federal, state, or local authorities, inconsistent with U.S. treaty obligations."
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/usdom12292.htm#Guantanamo%20Bay%20and%20Military%20Commissions

[Popol Vuh]

59. HRW numbers 1 & 2

I'd be willing to bet anything that those have more to do with measures being taken to counter CIA covert operations than any other reason.

I am just saying....

[Solon]

60. Excellent post...

To be honest, Venezuela is no worse than France, and probably better to begin with, no Nepoleanic code to follow, and is ten times better than the US at human rights. The most disturbing thing is the Prison situation, which has been going on for over a decade, well before Chavez came into office. The other are the police abuses, but HRW seems to complain about the LACK of federal oversight for local problems. The thing people seem to forget is that many local offices are still held by the opposition, mayors, etc. So Chavez can do little to help except threatening them with some type of legal action. Even then the effect would be limited, and there is little evidence to support that the Federal Government is ENCOURAGING police brutality, unlike here, when they give millions of dollars to the Miami PD to break peoples' heads.

[Popol Vuh]

64. Thank you Solon

For you reply.

Also good post by yourself. :)

[thoughtanarchist]

68. This lays it out pretty good right here...

Good Post. Here's an objective slice of truth I can sink my teeth into.

I fail to see any leap of logic from the above complaints about Venezuela to "Dictator that infringes upon the democratic rights of his people".

Thanks and Bookmarked.

[madfloridian]

76. More details from packing the courts.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/venezu12258.htm

I posted this above more completely, but it did not get noticed. Good post on comparison. Thanks.

[thoughtanarchist]

80. ...assuming that everything in that article is true...

that makes Venezuela sound almost as bad as the US (that is if the US had the will to help out the poorest among us), and it's not all that bad here -- yet.

But I will not try to make a case for moral equivalence as that is a weak argument. The case I CAN make is that of the availability of reliable data. It's evident how difficult it can be to get reliable info when your political opponents are big money interests with powerful media muscles. (see SB-VT) and near impossible when the topic is a foreign country (see Haiti)

That being the case, it's not unreasonable to view the condemnations from media and NGOs as the result of a well funded and well connected political opposition intent on overthrowing an oil rich nation for opportunistic reasons.

Do not forget who his opposition is: big money, old money, oil money, and foreign money. If this is a case of a lesser of 2 evils we definitely have the lesser.

At the end of the day I see a country where more people are doing a lot better than they would do had Chavez been overthrown. That alone makes him worthy of the benefit of the doubt.

Do you disagree, or are you just arguing that he could do better still?

[madfloridian]

85. I don't really have an opinion on it, and I am not against Chavez

I just have some problems with so many here being for him than for our country. I don't like what our country is doing, but I am working to change my party first then maybe the country if it is not too late.

[Judi Lynn]

88. Some of us believe Bush is not "our country."His foreign policy is hideous

at every level.

You really would benefit by starting to find out more about the history of Republican Presidents and their Latin American policy, especially from Eisenhower forward.

It won't hurt much and it's certain better than not really knowing what has happened.

George W. Bush is NOT America. People in Latin America are keenly aware of this, as well.

On edit:

No one's going to point to me as unpatriotic because I am aware of vile, vicious actions taken by American Republican Presidents. That's going WAY too far.

Don't even try to make those insinuations against Democrats who don't support right-wing brutality. It's completely innappropriate, and truly crude.

[madfloridian]

97. I did NOT say those things. You are not telling the truth. NOT true.

Here is the exact post you responded to in that ugly way:

"I don't really have an opinion on it, and I am not against Chavez
I just have some problems with so many here being for him than for our country. I don't like what our country is doing, but I am working to change my party first then maybe the country if it is not too late."

My Lord, where did you get all that stuff you posted. You guys do this to me all the time, alert on me, and say things I never said.

Apology will be accepted.

[Judi Lynn]

98. Believing it's dead wrong for Bush to butt into Venezuela so crudely

and to believe the people of Venezuela's very own elections should be respected, and they should be allowed to work with their president to form new goals and make the progress which has been denied them is NOT being "against America."

The people of Venezuela have suffered for ages, and their elected leader is trying to help them pull out of the hell they've been living in. The people maintain that if they lose Chavez now, the movement will surely go on. I hope they get the chance to make it without more U.S. interference.

No one sensible can imagine there is any choice between Hugo Chavez and OUR COUNTRY. It's a real puzzler from here. What on earth can you mean by that?

_{George W. Bush} needs to butt out of Venezuelan's internal affairs. It's none of his business. Period.

[madfloridian]

101. That is not an apology for the things you accused me of.

I did not appreciate them. I am an active worker for change, and I don't like what you said about me.

[Judi Lynn]

102. Of course not. You're correct. n/t

[madfloridian]

103. Here is what else you said, I resent it. I did NOT say it.

Your quote:

"On edit:

No one's going to point to me as unpatriotic because I am aware of vile, vicious actions taken by American Republican Presidents. That's going WAY too far.

Don't even try to make those insinuations against Democrats who don't support right-wing brutality. It's completely innappropriate, and truly crude."

I did not say or insinuate those things. If you want to discuss, be fair. I do not even know where you got them. I am tired of people making up stuff I say.

I taught school, I taught history, I am NOT stupid and ignorant. I know my country has done bad things. You are just way overboard with this, talking down to me like I am dumb.

[Judi Lynn]

104. How long do you intend to scuffle over this? You wrote the following:

I just have some problems with so many here being for him than for our country.

People who believe Hugo Chavez should be respected formally by the "leader" of this country and left to do his job in peace, and in safety, with no threat of another U.S.-backed coup, etc., are NOT AGAINST THIS COUNTRY. They are NOT enemies of the state.

Couldn't be simpler.

[madfloridian]

106. Well, guess what, I believe that also.

You took a few words I said and you twisted them all out of proportion. This is happening here all the time to anyone who doesn't toe the line of supporting Chavez and attacking Democrats.

It is out of control, and I did not deserve what you accused me of saying. It is being fed at a couple of other forums, and DU is taking the brunt of it. If the admin doesn't mind, neither do I....but I won't be attacked unjustly.

