Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Old Iran-Contra Death Squad Gang Is Desperate to Discredit Chavez
I walked with Roberto Navarrete into the national stadium in Santiago, Chile. With the southern winter's wind skating down from the Andes, it was empty and ghostly. Little had changed, he said: the chicken wire, the broken seats, the tunnel to the changing rooms from which the screams echoed. We stopped at a large number 28. "This is where I was, facing the scoreboard. This is where I was called to be tortured."
Thousands of "the detained and the disappeared" were imprisoned in the stadium following the Washington-backed coup by General Pinochet against the democracy of Salvador Allende on September 11 1973. For the majority people of Latin America, the abandonados, the infamy and historical lesson of the first "9/11" have never been forgotten. "In the Allende years, we had a hope the human spirit would triumph," said Roberto. "But in Latin America those believing they are born to rule behave with such brutality to defend their rights, their property, their hold over society that they approach true fascism. People who are well-dressed, whose houses are full of food, bang pots in the streets in protest as though they don't have anything. This is what we had in Chile 36 years ago. This is what we see in Venezuela today. It is as if Chávez is Allende. It is so evocative for me."
In making my film The War on Democracy, I sought the help of Chileans like Roberto and his family, and Sara de Witt, who courageously returned with me to the torture chambers at Villa Grimaldi, which she somehow survived. Together with other Latin Americans who knew the tyrannies, they bear witness to the pattern and meaning of the propaganda and lies now aimed at undermining another epic bid to renew both democracy and freedom on the continent.
The disinformation that helped destroy Allende and give rise to Pinochet's horrors worked the same in Nicaragua, where the Sandinistas had the temerity to implement modest, popular reforms. In both countries, the CIA funded the leading opposition media, although they need not have bothered. In Nicaragua, the fake martyrdom of La Prensa became a cause for North America's leading liberal journalists, who seriously debated whether a poverty-stricken country of 3 million peasants posed a "threat" to the United States. Ronald Reagan agreed and declared a state of emergency to combat the monster at the gates. In Britain, whose Thatcher government "absolutely endorsed" US policy, the standard censorship by omission applied. In examining 500 articles that dealt with Nicaragua in the early 1980s, the historian Mark Curtis found an almost universal suppression of the achievements of the Sandinista government - "remarkable by any standards" - in favour of the falsehood of "the threat of a communist takeover".
The similarities in the campaign against the phenomenal rise of popular democratic movements today are striking. Aimed principally at Venezuela, especially Chávez, the virulence of the attacks suggests that something exciting is taking place; and it is. Thousands of poor Venezuelans are seeing a doctor for the first time in their lives, having their children immunised and drinking clean water. New universities have opened their doors to the poor, breaking the privilege of competitive institutions effectively controlled by a "middle class" in a country where there is no middle. In barrio La LÃÂnea, Beatrice Balazo told me her children were the first generation of the poor to attend a full day's school. "I have seen their confidence blossom like flowers," she said. One night in barrio La Vega, in a bare room beneath a single lightbulb, I watched Mavis Mendez, aged 94, learn to write her own name for the first time.
More than 25,000 communal councils have been set up in parallel to the old, corrupt local bureaucracies. Many are spectacles of raw grassroots democracy. Spokespeople are elected, yet all decisions, ideas and spending have to be approved by a community assembly. In towns long controlled by oligarchs and their servile media, this explosion of popular power has begun to change lives in the way Beatrice described.
It is this new confidence of Venezuela's "invisible people" that has so inflamed those who live in suburbs called country club. Behind their walls and dogs, they remind me of white South Africans. Venezuela's wild west media is mostly theirs; 80% of broadcasting and almost all the 118 newspaper companies are privately owned. Until recently one television shock jock liked to call Chávez, who is mixed race, a "monkey". Front pages depict the president as Hitler, or as Stalin (the connection being that both like babies). Among broadcasters crying censorship loudest are those bankrolled by the National Endowment for Democracy, the CIA in spirit if not name. "We had a deadly weapon, the media," said an admiral who was one of the coup plotters in 2002. The TV station, RCTV, never prosecuted for its part in the attempt to overthrow the elected government, lost only its terrestrial licence and is still broadcasting on satellite and cable.
Yet, as in Nicaragua, the "treatment" of RCTV is a cause celebre for those in Britain and the US affronted by the sheer audacity and popularity of Chávez, whom they smear as "power crazed" and a "tyrant". That he is the authentic product of a popular awakening is suppressed. Even the description of him as a "radical socialist", usually in the pejorative, wilfully ignores the fact that he is a nationalist and social democrat, a label many in Britain's Labour party were once proud to wear.
