More on Hugo Chavez
Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez is a growing obsession of mine, mostly because of the Bush Administration's rhetoric against him. As you may know, Venezuela is the fifth largest oil-producing nation in the world, and Chavez (who won a landslide election after a failed military coup some years ago) has been a real thorn in the side for American foreign policy in the region.
I'd view that as a problem if I didn't think American foreign policy in the region was abhorrent and immoral. Some of the stuff our contry did in Central and South America in the 80s served as the template for the kind of black box torture operations that have become such a part of the American way of life since September 11th brought the Dick Cheney cabal into prominance. Our current Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, should be tried for war crimes related to his actions in the area at the time, and he is fully deserving of whatever verdict would be rendered.
Speaking of an International Criminal Court, it's interesting that the United States forms the foremost opposition to such an idea.
After the revelations of the last few years, is it any wonder why?
Anyway, I've promised and will continue to promise a lengthy post about Hugo Chavez. I only started paying attention a couple years ago when a US-backed coup failed to knock him out of power, and I don't want to give the impression that I fully support Chavez's style of government.
At present, I am very close to saying that I support him, but there are plenty of accusations of dirty dealing, imprisonment of political enemies, etc. Most of this seems to come from the corporatist radical right Cuban refugee lobby out of Florida, but that doesn't mean it is wholly without merit, just that the evidence should be viewed in light of the fact that it is heavily tainted by anti-Castro propaganda.
And let's not forget that the guy came to power after an attempted military coup of his own, which doesn't fill me with confidence.
He does, however, relentlessly call President Bush and his corrupt administration on their shit, as he did today:
"The planet's most serious danger is the government of the United States. ... The people of the United States are being governed by a killer, a genocidal murderer and a madman." --Hugo Chavez
It's getting increasingly difficult to argue with that point of view in my opinion.
What's yours?
posted by Erik | 10:04 AM
32 Comments:
I figure that if the US government finds a person this reprehensible, it's probably worthwhile to look into why. And the reason why seems to be that he's a popular socialist who supports redistribution of wealth from the pockets of oil barons to the people of Venezuela.
Shame on Hugo. Thinking that he can act independently of the american political machine in Washington and not have to fear for his life daily. Bad Hugo. No oil kickback for you.
But seriously, the Bush administration looks at the world in a twistedly self-serving light: if they're not Americans, then they don't deserve to be happy or self-governing. I've voted in every election since I was old enough to vote, and all I see is my country sliding inexplicably toward greed and a policy of hate and unilateralism. We're looking at the world as allies and enemies, in black and white instead of shades of grey. Our foreign policy is sheer madness, with dashes of outright idiocy. It makes a guy wonder if the American experiment in democracy has failed.
I am a Venezuelan and I can tell you that we live in Fear. Anything can happen at any moment, any charges can be brought against any of us for excersicing the same rights you have in the US.
Visit this link for a close up view of what happened to some of my friends that opposed hime during a strike.
http://www.urru.org/gaitas/razon.wmv
Video del ataque a los petroleros en Los Semerucos /Jorge Robles
Te pido 20 minutos de tu tiempo. No te lo pido por mi. Yo decidí huir. Yo no pude soportar la idea de exponer a mi familia a sufrir un trauma así.
Te lo pido por estos compañeros que valientemente decidieron permanecer firmes en resistencia pacífica. Ellos además de arriesgar su carrera y su trabajo, han visto peligrar su integridad física y la de sus hijos.
Por todo lo que ellos han entregado a nuestro país, lo menos que podemos hacer es dedicar unos minutos en saber la verdad. Y luego difundirla. Para que el mundo sepa de este régimen que aterroriza y maltrata mujeres y niños. Para que todos vean como estos despreciables cobardes vestidos de verde han deshonrado el uniforme. Si tienes conocidos en las Fuerzas Armadas, pásales la información. Ellos necesitan saber las infamias cometidas, ya que serán los propios compañeros de armas quienes habrán de señalarlos y de entregarlos. En la nueva Venezuela no debe haber cabida para el odio, pero tampoco puede aceptarse la impunidad frente a los crímenes cometidos. Por respeto a la dignidad de todos los que han sufrido, de todos los que han muerto, se hará Justicia.