Stuff like that is getting this forum to be a very unpleasant place.

I think many of you are in for a shock as our other Democrats start speaking out. They are no way in hell they are going to support Chavez. That is reality. Right or wrong, that is the way it is.

[Judi Lynn]

108. No one asks you to support the man.

Many people feel they are correct in believing it's time to leave Latin America the hell alone. It would seem to be a genuine wish among the people in South and Central America. It's time to stop shoving them around.

You're going to have to stop interjecting yourself personally into these situations. This is not about you. If you don't want to discuss things calmly, please excuse us while we discuss among ourselves.

Don't try to label us, to insist we are fringe people, that only you can speak for Democrats. I don't think that's the case, but this really isn't a situation to personalize. That's simply wrong. Clearly wrong.

[madfloridian]

109. No, wrong again. You are the ones labeling us.

The attacks here on those of us who are moderate, not even centrist, just moderate....are getting worse.

I have every right to inject myself into threads that concern me. That is not your decision to make.

I am worried that at this crucial time in history so many are willing to hurt the party as it is rebuilding.

I will post in threads I wish. I am tired of being called a good German. I am tired of people telling me to read up on history, as I damn well taught the stuff. For over 30 years.

I am a realist. I see the bad things in the party and the country, but they are mine. I don't like being criticized for working with them.

[Auntie Bush]

148. I'm beginning to think DU is a wasp nest of

neo-liberals who are far far left of center. The attacks here on those of us who are moderate, not even centrist, just moderate....are getting worse" or intolerable!!! DU seems to always be in attack mode. No one can intelligently discuss anything...someone always disagrees and gets nasty. I wish we could wittiness more posts that simply say, "Let's agree to disagree" instead of ramming their own personal opinion down the throats of others. Put on your safety belts be for you enter this place. I'm beginning to think I'll have to vacate this place when the election gets near. "If you can't stand the heat...get out of the kitchen" sounds good to me. I'll go into the living room and sit by the fire with a glass of wine and you guys can stay in the kitchen and get burnt!

[druidity33]

144. don't take offense...

To be honest, when i read your post the first time, i thought you were saying the same thing as the other poster thought... people on this forum and many others like it are accustomed to trying to figure who's lurking, freeping, flaming, whatever... a consequence of all the eavesdropping and gov't interfernce, no doubt. I just read an article recently about how blogs and computers and shortcuts have eroded our language... parsed it to bits and dots, instead of curved lines and organic forms. In other words, your phrasing was off and it led people to a different impression of what you said than you had intended. When someone jumps on my back and starts pulling my hair (metaphorically of course) in this venue, i try to step back, take a breath and reread what i've written to see if it could have been misinterpreted, then try and clear up any confusion. IME, demanding an apology before the whole "clear up any confusion" part is tried doesn't work too well.

Anyway, Chavez is cool... but that doesn't mean i'm not calling Senators today!!! FILIBUSTER!

Ahhh, just noticed an erosion of my language by including IME (in my experience)...

Be well.

[madfloridian]

152. Reposting what I said. My words were twisted and expanded.

There was no way to get to where that person got from what I said. I am tired of the attacks here because I am a Democrat who is not willing to go to the extremes. And yes, those attacks are happening.

Here is what I said.

"I don't really have an opinion on it, and I am not against Chavez
I just have some problems with so many here being for him than for our country. I don't like what our country is doing, but I am working to change my party first then maybe the country if it is not too late."

And here the "edited" response to me on that quote of mine. It was wrong, and there was no way my post could have been interpreted as such.

Some of us believe Bush is not "our country."His foreign policy is hideous
Edited on Sun Jan-29-06 02:07 AM by Judi Lynn

at every level.

You really would benefit by starting to find out more about the history of Republican Presidents and their Latin American policy, especially from Eisenhower forward.

It won't hurt much and it's certain better than not really knowing what has happened.

George W. Bush is NOT America. People in Latin America are keenly aware of this, as well.

On edit:

No one's going to point to me as unpatriotic because I am aware of vile, vicious actions taken by American Republican Presidents. That's going WAY too far.

Don't even try to make those insinuations against Democrats who don't support right-wing brutality. It's completely innappropriate, and truly crude.

See what I mean?

[druidity33]

175. too vague...

"I just have some problems with so many here being for him than for our country"

This is VERY vague and interpretable in many ways... i read it as you being in favor of US/CIA backed attempts to topple Chavez (ie. in favor of Bush's policies)... and at the same time it implies that people who are in favor of Chavez cannot be in favor of "our country" While i agree with you that "Judy Lynn" should have asked for clarification on your post rather than attacking you outright for that statement, i cannot change how i felt when i first read it... regardless of what you meant by it. This is a tense time for all of us... but the thing i love about this site (freeps and instigators notwithstanding) is that it is a forum for REASONED debate. Picking fights with each other doesn't help... can't we all make nice? Judy Lynn... how bout a lil "sorry"? MFloridian, i get all riled up about Venezuela too, so i can understand JL's passionate response to the percieved slight, how bout a "no hard feelings" note?

Peace.

[thoughtanarchist]

139. Don't get upset MF, but...

this is not a basketball game.

Don't fall into the Right Wing frame of any position having to be "for" and "against". The Right created that frame for a reason. People like to simplify things into a simple dichotomy. But how often is US foreign policy that simple?

[madfloridian]

157. That is patronizing talk.

It is talking to me as though I were a child. I resent it. Many are getting concerned about the same things. Excuse me, but the for or against frame is exactly what the far left is using to hurt the Democratic party right now.

Count the threads that threaten to withhold support from the party unless....and oodles and oodles of issues can be used.

1. Unless we pull out of Iraq NOW.

2. OMG did Dean just call the Latin American leaders left leaning? OMFG.

3. If they don't do this, I'm gone.

4. If they don't do that, I'm gone.

5. I called the DNC today and told them to stop my monthly payments.

I could go on forever.

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

188. You used a lot words meaning nothing.

.

[thoughtanarchist]

203. To you perhaps... This might help...

http://www.m-w.com/">Merriam Webster Online

Feel free to look up the terms you don't know and unlock the meaning of my words.