In Washington, the old Iran-Contra death squad gang, back in power under Bush, fear the economic bridges Chávez is building in the region, such as the use of Venezuela's oil revenue to end IMF slavery. That he maintains a neoliberal economy, described by the American Banker as "the envy of the banking world" is seldom raised as valid criticism of his limited reforms. These days, of course, any true reforms are exotic. And as liberal elites under Blair and Bush fail to defend their own basic liberties, they watch the very concept of democracy as a liberal preserve challenged on a continent about which Richard Nixon once said "people don't give a shit". However much they play the man, Chávez, their arrogance cannot accept that the seed of Rousseau's idea of direct popular sovereignty may have been planted among the poorest, yet again, and "the hope of the human spirit", of which Roberto spoke in the stadium, has returned.
· The War on Democracy, directed by Christopher Martin and John Pilger, will be shown on ITV on Monday at 11pm.
John Pilger has been a war correspondent, film-maker and author, and has twice won British journalism's highest award, that of Journalist of the Year. He has also been named International Reporter of the Year, and won the United Nations Association Peace Prize and Gold Medal. For his broadcasting, he has won France's Reporter Sans Frontieres, and television academy awards in the United States and Britain. He holds the prestigous Sophie Award for "thirty years of exposing deception and improving human rights".
© 2007 The Guardian/UK

107 Comments so far
Show AllThe disinformation will continue as long as corporate greed drives our economy.
The greedy ones cannot let out the news that there are better sytems than global capitalism.
The masses may just rise up and throw off their shackles!
Does the term 'wage slave' mean anything to you?
Of course, the military-industrial complex (US economy's biggest exporter) may have something to say before the dust settles.
chavez, like castro before him, is a "bad example" in the eyes of the rentier class. commondreams is too, for pretty much the same reason: any alternative is a bad example. the rich will fight such visionary people and institutions tooth and nail and, if they win (they usually do, even if they have to borrow-and-spend us all into insolvency), will then say "see, it (socialism, communism, whatever) was fatally flawed and doomed to failure."
Just keep a close eye on Latin American progress. It is very promising but also still quite fragile. You can be sure that if Washington weren't so bogged down in its crusade against the evil Muslims, it would be focussing all its military and espionage might on Latin America. As it stands, Washington's interference in Mexico's recent election which brought that country's current Bush ass-kisser to power is evidence that nothing is for sure where Latin America's rosier future is concerned. What we need is more coverage like Pilger's -- floods of it so that a broad global majority becomes aware of what's happening.
From http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1526395420070816
"Chavez proposed a raft of legal changes on Wednesday that increase the presidential term from six to seven years, end limits on re-election and strengthen the state's expropriation powers as he consolidates his hold over the OPEC nation. The changes would have to be approved by a popular referendum."
I'm not sure he cares, but if this is true, Chavez's attempt to end term limits will damage whatever credibility he has established in the US.
Nonsense.
Absolute nonsense.
Where, IMuser, is it written that term limits must only be imposed in the Third World?
Sell that swampland to the new, rightwing president of France--for example--where there are no term limits.
I am sure he will tell you to take your credibility argument and blow it out your ass.
I echo his sentiments 100%. It's a logical conclusion, and here's why:
Given the WONDERFUL magic that Chavez has worked in 8 years in a country that was bankrupt and with a REAL poverty rate of 80% when he took over--not to mention with its single-product economy's product at 7 bucks a barrel--he's capable of making an enormous difference in South America--and in the planet as a whole--if he continues his roll for 13 years more.
But you just keeping shaking that bonehead booty of yours in the face of gthe only hope for saving your puny species.
I will personally lick a gold star and stick it on your cadaver, buzzard bait....
Zoya, Thank you for stating the obvious. Amin
As in Idi?
IMuser got schooled by moonraven. IMuser deserved it.
VIVE CHAVEZ!!!
Peace to you and yours.
No, MoonRaven
Definitely not as in Idi!! As in Amen - Amin is the Moslem equivalent.
Oh?
In the Middle East we say InchAllah.
Idi did die in Saudi Arabia, however....
happystead,
vivA Chavez, actually.
(As is the more formal Que viva Chavez.)
The vivE form is Chavez vive.
(As in Zapata vive, la lucha sigue.)