Abajo están los enlaces para bajar la información. Muchas gacias por tu tiempo.
Saludos, y Mil Pasos al Frente por una Venezuela Libre!
"Lo más atroz de las cosas malas de la gente mala es el silencio de la gente buena." Mahatma Gandhi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
El 25 de Septiembre del 2003, entre 300 y 400 efectivos de la guardia nacional penetraron en la urbanización a las 4:41 de la madrugada, supuestamente para ejecutar una medida de desalojo contra una persona, pero no llevaban orden judicial . La orden llegó 6 horas más tarde. En su arremetida maltrataron, insultaron e hirieron a trabajadores, lanzaron bombas lacrimógenas dentro de las casas, amenazaron a las mujeres con violarlas, rayaron carros, aterrorizaron a niños,........
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Thanks for the post, Fred. I ran the Spanish through the AltaVista auto-translator, but I can't say I was able to make much out of it. I will watch the video later when I'm not at work.
Do you have an English link that could show the other side of this issue? I'd be very interested to read it.
Everything I have read so far suggests that Venezuela's economy was tilted HEAVILY to the advantage of whites and that the common people did not benefit much from the natural resource (oil) that belongs to them.
Everything I have read so far suggests that while life has become less convenient for the middle-class and (especially) upper class folks who benefited greatly from Venezuela's corrupt economic system, things for the lower class of Venezuela have improved dramatically under Chavez's leadership.
Is that not the case, as you view it?
Your perspective is (obviously) very important to this discussion, and I don't mean to make light of it at all. But unless that video contains something truly shocking that will transcend the language barrier, I'm afraid I'm still tilted in the direction of Hugo Chavez.
I hope not everyone feels like you in America. Because if they do we will live live people in Cuba for many years to come.
Venezuela was always a beautiful country, we had our different political parties, like you do in America (Republicans, Democrats) except we had a few more, with 2 parties that you could say were the two that won opwer back and forth between eachother.
But we were free to have our own opinion and dissent against any idea, that was against our principles.
There were poor people in Venezuela like most countries in Latin America but throughtout the 70s and early 90's the economy and the dollar was very low to the bolivar. 4 to a dollar.
In the 80s after the market crash, the dollar went up very high, and we stop importing foreign products.
Throughout the 80's the slums grew but there was NEVER and I want to remind everyone NEVER a class or racial issue.
There were always people at the top with whatever color you call them mulatos o moreno. I am moreno myself.
THings have only improved to in the Life of the Members of the ruling party.
If I dont join them my life will never get any better. That's our only options to accept and submit and become one of them.
Laws only affect us. Unless my uncle or someones is part of the system.
THe people on the slums dont support him by majority. We all depend on them. I receive Cesta Tickets. Or your Food COupons. If I protest against them I get them removed.
I use to be able to travel freely but now I have to ask permission to travel and to access foreign currency, only have access to $300 per trip and the travel arrangements have to be paid from Venezuela. It makes it hard when every place you go takes a deposit on the credit card that does not get credit and you have to get DOLLARS in the black market because it's ilegal to get them and you run the risk to go to jail for the next 10 years for buying Dollars from your brother or father.
You tell me if I live in the Garden of Eden cause I will switch with you any time.
Well, I don't know much of Hugo Chavez from a hole in the wall, but according to Wikipedia's entry on him, both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both have Venezula on notice for potential violations.
Isn't the US on potential notice for violations of human rights? Not to condone any potential violators, but can we really throw stones these days?
Similar to many Carribean/South American 'elected leaders' Hugo Chavez would do whatever it takes to stay in power. Although some of his programs like bringing Cuban dentists and doctors to help the poorer Venezuelans are some what admirable, he is no more pro-democracy than Castro. In any socialist driven government somebody is on top, they talk about spreading the wealth but really what they do is keep everyone outside of their faction on an even plane of poverty, reliant on their ideal of government for everything.