[rman]

226. Do you mean being for Chavez = being against the US?

Or perhaps you mean that being for Chavez somehow prevents one from "changing the party"?

I don't think one excludes the other.

[Douglas Carpenter]

123. and let's compare his record to the largest recepients of U.S. aid

I would be very suspicious of all this U.S. media concern about Chavez's human rights record which incidently has improved dramatically since his government took office. And for the record Chavez's record with the above mentioned human rights groups is no worse and probably not as bad as the U.S. and many other western democracies and far worse than that of the leading receipients of U.S. Aid.

link: http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Propaganda/Venezuela.asp

"Reporting on the ongoing issues, such as the protests and Chavez’s economic policies in Venezuela have shown similar signs of one-sidedness, from both the mainstream media of western countries such as the U.S. and U.K., and from Venezuela’s own elite anti-Chavez media, which “controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and ... played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April 2002.... The media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president — if necessary by force.”


here are the three largest receipient of U.S. aid (after Iraq) in order:

1. Israel - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=isrlpa

2. Egypt - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=egypt

3. Columbia - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=colomb


and here is the report on the U.S.'s own human rights record:

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa

[High Plains]

63. Your post is pure, reguritated anti-Chavez propaganda.

You've been talking to "left-leaning" Venezuelans who complain about him? I somehow doubt it.

You call Chavez an "authoritarian dictator" when he is the popular, democratically elected leader of the country.

You rhetorically link Chavez to Stalin and Mao, which is quite a stretch, but they are scary bogeymen.

You accuse Chavez of "a complete disregard for democracy and human rights" when even the human rights groups you cite don't even come close to saying that.

You tout that fact that Chavez has been "condemned" by AI and HRW when probably ever country on the planet is criticized for something by those groups.

You claim that Chavez "ERADICATED" the Senate as if he had performed a coup d'etat when it was abolished as part of democratic reform of institutions.

Why are you here?

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AllieB]

69. My neighbors are Venezuelan

They love Chavez, which has a little more credibility as your original post. You derive your attitudes and knowledge from the right-wing media and historical ignorance, just as my neighbors derive their beliefs from being raised as part of a very small middle-class, until Chavez took power. So, their views are colored by their actual experience living in Venezuela, whereas yours are derived from your specific set of prejudices.

Chavez was democratically elected. He is loved by his people. The coup against him was engineered by the Venezuelan oligarchy and backed by the US.

Putting his name in the same sentence with Mao and Stalin is not only inflammatory, but displays an unabashed ignorance of history and South American politics. Can I ask why you posted something before checking your facts?

I find it very suspicious when posters indirectly accuse DUers who supports Chavez as part of that 'fringe left' who supported Stalin after WWII. I thought that old canard was dead and gone, but apparently, it still airs regularly on Fox News.

[arikara]

176. Finally, someone who knows some actual Venezuelans!

Most of these Chavez haters imply... all using the same type of language... that they have swarms of Venezuelan friends who all dislike Chavez because he's a dictator.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

222. I wish I could tell

that the OPs attitudes and knowledge were derived from the right wing media and historical ignorance. Telepathy must be very useful to you. And *everyone's* views are, by definition, derived from "their specific set of prejudices". That doesn't have anything to do with whether they're right or not.

I don't know what his or your views are derived from, but I'm afraid I don't attatch any value to anecdotal evidence. Information from neighbours is all very well, but unless you know enough Venezuelans to be a statistically significant sample it doesn't tell you much. Would you assume Bush was a good thing if your neighbours loved him?

Chavez was undoubtedly Democratically elected, and does appear to remain extremely popular. That doesn't mean he's not a bad ruler; the same is true of a great many others. I don't know enough about Venezuela to be certain whether or not the accusations of human rights violations and of lack of respect for human rights are valid, but it seems more likely than not to me that quite a lot of them are, and if they are then whether or not Chavez has a popular mandate is irrelevant.

[Judi Lynn]

225. It might be very beneficial to you to start trying to find out more about

Venezuela, the way many other DU'ers have been doing for years. It would enhance your ability to speak with credibility on the subject.

[IndianaGreen]

71. Viva Chavez! Down with Bush!

Death to American imperialism! US Out of Iraq!

:P

There you have it, my entire political philosophy in a sound bite!

[Deja Q]

72. The reminder much appreciated. Thank you!

K&R

:applause:

[Vidar]

77. Chavez was elected. bush wasn't

[HeeBGBz]

190. Good one! n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

194. Chavez's Venezuela has more free speech and press than the U.S.

would ever allow. If anyone of us tried to practice the degree of freedom of expression that is openly expressed in Venezuela 24 hours a day/7days a week -- we would be in jail very, very fast.

This is the exact same nonsense being perpetrated on gullible Americans that was sold during the days of Nicaraguan democracy and independence and Chilean democracy and independence. In spite of the fact that the local private elite-owned media is overwhelmingly hostile to the point of supporting force and violence against the popular democratically elected government (something that would never be allowed in the U.S. or almost anywhere else for that matter) we hear the same Orwellian-automaton chants about dictatorship over and over and over and over again.

link:

http://mondediplo.com/2002/08/10venezuela

snip: "Never even in Latin American history has the media been so directly involved in a political coup. Venezuela’s ’hate media’ controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and it played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April. Although tensions in the country could easily spill into civil war, the media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president - if necessary by force."

snip:

"After Chávez came to power in 1998, the five main privately owned channels - Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), Globovisión and CMT - and nine of the 10 major national newspapers, including El Universal, El Nacional, Tal Cual, El Impulso, El Nuevo País, and El Mundo, have taken over the role of the traditional political parties, which were damaged by the president’s electoral victories. Their monopoly on information has put them in a strong position. They give the opposition support, only rarely reporting government statements and never mentioning its large majority, despite that majority’s confirmation at the ballot box. They have always described the working class districts as a red zone inhabited by dangerous classes of ignorant people and delinquents. No doubt considering them unphotogenic, they ignore working class leaders and organisations."

snip: ""Take to the streets" thundered El Nacional on 10 April (in an unattributed editorial). "Ni un paso atrás! (not one step backwards)" responded the hoardings on Globovisión. Another TV company broadcast: "Venezuelans, take to the streets on Thursday 11 April at 10am. Bring your flags. For freedom and democracy. Venezuela will not surrender. No one will defeat us." The call to overthrow the head of state became so obvious that the government applied Article 192 of the telecommunications law. More than 30 times -for all television and radio channels - it requisitioned 15-20 minutes’ air time to broadcast its views. But the broadcasters divided the screen in two and continued to urge rebellion."