Chavez better start screwing over his people and feeding the super wealthy or the Loonitary Decider will designate the entire country of Venezuela a "special foreign terrorist organization." Wonder how many Blackwater assassins have been sent south already...
moonraven --
I hope Chavez isn't the only Venezuelan leader in that nation who can work the your "wonderful magic", and I'm grateful for presidential term limits in the US. I used to oppose them for other offices, too, but not any more.
By the way, we both know Chavez doesn't have much credibility amongst the elected in the US anyway.
Venezuela and Latin America are the crucible of progress of which Fidel is the founding father. Bush has made much of the present progress possible by his crippling of the empire. They finally have our boot mostly off their necks and they know it. We are a failing vestige of the past. They are the future. Viva la Revalucion!
top journalist John Pilger is right, and today the Washington Post has their top editorial blasting Chavez (with mostly lies). Check it out. The WaPo is also upset that Chavez may get elected again. I wonder how many of us remember that it wasn't til after Roosevelt that we created a law that said a president could have only two terms. Roosevelt was elected THREE times and died before the end of his third just before the war ended. If he had been a younger, healthier man there is a good chance he would have been elected for a fourth. After all, he had won the "good" war for us, and the economy was getting better. But we can't have that, so congress passed a law to prevent it. Now Chavez is possibly going to get elected again in a year or two (I don't know when his term is up) and gee that would be a terrible thing. But the amazing thing is that virtually ALL the press (newspapers and TV - owned by the rich) are opposed to him and the people just don't care - they'll still elect him. I wish we were as smart as the Venezuelans when it comes to the press.
Chavez has committed the unpardonable sin of seeking to use Venezuela's natural resources to improve the lives of her citizens instead of the benefits accruing to a few wealthy elites and multinational oil companies. Come to think of it, it's the same sin commited by Saddam Hussein. Hussein became an "evil dictator" when he nationalized Iraq's oil companies. He became an "imminent threat" when he threatened to sell Iraq's oil for Euros instead of dollars.
IM, Colombia has the worse human rights record in the Western Hemisphere and are longtime allies of the US right wing. So much so that they get more military aid than any other country in Latin America. What Chavez is proposing, term limits, will be put up for public referendum. Want to know what Uribe in Colombia did? He had his cronies in government change Colombian law, with no input from the public, to allow him to run as many times as he'd like. But he's our boy, so that isn't authoritarian, it's "moderate". That's what we call state killers we support when they do these types of things. Cause Chavez is the "radical", Uribe must be the "moderate" and worthy of our support. Killing more union leaders in Colombia than the rest of the world combined (for man years running), having a cousin under investigation for ties to death squads, having past connections to violent right wing drug runners, having a former campaign manager that got arrested at a US airport with pounds of drug making materials doesn't matter, that's why we never hear how he's a tyrant. Take your propaganda to the right wing sites. They don't require that your garbage be factually based there, they only ask that it affirms their already held beliefs. You'll love it on those sites.
The recent RCTV incident is a great example of how you idiots work. The station supported the removal of a DEMOCRATIC government and supported what amounted to a military dictatorship. When the junta took power they liquidated congress, the courts, everything. The right wingers in the audience and on RCTV cheered. One of the coup leaders, this can be seen on "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" on youtube, actually thanks RCTV on camera, another thanks the media for helping lay the groundwork for the removal of a DEMOCRATIC government. De-classified CIA documents show that they used the media in propaganda campaigns and the coup president actually used a station in Venezuela, which is still running, as a bunker the day before the coup. If CNN did the same with, say, Chinese money I'm sure you'd think it would be "authoritarian" to hold them accountable for their actions.
"Whatever credibility he has established in the US." Credibility? The US? Has the media in this country been credible Mr. Dittohead IMuser? Go back to your bubble and watch your CNN and Faux News channel you corporate bitch. This news blog is for people who have been in the realm of the living for the last seven years and watched the devastating effects of your lying media first hand while laughing at idiots like you suck up Limbaugh spunk like suckling pigs.
The bashing I'm receiving for suggesting that Chavez will lose credibilty in America -- regardless of the amount he or the US MSM has -- for wanting to remove term limits for his office isn't that much different from that I received when I expressed support for Chavez at other sites for defending the revocation of RCTV's broadcasting license, stating that Chavez isn't a dictator, and reminding others that political dissent is thriving in Venezuela -- name calling and assumptions about my poltical beliefs.