Here is one political discussion where being pro-Hugo Chavez doesn't make a lot of sense even for the more liberal minded here in the US. It reminds me of people who wear Che Guevera t-shirts as some sort of anti establishment commentary, when they really don't know the entirety of what he stood for.
Although I have to admit Hugo's comments during the Fouth Summit of the Americas about Bush were quite entertaining. :)
Power corrupts. No matter what political system.
~Kirk
I just saw on CNN Chavez is planning on selling cheap oil to the US's poorest areas to help this winter. They believe its a move to humiliate Bush. How can we after getting gouged recently turn that down? BTW gas in my midwest town finally dipped below $2.00 again!
Craig C said:
>>>
In any socialist driven government somebody is on top, they talk about spreading the wealth but really what they do is keep everyone outside of their faction on an even plane of poverty, reliant on their ideal of government for everything.
>>>
Is the capitalist system a whole lot better? Tax cuts for the rich and "operation offset" cuts to food stamps and education to fund the reconstruction of New Orleans?
Socialism is man's inhumanity to man. Capitalism is just the other way around ;-)
Put another way, at least capitalism isn't hypocritical.
I guess it depends on which you prefer: Government funnelling money to the rich or government funnelling money to the poor and middle class.
Here, we have the former, and it seems to be working out just great for everyone.
Yeah sometimes I wonder if our system is better. How much of a democracy do we really have when special interest groups can simply pick a candidate that kow tows to them the most? After all, without their money there is no chance of winning an election. When a President in his second term can't even nominate who he wants for the Supreme Court due to pressure from outside partisan parties, is there really any doubt something has gone wrong? There is no doubt that Campaign Finance Reform has done nothing to change this.
Our country is increasingly becoming an elitist run nation standing on the backs of the poor. And yet if you look at our constitution, we as a people can do something about it at any time.
Not many countries have that kind of freedom.
Erik, have you looked at the federal budget? Here's a quick overview:
Defense 500 billion
Social Security 500 billion
Transfer Payments to the Poor 335 billion
Medicare 270 billion
Medicaid 185 billion
Interest on the Debt 160 billion
Education and Housing 120 billion
Highways and Farms 100 billion
Everything Else 230 billion
It's pretty hard to look at those numbers and say our government is just funnelling money to the rich. You might think that a trillion (!!?) dollars a year to the poor is not enough, but don't try to say it isn't there!
Socialism makes everyone poor. It has to. The point is to take everything the rich and middle classes have, and give it to the poor. So if, by some miracle, a poor person in a socialist country becomes middle class, now they have to give everything they have to the poor! That's why it's never worked.
PS
There's more than one way to funnel money to the rich than just spending tax dollars . . . such as swelling legislation with special interest, constructing numerous taxation loopholes, stemming litigation rights, and lowering federal standards for public health and safety. . . . to start.
These are just a few of the reasons that after-tax corporate profits in the U.S. are at an all-time high this quarter, while compensation benefits to labor are at a 40-year low.
In other words, the economy is booming right now, but most of us wouldn't know it.
Also, for the record, I still belive that capitalism in a mixed-market economy is the most efficient way to utilize natural resources, labor, and technology to produce and distribute goods and services to the people of teh United States. It is definitely in the hands of the consumer as to wether or not we make this world a heaven or a hell.
But with that in mind, you have to remember that every country has its own set of variables to work with. In the U.S. for instance, we have 3 times more arable land per captia than any other country on earth. Combine that with friendly borders with the only two governments within a thousand miles, and you have an easily defendable goldmine of wealth generation that would probably work out okay for its people regardless of its government.
I wouldn't be so quick to make ANY assumptions about what sort of resource distribution would work best in another country, without doing a lifetime's worth of serious research, Venuzuela and Iraq included.
This is a great discussion. Thanks to all for visiting my blog and participating it.
Craig C said: "When a President in his second term can't even nominate who he wants for the Supreme Court due to pressure from outside partisan parties, is there really any doubt something has gone wrong?"