[radwriter0555]

81. Chavez is the face of the Modern World and Socialism as we know it. He's

a good, honest man who wants nothing but the best for his people.

I put him above CASTRO as great world leaders. He has my support, and the USA would do well to find a leader with half his integrity, passion and ethics.

Sorry pal, you wasted a RT ticket trying to demonize him. Anyone with half a brain knows Chavez ROCKS!

[Auntie Bush]

86. Check this site out if you want to know something about Chevez.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/venezu12258.htm

[Judi Lynn]

89. Check this site out if you want to know something about HRW.

HRW was set up by the United States government to monitor human rights in Eastern Europe following the signature of the Helsinki Accords. Initially, the group was called Helsinki Watch (NB: there is a British group with the same name – specializes in monitoring elections…). The United States used Helsinki Watch for propaganda purposes, and to amplify the "human rights" contradictions in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In this it was singularly successful, and it led to the broadening of HRW to cover additional regions. HRW-Americas, etc. and it also spun off the Index on Censorship, the latter to monitor abuses of "freedom of the press". HRW may claim that it is independent and nongovernmental, but its origins inidicate that these properties were absent.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Watch#External_links

[Taxloss]

93. Wow. I've seen polarisation distort people, but this is something else.

HRW was set up under the Carter administration. Yes, its early role was to pressurise the Soviet Union and its European clients. Maybe you would have preferred sabre-rattling, nuclear brinkmanship and threats of a phantom satellite Star Wars missile shield. Not everything that emanates from the American government is a bad thing. It's so sad to see decent organisations get slated on DU because they criticise one of its "patron saints". Not everything is partisan.

Index on Censorship is also a wonderful organisation. So please think about the damage you do to decent people doing good work before you falsely criticise them for being government shills.

[jonnyblitz]

94. the carter administration didn't exactly have clean hands

read up on what went down in el salvador in the 70's while carter was in power. I am currently reading a book by the catholic maryknoll priest who started "school of america's watch" who LIVED with the poor in El Salvador during Carter's reign. just because the president was a democrat doesn't mean shady CIA backed stuff didn't go down in other lands.

[Judi Lynn]

96. Thanks for the tip about Carter's watch and El Salvador. I haven't had

time to look into that, yet, and now I'll make time. Really appreciate it.

[Judi Lynn]

95. Open letter to the director of Human Rights Watch:

Dear Mr. Roth, I would kindly ask you to re-read this last paragraph:
“But the information was not of the quality for us to do any reporting. Beyond that, we made inquiries to the US Government, and other press. To the best of our knowledge no banned weapons were used during either battle of Falluja.”
Why the best of Human Rights Watch’s knowledge didn’t include:
1) Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin. (U.S. Forces Battle Into Heart of Fallujah, by Jackie Spinner, Karl Vick and Omar Fekeiki, Washington Post, November 10, 2004)

2) The US occupation troops are gassing resistance fighters and confronting them with internationally-banned chemical weapons,” resistance sources told Al-Quds Press Wednesday, November 10. (US Troops Reportedly Gassing Fallujah, Islam OnLine, November 10, 2004)

3) The U.S. military has used poison gas and other non-conventional weapons against civilians in Fallujah, eyewitnesses report. ('Unusual Weapons' Used in Fallujah, by Dahr Jamail, November 26, 2004)

4) “I saw cluster bombs everywhere, and so many bodies that were burned, dead with no bullets in them. So they definitely used fire weapons, especially in Julan district.” (An Eyewitness Account of Fallujah, by Dahr Jamail, December 16, 2004)

5) White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out. (…) We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions. ("The Fight for Fallujah," a "memorandum for record" by Captain James T. Cobb, First Lieutenant Christopher A. LaCour, and Sergeant First Class William H. Hight, published in the March-April 2005 issue of the US Army's Field Artillery magazine)

6) “Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused. (…)"Gun up!" Millikin yelled when they finished a few seconds later, grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube. "Fire!" Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it. The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.” (Violence Subsides for Marines in Fallujah, by Darrin Mortenson, North County Times, Saturday, April 10, 2004)
I am not making any charge. I am just asking questions. Is it still possible to ask questions in these dark times of preemptive wars? After embedded journalists, shall we have embedded human rights organizations? Shouldn’t Caesar's wife be above suspicion?

Kind regards,

Gabriele Zamparini

http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/2005/12/watching-human-rights-watch-open.htm

[bvar22]

91. And check out this website if you want to know something about HRW

http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=3220

"Its network became a web of support for pro-capitalist forces and political dissidents in every country."

This was all discussed, debunked, and discarded upthread.

[oasis]

99. After reading almost 100 posts on this thread, I'm behind Chavez even more

Thanks for the refresher course.:hi:

[rman]

120. "backfire", anyone?

One would expect the propagandists to become more clever over time, but no...

[madfloridian]

100. This thread scares me about what DU is becoming.

The OP was NOT condemning Chavez, just pointing out some things. Several of us were pointing out that loyalties to party and country are not bad things, and we got blasted.

This is scaring me. I have a lot of admiration for Chavez, and I despise Bush. I think a lot of our Democrats are out of line.

However if you guys who support Chavez keep putting the rest of us down, you are hurting yourselves very badly. You are putting DU under possible scrutiny.

Reality is reality right now, and most Americans are not that understanding about Chavez and the other Latin American leaders. Go ahead, blast me, call me a good German, say I am being nationalistic, say whatever you like.

You are not hurting me. Trust me, you are not.