Have fun gang.
hazmat,
"chavez, like castro before him, is a "bad example" in the eyes of the rentier class. commondreams is too, for pretty much the same reason: any alternative is a bad example. the rich will fight such visionary people and institutions tooth and nail and, if they win (they usually do, even if they have to borrow-and-spend us all into insolvency), will then say "see, it (socialism, communism, whatever) was fatally flawed and doomed to failure."
Rather like the Paris Commune was "doomed to failure" -- when 30,000 Parisians were slaughtered by order of right-wingers who would rather have Paris occupied by Prussians than be a successful center of resistance & revolution outside of the control of the bankers & clergy.
Ruthru " corporate bitch" "idiots like you"Whatever happened to basic manners and civil discourse? Calling people that mildly disagree with you vile names is not exactly what you would expect on a progressive site. Isn't this what the RIGHT is supposed to be known for? This is supposed to be a DISCUSSION forum, not a "disagree with me at your own peril" forum. Shame on you.
DIXIE, LISTEN UP :
FDR was elected FOUR times, and died three months into his 4th term.
Bligh,
I can't tell if your tongue is stuck on your cheek, but I'm sure that ruthru, Grant, and moonraven spend at least a few hours a week bemoaning the lack of support for progressive candidates and the low turnouts at various functions and meetings.
I hope -- assuming those screen names represent three different people & not an individual compensated by an oddball group on the extreme right attempting to alienate participation in progressive boards -- they're all youngsters.
In WWII we said that Stalin couldn,tbe that bad because he was against Hitler. Now those on the left are saying that Chavez couldn't be that bad because he opposes US interventions. He did get power to rule by decree. He did shut down some newspapers, some of which tried to oust him in a coup, others didn't. Now he wants to end term limits and increase the president's term length. Just because he opposes Bush doesn't mean that he's good. The lesser of 2 evils is still evil.
At this point, does anyone really care what the US corporate media talking heads say?
The Venezuelans have survived a coup attempt and multiple attempts to remove Chavez from office in elections. And I don't see any sign that the US is preparing an external military force to attack Venezuela. So, who cares what some American corporate talking heads say.
I'll have to admit I'm biased. I've used parental blocking on my sat dish to block all American corporate news channels. So I almost never see any of this stuff. I guess that's my personal answer to how much I care about what they say.
Ken,
I'm not sure where you're getting the "rule by decree". He did attempt to drive out Perez, but failed. He was elected twice. Many gripe about the elections, but they were recognized as "fair" -- at least as fair as most American elections -- by international observers.
Where did you get the "rule by decree" bit?
Do any of you reemember John Negroponte? The very same person who is now the US United Nations ambassador.
In the 80's, he was the man who introduced "Death Squads" to Central America. Look whhat happened in Iraq when he was the ambassaddor there. They had not had any death squads, but now they do. Negroponte will probably be assigned to Venezuela next. He is an eveil person.
Viva Chavez!
imuser: I'm an old fart and I was serious. I enjoy argueing with people that disagree with me, I do it every friday with my friends down at the bar. It helps me think thru my positions, and I sometimes even learn something from the other side. We sometimes get pretty passionate, but we don't call each other names just because we disagree. I don't think their evil. Plus, I have never brought anyone around to my point of view by insulting them. Good luck.
Chavez is wonderful. His detractors are so blinded by their hatred of Bush and the United States that they completely ignore what he has done to Venezuela. Let's see:
He shut down RCTV, and threatens other broadcasters, because they supported a "coup" against a democratically elected government (his own). Great. If coups are so bad, why did CHAVEZ launch a bloody one in the early 1990's?
He is "fighting poverty". Great. So, WHY did the Gini co-eficient for Venezuela INCREASE from 0.44 in 2000 to 0.48 in 2005? (this measures income inequality, which is INCREASING under Huguito)
Both the World Bank and Transparency International now rank Venezuela second to last (after Haiti) as the second most corrupt country in the Western Hemesphere. Why?
Why was a Venezuelan businessman with ties to Chavez recently arrested in Buenos Aires with $800,000 worth of undeclared cash on him?
Why is inflation, at 20% and rising, the highest of any country in Latin America?
Why is a new class known as the "Boli-bourgeoisie", consisting of sycophants and people with contacts rising in Caracas?
Why is the violent crime rate in Venezuela at an all time high, and RISING???
Why is all this happening with oil at historically high prices? What will hapen when oil drops in price?
Finally, why, if Huguito is such a revered figure in Latin America, did Mexico and Peru recently elect strongly anti-Chavez candidates, and why are the left of center presidents of Uruguay (Vazquez) and Brazil (Lula) dragging their feet on letting Venezuela into Mercosul???