That's funny, I thought that was a sign that there was no doubt that the system was still working, when a party completely in the minority in all aspects of government could still manage to influence the law-making process in a peaceful manner. The president isn't MEANT to be able to just throw whoever he wants on the Supreme Court...that's why review occurs. If an unscrupulous president wanted to pack a court with judges who would be willing to circumvent the constitution and fulfill some agenda he might have that leads to tyranny, how would that be serving anyone?
Consider: in the two previous presidential elections, we've had quite a bit of fighting and controversy...and while many of us may not be happy with the results, there hasn't been bloodshed, there hasn't been rioting in the streets and there hasn't been a widespread lack of stability in the nation.
I mean, let's put this in perspective: GEORGE WASHINGTON HAD TWO SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS REJECTED. Over the course of US History, 27 of the 150 nominations to the Supreme Court failed for one reason or another. So far, G. W. Bush has had 1 rejection, by and large rejected by people on all ends of the political spectrum. The current record holder, dubious title that it is, is John Tyler who had EIGHT rejections.
I'd say that the system is working as designed.
You forget why Bush dropped the nomination though. It wasn't because of minority opposition or the threat of filibuster (in fact I think a lot of Democrats were completely confused by Harriet's nomination). It was division within his own party and the complete outrage of fundamental Christian conservatives (who were primarily responsible for Bush's fund raising advantage in the last election) that he hadn't nominated a Scalia or Clarence Thomas clone.
So instead of getting someone the president wanted (and no doubt more moderate than Alito) he was forced to nominate a mini-Scalia. What completely floors me is the fact that Bush was actually telling the truth during the debates about not having a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees and then the people who got him elected crucify him for a personal pick.
But then I find the whole idea of judges running for election and having to fund-raise completely antithetical to the judicial system of impartiality.
The fact that Roe vs Wade could be overturned because of the personal beliefs of a bunch of old men seems very wrong to me. And it won't have anything to do with legal precedent (obviously you have to disagree with precedent to overturn something), it will be about those judge's political and religious views. No doubt they would all vigorously deny that personal belief is what swayed their opinions.
But hey if old Dubya becomes one of the most hated presidents in US history it won't surprise me at all.
Oh and just a quick thought on storminator's comments on the national budget.
You have to look further than that, look at where the funding has been decreased (education, Medicaid, etc.) and why it has been decreased.
With Bush's tax cuts the primary benificiaries are the ultra rich. The same went for his tax-free dividends and the repeal of the 'Death Tax'. Never before in American history has it been easier to hang onto vast sums of wealth and get around paying your fair share.
So the bottom line is the poor and elderly are needing more and more support from the government and the amount of money being brought in through taxes has gotten less and less.
It's funny because his administration has done more to harm Social Security and his plan to fix it was so poor it ended with a silent quick death.
Craig C.
Actually, funding hasn't decreased in any category I listed. Education & Housing? Up 18 billion. Medicaid? Up 20 billion. Direct payments to the poor? Up 5 billion. Social Security? Up 25 billion. Medicare? Up 20 billion. There are no cuts in spending. There haven't be any cuts in spending since JFK.
Bush cut the taxes on everyone (I know mine went down, ~2K per year), pretty much in proportion to the taxes they pay. The top 1% of income earners in this country pay around 40% of the money the federal government collects. That they get roughly the same percentage of benefits when taxes are cut is not very surprising. In fact it is extremely difficult to cut taxes in any way without the rich reaping most of the benefits.
The poor and elderly in America don't need more government support (again, a trillion dollars a year isn't enough?!? what would be?)
Follow up: Chris W wrote:
"These are just a few of the reasons that after-tax corporate profits in the U.S. are at an all-time high this quarter, while compensation benefits to labor are at a 40-year low."
Actually, compensations to labor are not at a 40-year low. In 2004 (last year numbers are available for) the median, after-tax, inflation adjusted income due to wages (the most intellectually honest measure) was at an all time high. The "40-year low number" refers to the percentage of income due to wages vs profits, not to the level of wages.
In other words, wages and benefits have gone up more than ever, and profits have gone up even faster.