The other day someone in this thread made fun of me for saying the word "reasonable". OMG, I was condemned to hell for that. What is wrong? What is going on?

[oblivious]

105. The thing is, MF, you seem to present this as an 'either-or' issue.

Sort of, either you're for the US or you're for Chavez. Just because the right wing has framed it that way doesn't mean we have to accept it. I'm not saying you are right-wing, but that's the way they have framed it too.

I don't accept that there has to be a choice at all. A right-wing America can easily have a good relationship with a left-wing Venezuela, just as it has a perfectly good relationship with Holland or Norway. They just have to live and let live.

[madfloridian]

107. And people should let the rest of us live and let live as well.

You read the threads here again. Most of us are sensible people working to save our country. In many ways it is you guys making it an either or deal.

It is getting scary when I am attacked for standing up to change the party instead of siding with Chavez.

The other night and old friend (I thought) from here called me a "good German." That did it for me. Standing with my country and my Democrats is not being a good German.....not when I am trying to affect change.

I am very tired of it.

[Popol Vuh]

110. Am I the only one who wonders what this means?

"It is getting scary when I am attacked for standing up to change the party..."

Madfloridian what exactly do you mean by (you) changing the party? Do you mean more liberal or more conservative? And what qualifies your ideas on what the Democrat party should be Vs someone else's ideas they harbor for themself? I mean do you think of the rest of us as so low that only the ideas you have are correct and anyone of disagrees must be changed to see things your way? You don't see the arrogance in that?

I could be wrong but that's how you're coming across to me. I am just saying..

[0007]

138. I'll second that!

[rman]

114. "change the party instead of siding with Chavez" ; either-or

just saying.

[madfloridian]

178. Good German....just saying.

I remember the other thread well, and the pain I felt at old friends from here understanding my motives on purpose.

The assumptions that I was not intelligent enough to "understand" about all things Chavez.

I have had it, and I will not go along with this bunch in any way.

It is fast becoming an either or thing, and it is not my doing. If there is a 3rd independent party formed it is more likely to be of moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats.That is a distinct possibility, a ticket like that. I would go for that over the ones here who are impossible to please, and who have the nerve to call people who work their butts off Good Germans.

Then it carried elsewhere, and I was insulted again by people who know I am not one to sit idly by and and not fight. Shame on the ones attacking us here, and the ones did it before.

[rman]

112. Yeah, the OP merely called Chavez an authoritarian dictator

That's obviously no condemnation, is it?

Trying to both have your cake and eat it, again.

[fishwax]

219. The OP wasn't condemning Chavez? What OP did you read?

the one where he implicitly called him an authoritarian dictator? The one where he ridiculed the perceived gullibility of the left? He was clearly trying to be provocative, and (surprise) he provoked a response.

[rman]

111. Nice try but you failed to show Chavez is an "authoritarian dictator"

The way to "look closely" at Chavez is to inform yourself by means of some other sources besides the MSM. I and many here have done so, it seems you have not.

[oblivious]

118. Look at the associations in that opening paragraph:

"authoritarian dictators ...antagonistic to America and capitalism ... Stalin, Mao, and the rest of the gang ... complete disregard for democracy and human rights in the effort to concentrate power..."

This has to be THE propaganda piece of the week on Democratic Underground. I think some sort of prize is warranted.

[rman]

119. Economic Growth is a Home Run in Venezuela

Economic Growth is a Home Run in Venezuela
By Mark Weisbrot
http://www.cepr.net/columns/weisbrot/2005_11_01.htm

CARACAS - "Viva Chavez," shouted Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen, as the team celebrated its World Series sweep last week. Guillen is Venezuelan, and a national hero in this country of 25 million people who seem to believe that they too, along with Chicagoans, have won the World Series.

His cheer for the country's leftist President Hugo Chavez might have caused some reaction just a year or two ago. But these days it went largely unnoticed, despite the continuing hostility between the Chavez government and the Bush administration. Relations between the two governments have been sour since the Bush administration supported a military coup against Chavez in April 2002, as well as a failed attempt to recall him last year.

But Chavez' popularity is now among the highest of any president in Latin America, with a 77 percent approval rating, according to the latest polling.

A few economic statistics go a long way in explaining why the Venezuelan government is doing so well and the opposition, which still controls most of the media and has most of the country's income, is flagging.

After growing nearly 18 percent last year, the Venezuelan economy has expanded 9.3 percent for the first half of this year - the fastest economic growth in the hemisphere. Although the government's detractors like to say this is just a result of high oil prices, it is not so simple.

Oil prices were even higher and rose much faster in the 1970s. But Venezuela's income per person actually fell during the 1970s. In fact, for the 28 years that preceded the current government (1970-1998), Venezuela suffered one of the worst economic declines in Latin America and the world: per capita income fell by 35 percent. This is a worse decline than even sub-Saharan Africa suffered during this period, and shows how completely dysfunctional the economic policies of the old system had become.
(snip/...)


(thanks to Judi Lynn for first posting this article)

[Judi Lynn]

136. Sorry,rman,I posted it at #133, before I saw your own post.Maybe they'll

be more likely to acquaint themslves with the facts this way, however! It'll save us ALL a lot of time, won't it?

It seemed the occassion called for it. Thank YOU! :hi:

[ulysses]

121. Chavez is not Stalin.

Neither is he a saint. I've read the HRW and AI reports and yes, there are problems.

where his approach historically leads

What I think is needed is a better understanding of the histories of the Americas south of Texas. Chavez is problematic, but he has also inherited a problematic regional history. No, not an unvarnished hero, but to compare him to Stalin and Mao is in error.

[Douglas Carpenter]

125. and let's compare his record to the largest recepients of U.S. aid

I would be very suspicious of all this U.S. media concern about Chavez's human rights record which incidently has improved dramatically since his government took office. And for the record Chavez's record with the above mentioned human rights groups is no worse and probably not as bad as the U.S. and many other western democracies and far worse than that of the leading receipients of U.S. Aid.

link: http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Propaganda/Venezuela.asp

"Reporting on the ongoing issues, such as the protests and Chavez’s economic policies in Venezuela have shown similar signs of one-sidedness, from both the mainstream media of western countries such as the U.S. and U.K., and from Venezuela’s own elite anti-Chavez media, which “controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and ... played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April 2002.... The media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president — if necessary by force.”


here are the three largest receipient of U.S. aid (after Iraq) in order:

1. Israel - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=isrlpa

2. Egypt - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=egypt

3. Columbia - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=colomb


and here is the report on the U.S.'s own human rights record:

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa

[Skidmore]

126. Keerist, people. Can we just focus on dealing with our own little

homegrown dictator?