I suppose none of this matters. He hates Bush, and the people who are victimized by his policies are brown skinned and far away. Still, it is a shame.
Chavez was given the right to rule by decree in January. It lasts 18 months and can be renewed after that period of time. They called it the "Enabling Law"
Hugo Chavez is one of my heroes. He is doing great things for the mass of Venezuelans, and he has had the courage and wit to tweak Bush's tail repeatedly. If there were more Chavez-like leaders in Latin America, there might be some hope that American imperialism would be effectively countered.
Grant August had a great comment above.
Basically folks, there are two choices here (well, really three or four, but see below).
1. Business as usual for the American Empire - we send thugs into Third World countries to topple governments and set up puppet systems whose economic and social policies are dictated by the World Bank, IMF, Ex-Im, USAID, and various corporate interests who want to control their raw material resources as well as their domestic and international markets. This was the goal of the attempted coup in Venezuela, which US corporate media supported from the outset. See:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/05/1543207
This is also why Mexican corn prices spiked - under NAFTA, US agribusiness was able to dump subsidized US corn on the Mexican market at prices that drove small Mexican farmers off their land (and over the border as economic refugees, where they work on - yes - US agribusiness slave farms). When they had cornered the market, they jacked up prices - corn was selling for twice the price in Mexico City as it was in Chicago. That's market manipulation, folks - it had little if anything to do with corn ethanol.
The US corporate media refuses to discuss corporate market manipulation, since they engage in it themselves.
2. The other possiblility is real free trade between independent sovereign nations. Real free trade agreements are about a paragraph long:
"We will allow business and individuals to engage in trade, with reasonable import tariffs, and we expect similar labor and environmental standards among all trading partners, or trade will not be allowed. Countries may reserve the right to limit imports in order to allow their domestic industries to get established, but there should be time limits on this."
There you go - that's a free trade agreement. The thick books produced by NAFTA, CAFTA, MEFTA, etc. are just recipes for corporate colonial control of puppet client states.
As far as the other two possibilities? Well, there is global warfare over vanishing resources as one, and total breakdown of commerce and economic isolation as societies collapse under the stress of global warming, overpopulation and resource exhaustion. Let's avoid these possibilities and go for choice #2, yes?
Ken & Bligh --
Thanks for bringing up the "rule by decree." I was unaware of it. If I understand correctly, it has nothing to do with the term length, but gives Chavez an all-ecomposing "fast track" type of authority far more sweeping than anything Clinton took advantage of in trade agreements.
I've never really commented on Chavez because I don't have an information source that I trust. I assume there are at least three groups: (1) the pro-globalization/Bush camp, (2) hard-line Chavez supporters and (3) progressives who may be inclined to think that any enemy of Bush is an ally of theirs.
As a result, I really cannot pass good judgment on Chavez. But it is awfully clear that Bush doesn't really like democracy, socio-economic justice, science freed from distortion, etc. etc. As a result, I can automatically disqualify group #1's trustworthiness.
Some great discussion here.
But I'm confused. Is Chavez rule in Venezuela good for Venezuelans?
John Pilger has some glowing praise for Chavez, which I give much weight. Felipe Calderon, here, has raised some troublesome points. Any counter-points?
The media and the economists recruited and given a platform by the corporates and right wing nuts always tell us that any measure of economic justice doesn't work.
They don't believe their own bull because they massively intervene in every country that tries to give workers a fairer deal.
By their actions one must assume they KNOW that progressive policies will be very successful.
To KittyladyOregon: John Negroponte is U.S. Deputy Secretary of State. John Bolton "I'm with the Bush/Cheney team and I'm here to STOP THE COUNT!!!" is our Ambassador to the United Nations.
To Felipe Calderon: So, "The World Bank" ranks Venezuela as the second most corrupt country after Haiti.... Is this the same "World Bank" that just got rid of Wolfowitz?? Speaking of corrupt....
Let's see...the Venezuelan businessman busted with $800k entering Buenos Aires? Isn't that in Argentina where the President's WIFE is now running for office for President? Gee. I wonder if perhaps the capitalist is bailing out of the Socialist country? He's running to a "SAFE HAVEN". Heck! I wonder why he didn't come to the United States? On second thought, even this isn't such a great place for a capitalist right now. Ouch....