Hard to honestly argue that's a bad combination.
PS
Actually I was talking about the current budget, not sure if it has passed both branches yet but you can see where the Republicans are trying to get money back from. You can't cut taxes, pay for a war, reduce the budget defecit and have a lot of social programs all at once - simply doesn't work.
The main contention to the current budget (even after the intial one was defeated because of education cuts) was fewer food stamps and people have to pay more for Medicaid coverage. But hey if Tom Cruise needs to buy some more medical equipment I guess John Q Public can go without milk and eggs.
Wow. A budget cut of less than 1% in education and health discretionary spending. Oh the humanity! How will the 7% increase in entitlement spending ever make up for that?!?
Guess $602,000,000,000 just doesn't go as far as it used to! Whatever will the poor do now?
PS
Actually that's what they got with 1 vote to spare. Thank god they aren't going to have those votes next year.
You completely fail to see that spending should be increasing in these areas every year, the fact that there is a cut instead of an increase just shows how shabbily the Republicans have been running the country.
And as far as saying that the rich pay their fair share -- they don't. I am one of them, my father's family is stinking rich and I know how absurdly easy it is to look like you own less then you do and guess what? Now I get even more money when my grandmother kicks it. Yeah me!
(Before I hear some rant about giving money to charity, bladda bladda, self restraint and all that. The trust does give to charity [whatever the maximum amount is for full tax dollars in return]:p)
I completely fail to agree that spending in those areas should increase every year.
IMO the fact that the cut was only 1% of that small percentage of the budget does show how shabbily the Republicans are running the country. It should be much larger, and it should hit every sector of the budget.
What do you think the rich's fair share of taxes should be? All of them? The rich still, even after Bush's tax cut, pay around 40% of federal taxes.
You are talking about a percentage of a percentage. 1% paying 40%, what the hell does that even mean? It means they are paying their fair share and don't want to, is what it means. You need to look at the percentage of their income that they pay in taxes compared to other people. The rich want you to think that 1% of the population shouldn't have to pay more but if you look at their income they aren't paying a high percentage of their wages. In fact if you look at some of the Forbes list some of them pay a ridiculously small percentage of their income in taxes. The fact of the matter is that the bill that passed the tax cuts wasn't a set amount. This means that as the amount of taxes that the rich no longer have to foot is shifted elsewhere you will continue to see cuts in the budget where the special interests want them (which will always be government managed social programs).
And as to why these programs should get more money instead of being castrated, is pretty simple:
Are the number of poor people increasing or decreasing?
Is the population, growing or decreasing?
Are people living to an older age or dying younger?
Which simply means if these programs were needed then, they should be even more necessary now. Maybe people don't like paying taxes for other people, but if that's the case they need to be more vocal about what they expect their government to do. Stop spending billions of dollars in an insane war sounds like a good place to start, if Haliburton doesn't get a defense contract and more people get food stamps, that would be okay with me.
Anyway this was supposed to be debate on Hugo Chavez and whether he is an elected leader who promotes social good or simply another dictator who uses his communist ideals to stay in power, so I don't want to hijack the post anymore than I already have, my apologies to Erik.
[Anyway this was supposed to be debate on Hugo Chavez and whether he is an elected leader who promotes social good or simply another dictator who uses his communist ideals to stay in power, so I don't want to hijack the post anymore than I already have, my apologies to Erik.]
Agreed.
Recent election
PS
Frederick Pohl: Where you live. Your profile sayid Florida, in the USA. IN what Barrio you live?
I ask because, while i dont whily support Chavez (he is a democratic president, but is too erratic and demagogist to my taste), he is doing a good work in Venezuela (i am from argentian, and i have some good Venezuelan friends). But the upper medium and upper class still reject Chavez, because they dont want other clasess to gain power. They want to return to the old ways of politics in VEnezuela, dont far away form the banana republic style (only whit a little more money thanks to the oil), and sub-servant to the USA to fell like "in the first world". I know how is it, we endure it form 10 years, before the MIF and the USA sugested economic politics ruin the country.
I hope this comment puts some perspective on this subject.