[Greyhound]

130. Every single charge you make is one that the U.S. has, itself,

been found guilty of. Last time I checked Hugo Chavez was elected, twice, by his people in elections observed and certified by the UN, something that * can't claim.
Is he perfect? Obviously not, anybody that seeks that power (leading a nation) is seriously flawed, but it is what it is.
Why are you so threatened by the possibility that there is a better way?

[toddaa]

134. I'm skeptical of Chavez, but comparing him to Stalin is a stretch

None of the evidence you presented suggests he's an authoritarian dictator. As a libertarian socialist, I am suspicious of anyone who amasses as much power as Chavez has done so quickly, but he does represent credible evidence that neoliberalism is beginning to crumble in Latin America. I remain skeptical of both Chavez and his detractors.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

150. I've been to Venezuela both before and after Chavez.

Two changes occured. One, the ultra-rich took their money and sneaked out as the election returns came in. Two, Chavez started building water and sewer supplies to the poorest sections of Caracas, including the infamous mountainside shanties.

There has been an American effort to overthrow his government. It was so lame that most of the world laughed, while our MSM ignored the obvious.

[Cocoa]

135. Stalin and Mao?

that's really foolish.

[The Backlash Cometh]

140. Do you have any links to Amnesty International's and Human Rights

Watch's specific grievances?

This is very important for this newsgroup to monitor. Thanks for the post.

[oblivious]

182. See post 58 for HRW summary and post 11 for AI link

HRW Complaints about Venezuela:
1. Adding 12 new justices to the supreme court
2. regulations for the content of television and radio programs - e.g no more condoning or inciting public disturbances or publishing messages contrary to the security of the nation
3. Increased penalties for desacato (disrespect), criminal defamation, and libel
4. police killings - (a) 3 students were accidentally killed in a car chase (b) not enough progress has been made in prosecuting police and military for the former problem of extrajudicial executions
5. prisons - over crowded, gang problems
6. Border security/refugees - Columbians are crossing into Venezuela for a safer future to escape gangs (Why did they include this as a Venezuelan problem???)
7. A few NGOs have been discredited
8. doesn't get along with the US
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/venezu12258.htm

Amnesty complaints about Venezuela:
1. Abuses during demonstrations - "At least 14 people died during nationwide anti-government demonstrations in February and March. As many as 200 were wounded and several of those detained were ill-treated or tortured by members of the security forces."
2. Police brutality - only two cases given
3. Equal access to justice - "There were continued concerns that the justice system lacked impartiality and independence, particularly in the context of political polarization."
4. Human rights defenders - "President Hugo Chávez suggested at the beginning of the year that the activities of human rights defenders were intended to fuel political turmoil."
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/ven-summary-eng

My comment:
If you compare these rather insignificant complaints to those about the US you realize that this is pure propaganda. The US is far, far, far worse. In Amnesty's case, they provide virtually nothing on Venezuela, like they were trying really really hard to find something to fill the page.

HRW complaints about US:
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng

Amnesty complaints about the US:
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng

[toddaa]

141. More fodder: A Venezuelan anarchist viewpoint on Chavez

Here's an interview with one of the "counterrevolutionaries" Chavez' populist movement is trying to wipe out. Before reading this, I need to point out to American readers that the word libertarian has a very different meaning outside the U.S. and when you encounter it in this interview, think anarcho-syndicalist.

http://www.ainfos.ca/02/dec/ainfos00310.html

[leesa]

142. No facts strikes again....

[robbedvoter]

147. Extremism from the left is no better than the one from the right.

I still think Chavez is still way far from the totalitarian regime that's blossoming here - but it's true we need to keep a real democracy as the standard of our goals.

[Douglas Carpenter]

195. Chavez's Venezuela has more free speech and press than the U.S.

would ever allow. If anyone of us tried to practice the degree of freedom of expression that is openly expressed in Venezuela 24 hours a day/7days a week -- we would be in jail very, very fast.

This is the exact same nonsense being perpetrated on gullible Americans that was sold during the days of Nicaraguan democracy and independence and Chilean democracy and independence. In spite of the fact that the local private elite-owned media is overwhelmingly hostile to the point of supporting force and violence against the popular democratically elected government (something that would never be allowed in the U.S. or almost anywhere else for that matter) we hear the same Orwellian-automaton chants about dictatorship over and over and over and over again.

link:

http://mondediplo.com/2002/08/10venezuela

snip: "Never even in Latin American history has the media been so directly involved in a political coup. Venezuela’s ’hate media’ controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and it played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April. Although tensions in the country could easily spill into civil war, the media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president - if necessary by force."

snip:

"After Chávez came to power in 1998, the five main privately owned channels - Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), Globovisión and CMT - and nine of the 10 major national newspapers, including El Universal, El Nacional, Tal Cual, El Impulso, El Nuevo País, and El Mundo, have taken over the role of the traditional political parties, which were damaged by the president’s electoral victories. Their monopoly on information has put them in a strong position. They give the opposition support, only rarely reporting government statements and never mentioning its large majority, despite that majority’s confirmation at the ballot box. They have always described the working class districts as a red zone inhabited by dangerous classes of ignorant people and delinquents. No doubt considering them unphotogenic, they ignore working class leaders and organisations."

snip: ""Take to the streets" thundered El Nacional on 10 April (in an unattributed editorial). "Ni un paso atrás! (not one step backwards)" responded the hoardings on Globovisión. Another TV company broadcast: "Venezuelans, take to the streets on Thursday 11 April at 10am. Bring your flags. For freedom and democracy. Venezuela will not surrender. No one will defeat us." The call to overthrow the head of state became so obvious that the government applied Article 192 of the telecommunications law. More than 30 times -for all television and radio channels - it requisitioned 15-20 minutes’ air time to broadcast its views. But the broadcasters divided the screen in two and continued to urge rebellion."

[robbedvoter]

204. I believe it's what I said in my post as well. Who are you arguing with?

Which part of "I still think Chavez is still way far from the totalitarian regime that's blossoming here" didn't you get?

[Douglas Carpenter]

210. sorry, I thought you were implying Chavez was an extremist

I gather you were not, sorry.

[gordianot]

149. Authoritarians are the common bane of the left and right.

I do like the views on Neoliberalsism, yes there are flags. The radical authoritarian right in the United States is bound to create a radical authoritarian left.

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Terran1212]

153. Chavez is Stalin?

Chavez's government officials were blocked for FIVE HOURS from leaving one of their meetings by a string of student protesters.

Stalin would've executed them; they would've been tear gassed here

[killbotfactory]

155. On Current TV, they showed a clip where people in Caracas...

Openly advocated for the assassination of Chavez. Chavez has to be one of the first dictators in history to tolerate this kind of crap.

[Judi Lynn]

160. I've seen a photo from an opposition in Caracas I posted a few times

in the last few years, with somone holding a very large sign of Hugo Chavez with a target on his head or chest or somewhere. It left no doubt the opposition member was calling for his murder. I'll look around and see if I can find it.

I thought it was somewhat extreme. I doubt you'd see that kind of thing on any American street!

[Judi Lynn]

161. I found one! This seems self-explanatory, something I wouldn't expect

to see in Washington, D.C., or in New York. Not for long, anyway.

[Judi Lynn]

163. Here are some anti-Chavez posters, not really fit for posting individually

http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/antichavista4life/page11.html

As it has been YEARS since I took Spanish, I can't quickly grasp the remarks but it would seem it's not complimentary.

[Sejanus]

174. wrong

No, Stalin would have executed all their family, friends and associates as Stalin gave a whole new meaning to mass murderer

[SOS]

162. Chavez, Chavez, Morales, Chavez, Chavez, Castro, Chavez, Chavez.....

One thread after another. Every day.

Yet the torture chambers of Equatorial Guinea, the public whippings in Saudi Arabia, mass executions in China,
grinding violence and poverty in Jamaica and Haiti, dissidents boiled alive in Uzbekistan, human bonfires in Burma,
four million dead in the Congo and paramilitary death squads roaming Colombia never get mentioned. Where's the outrage for them?

It seems that as long as a vicious government doesn't threaten US economic interests, they are free to torture and kill without a peep of criticism.

Personally I'd rather live in Venezuela than in any of the US allies and trading partners mentioned above.

[Judi Lynn]

167. There have been conversations about Haiti, TONS of them leading

up to, during and after _Bush's underhanded destabilization and overthrow of Aristide's government, in LBN, made far more painful and immediate by the comments of a DU'er with Haitian roots.

We've done occassional threads in LBN on Uzbekistan,



and threads on Colombia.



The outrages are so many, so widespread it may simply be too overwhelming for many people. Don't forget the massive disinformation which has always been part of the picture, leaving Americans in a true news vacuum, with lots of space to fill up with "The Runaway Bride," "Terri Schiavo," etc.

[Sejanus]

173. another day in paradise

The world can be a very ugly place-don't forget about Tibet where the Panchen Lama selected by the Chinese rather than the individual recognized by the Buddhist sect came out strongly for the puppet government-thus attempting to destroy the religious base of those persecuted people

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

164. "Here we go again" with another, out of the blue, "left is killing

themselves embracing Chavez 'cos he's a dictator" thread.

Who was the last one? ChicagoDem1968 or something? :shrug:

[ronnie624]

165. Thanks BL611

for creating the opportunity to learn even more about President Chavez as well as HRW who I have often suspected of disseminating propaganda.

[dailykoff]

166. Yes, here we go again, a PR blitz to Saddamize/Stalinize/Willie Hortonize

another enemy of US corporate exploitation. I was wondering when it would start.

Hill and Knowlton (and its successors) must be rolling in the clover thanks to their good friends in the White House.

[Judi Lynn]

170. They haven't quite figured out a fool-proof line of attack on Evo Morales,

yet, and it must be killing American right-wingers not having anything filthy to say about him, yet. Same with Michelle Bachelet, who just won the Chilean Presidential election.

They're going to have to work overtime to concoct the dirty spin on the leftist Peruvian candidate, who has a ton of support already,



Ollanta Humala

not to mention the hard work ahead needed to correctly villify the Presidential candidate in Mexico, who has a nine-point advantage, Andrés Manuel López Obrador.



Andrés Manuel López Obrador

They're going to pine for the days they only had Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez to savage, and slander! They have to accept defeat so far on Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, and Néstor Kirchner



Néstor Kirchner, Chávez, Lula da Silva

[Terran1212]

180. Morales is Pro-Cocaine!

I've actually heard it.

[Selatius]

184. Yes, they're going to use that on Morales

Coca farmers down there have no other crops with which to sustain a living. If you stop them, you starve them of their livelihood. It's the same in Afghanistan with the opium farmers. They have nothing besides opium to sustain a living, and nobody has provided a single damn alternative.

[Judi Lynn]

200. Oh, yeah. Right. Thanks for the reminder. They fail to acknowledge

the form in which the coca leaves have been used in Bolivia and other S. American countries is not opened up chemically, like cocaine, but rather is chewed and aids their digestion and altitude sickness symptoms, and is brewed in a tea.

Yep. They will work on that line of attack for those people who will refuse to find out more about it, and simply buy their spin.



Good luck to Evo Morales for a historic achievement.

[roody]

202. If that were true

it would give him and Bush some common ground.

[Selatius]

187. As a libertarian socialist, I do have some questions about Chavez' power

However, criticism of him would be best served if one examines not only what wrongs have been committed but also what good has also been accomplished under Chavez' watch. The fact that things can go wrong is another lesson in what state power can do.