Listen, I live in Caracas, Venezuela. I'm what you might call a middle-class person. I went to public schools, and thank god went to the main public college in the country after that. And pay attetion, i say "thank god" because a private college is too expensive, it would have been impossible for me to pay. I say this just to make you a picture of what point of view i'm talkin from. But i'm not here to talk about my self, i'm here to talk for all the people in the streets, the poor (and when i say poor, i MEAN it, some people who worked their ass out to make a livin, some honestly, some not) people who don't have the time like me, or don't speak other language, to answer this kind of internet blog sh*t. Listen, here in venezuela reigns a culture that is comparable to your hip hop line: "do or die". THe peolple just survives how they can. The rich people here are the ones with the government and the old rich people, who, supportive or not of the president Chavez, still makes a lot of cash, while thousands of people are working two jobs to keep their mouths with food or dealin drugs or murdering for money. This is a war zone, usa people. The police brutality is nothing you can imagine. There's no law, noone can stand up for you. Chavez is givin away a lot of money to the poor outside our country just to keep his image of "Bush-nemesis" around the world. People are dyin here meanwhile. The projects in culture and health, along side the industry and commerce, depend on Chavez voice, the government is not independent of the speech of the president. He's tryin to take over all big industries (the last remaining, because industry is not the same in venezuela now, we almost fully depend on oil, wich represents almost a 90% of our money incoming, and you know who buys it? USA, yes we depend on USA, so whats the deal with all that fake confrontation, take a look at history, it's always been about the money, people) and the streets are full of murder, unemployment and misery. Listen is not about left or right. Is a mathematical fact. there are, every day, more poor people, everyday the things just go further to the bottom of chaos. Bush is sh*t, we all know that. We know here about his policy on taxes and it's policy on minorities and the Katrina issue is wacked. Here in venezuela we had a Katrina-alike issue in La Guaira, the main port of the country, near Caracas, the city remains after eight years collapsed, even the main bridge to go to the port, guess what? fell down!, instead they built a road wich doesnt's suplly enough room for all the trucks and cars... you know, i coul be writing this for days, weeks or months. And yeah I'm pissed off. You have to be here to see what the fu*k is going on here, man, and i'm no rich, and i know how the main rich people here, and past politicians runned this country, but i can't justify the action of this so called "socialistic government" (which is not) just because i hate the right side politicians. You just can't justify sh*t. Now the new politicians have enough money to buy expensive cars, and houses, while the venezuelan "guettos", we call'em here Barrios are growing and growing. Money is flowing, but for a few. Just takes to listen to the people in the streets, even the supporters of Chavez to get the whole picture of this country. Knowledge is power, ignorance is submission. This, sadly, is an mainly ignorant people. The only thing we have left, we, the people who survives here, the people that know that is not about abstract politics or government lies or whatever is this mess, a confussion between ignorance an intolerance, the only thing we have left is our voice, and criticism. I can't support a RED BUROCRACY (take a look at the URSS history, but here is even worst, is simply a mixed up ideas of left-side politics and hate, the ambition of power of the new polititians and the ones left behind in the past, but still, corrupt sh*t).
Don't talk about it, be about it.
Some of you are just morons. Hes not standing up to bush, hes using the typical democrat/Hamas playbook. If people are poor and unhappy give them a scapegoat. However dont change anything, blame it all on Bush.
Of course you democrats love him, hes managed to violently supress anyone that disagrees with him.
Just more crap from the infamously ignorant Mr. Mona. These comments are coming from a man who once (and only once, as he said at the time) visited the southeast OF HIS OWN COUNTRY and was surprised to discover that the people there were much like him! Imagine how shocking that must have been to suddenly realize that other Americans were not the Nazis he'd been taught to believe they were!
I have a lot of respect for Mr. Mona's ability as a game designer and publisher, but his political views clearly come from a very, very limited frame of reference.
Get out and meet some real Americans, Mr. Mona! Leave your bastion of liberalism for a while and start living among us. Maybe you'll learn a thing or two.
Post a Comment
<< Home