My advice for Chavez is to devolve power to the people even further. I would tell him the same thing day after day. Set up co-ops and collectives and bring people into the process of making decisions that affect their lives. Give the people industrial democracy. Bring democracy into the workplace, and bring democracy into the newsroom. For too long industry has been owned by a small oligarchy of the elite, the masters and the owners of the means of production, and the same holds true for the news networks. Teach them the principles of mutual cooperation, the principles of freedom and fairness, the principles of tolerance and love, and then the ultimate test for your students would be to apply those principles themselves in a collective fashion, but don't consolidate power unto yourself for the same goals and try to do all the work for them.

The ends do not justify the means, and the path of consolidating power in order to enact change is a dangerous one. It is the path others in the past have chosen, and what was the result? People like Stalin and Mao joined the movement not for the sake of the people's cause but because they smelled the scent of concentrated power, concentrated decision-making power, and it is power they wanted. It is power they lusted after, and it is power they eventually won, to the detriment of all who fight for REAL freedom.

I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I lead you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition.

-- Eugene Debs, American democratic socialist

[balzac]

189. Please provide specific links

if you're going to bust Chavez' balls, lets have the scoop, not just rhetoric.

[Douglas Carpenter]

196. Chavez's Venezuela has more free speech and press than the U.S.

would ever allow. If anyone of us tried to practice the degree of freedom of expression that is openly expressed in Venezuela 24 hours a day/7days a week -- we would be in jail very, very fast.

This is the exact same nonsense being perpetrated on gullible Americans that was sold during the days of Nicaraguan democracy and independence and Chilean democracy and independence. In spite of the fact that the local private elite-owned media is overwhelmingly hostile to the point of supporting force and violence against the popular democratically elected government (something that would never be allowed in the U.S. or almost anywhere else for that matter) we hear the same Orwellian-automaton chants about dictatorship over and over and over and over again.

link:

http://mondediplo.com/2002/08/10venezuela

snip: "Never even in Latin American history has the media been so directly involved in a political coup. Venezuela’s ’hate media’ controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and it played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April. Although tensions in the country could easily spill into civil war, the media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president - if necessary by force."

snip:

"After Chávez came to power in 1998, the five main privately owned channels - Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), Globovisión and CMT - and nine of the 10 major national newspapers, including El Universal, El Nacional, Tal Cual, El Impulso, El Nuevo País, and El Mundo, have taken over the role of the traditional political parties, which were damaged by the president’s electoral victories. Their monopoly on information has put them in a strong position. They give the opposition support, only rarely reporting government statements and never mentioning its large majority, despite that majority’s confirmation at the ballot box. They have always described the working class districts as a red zone inhabited by dangerous classes of ignorant people and delinquents. No doubt considering them unphotogenic, they ignore working class leaders and organisations."

snip: ""Take to the streets" thundered El Nacional on 10 April (in an unattributed editorial). "Ni un paso atrás! (not one step backwards)" responded the hoardings on Globovisión. Another TV company broadcast: "Venezuelans, take to the streets on Thursday 11 April at 10am. Bring your flags. For freedom and democracy. Venezuela will not surrender. No one will defeat us." The call to overthrow the head of state became so obvious that the government applied Article 192 of the telecommunications law. More than 30 times -for all television and radio channels - it requisitioned 15-20 minutes’ air time to broadcast its views. But the broadcasters divided the screen in two and continued to urge rebellion."

[stickdog]

199. Your post is full of shit.

You would think that Stalin, Mao, and the rest of the gang would have taught people a lesson that a couple of economic redistribution programs does not make up for a complete disregard for democracy and human rights in the effort to concentrate power...

Any examples within the last 40 years?

The facts are Chavez has been condemned by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for his human rights violations

Pray tell, what are his human rights violations and how do they compare to his oppositions'?

he has been condemned by the International Labor Organization for his attempts to subvert union autonomy

Union autonomy? The union was on strike because its corrupt leaders are in bed with the international oil barons who want to oust Chavez so they can control Venezuela's oil.

he ERADICATED the Senate

What do you mean, "he ERADICATED the Senate"? Please explain further and illustrate what you mean with backing links.

[Steve A Play]

206. Don't forget Jimmy Carter & the Carter Center's role in anointing him

DICTATOR! :rofl:

http://www.cartercenter.org/doc1690.htm

Feature: The Carter Center and the 2004 Venezuela Elections
16 Sep 2004

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter led a team of international observers from The Carter Center during the Aug. 15 presidential recall referendum in Venezuela, when citizens voted on the recall of President Hugo Chavez. The Center previously observed the reparos--or signature verification correction periods; the signature collection; and the signature verification process.

On Aug. 27, Venezuelan electoral authorities confirmed President Hugo Chavez's victory in the referendum. Though there were accusations of fraud by the opposition, the final official results totaled 59.25 percent for Chavez, 40.74 percent against. The Carter Center participated in an audit of the votes (see final report above) and concluded the results were accurate.

This Web feature examines developments leading to the current crisis in Venezuela, and the Carter Center's crucial role since 2002 in finding a resolution to the situation.

<more>

Damn that Carter! Always propping up dictators through phony elections. :sarcasm:

Steven P. :kick:

[tlsmith1963]

207. I Don't Really Trust Chavez...

...but he *has* done some good. That is what is so frustrating about the guy. He seems to be a mixture of bad & good. He is helping the poor, & yet he still behaves like a dictator. I heard that he will talk for hours on TV, just like Castro, so he must have a huge ego too. Heaven help us if Bush starts to do the same thing...ugh!

Tammy

[Steve A Play]

212. If President Al Gore was on TV for 4 hours talking about global warming

or a practical way to get health care for all, would you think it was because of his ego or his commitment to his ideals?

Just wondering, do you think there's any topic that could use a few hours of explanation to the uninformed masses by your elected representatives? I sure can. :)

Steven P. :kick:

[rman]

220. How is it that Chavez behaves like a dictator?

Not just because he talks for hours on TV, i suppose?

[Name removed]

213. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

214. You're a naughty one!

[Swamp Rat]

218. Yeah... and HE'S got an eye on YOU too!

:D