So, the violent crime is rising in Venezuela?? Maybe that's one of the reasons, according to our "newspaper of record...The New York Times" today, that Chavez is buying "5,000 modernized Dragunov rifles" probably destined to go to "the large "CIVILIAN" RESERVE FORCES WHICH BYPASS THE TRADITIONAL MILITARY CHAIN OF COMMAND AND REPORT DIRECTLY TO MR. CHAVEZ AND COULD BECOME THE CORE OF A DOMESTIC GUERRILLA FORCE IF VENEZUELA WERE INVADED."
According to Mark Joyce, the Americas editor for Jane's Country Risk, (part of Jane's Information Group), "Obviously, what he has in mind is some sort of urban, guerilla war against an invading force, and the model for that is Iraq."
The NYT continues in the article: "These contracts do not defy any sanctions and are legal. But they also drew criticism in Washington, which has expressed worry that Mr. Chavez's government WAS BUYING MORE WEAPONS THAN IT NEEDED AND COULD DISTRIBUTE WEAPONS TO SOUTH AMERICAN GUERRILLAS OR TERRORISTS."
After reading another article on Commondreams about the couple who were ARRESTED after going into a 2004 Bush Rally wearing T-shirts that were anti-Bush, it makes me wonder....Can any of us imagine having weapons delivered to us via UPS from Bush to help protect the "Homeland" from terrorists/invaders? Ha!!!!!!!!!
Why is inflation 20% and rising in Venezuela Felipe Calderon wonders? Well, gee, maybe that's why Chavez would like to nationalize the banking system as Lincoln and others tried to do in the United States before they were ASSASSINATED (watch "The Money Masters Part 1 and 2 on Google). Having the government of the country be the entity that creates money, especially if it's backed by that country's gold/silver or oil reserves is a gutsy, anti-private banking and anti-inflationary idea! I hope he succeeds in taking over the banks for the People of Venezuela!
You are right about one thing. Chavez certainly does seem to hate Bush! I remember the day Chavez made his speech at the United Nations. Bush had just given a speech there the day before. Chavez got up and said, (as Ambassador John Bolton slithered under his table), "The DEVIL was here yesterday! I can still smell the sulphur in the air!!"
Of course, you kind of can't blame the guy. After all, we did try to depose him with a coup. Remember? He was out for 2 days or so then the people went ape shit and BINGO!!, the United States slinked off in their little warships.... Kind of the same way Bolton slinked under the table at the U.N. the day Chavez proclaimed Bush to be Satan.
I think that was the same day Chavez was holding up one of Noam Chomsky's books and maybe "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn? He was speaking of several interesting American books as I recall.
Anyhow, I do believe Venezuela is still on our (s)hit-list. Once we've had our way with Iraq and Iran. I guess, to us, North Korea has just become like the Crazy Aunt in the attic (with nukes) nobody wants to talk about. Remember the "axis of evil"?
What kills me here is that as the United States is bitch-slapping Chavez for supplying weapons to the campesinos to defend their "Homeland", we are busy giving Israel a $20 Billion ? arms deal over twenty years so we can help them continue their apartheid against the Palestinians. Go figure.
Zimbabwes Robert Mugabe is a victim of a similara disinfo campaign.
Abbywood, instead of whining about how Chavez needs to "nationalize" the banking system (he has said nothing of the sort, what he wants to do is remove the independence of the Central Bank of Venezuela) you should be asking yourself why countries like Mexico, Uruguay, or Brazil that had serious hyperinflation in the past under populist Chavez-like presidents now have inflation in the low single digits. With independent central banks and a private banking sector.
You whine about the world bank. So, does that mean that Transparency International is also lying? Maybe they are wrong. Please inform us as to what countries are more corrupt than Venezuela in that case.
Your ranting about Argentina is incoherent. Remember that Argentina is, at this time, Venezuela's staunchest ally in Mercosul, and Kirchner (and his wife) are some of Huguitos most reliable puppets.
I think Bush is an idiot. However that does not mean that people who disagree with him are also idiots (I think Hitler was an evil tyrant...Yet I do not apologize for the greater crimes of Stalin) I believe that you can form a pretty reasonable opinion about a world leader based on who he associates with. Chavez is great friends with unelected tyrants like Mugabe, Lukashenko, Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, and the mad mullah of Iran, and spends much time and money apologizing for them. At the same time, he makes great efforts to denigrate the elected politicians of, among other countries, Peru, Columbia, Mexico, Spain, France, the UK, the Brazilian Senate, Chile...
As they say in Latin America, "Dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres." This phrase fits the Venezuelan Corporal to a T.
Richard young, can you name (and cite examples) of ONE Venezuelan broadcast TV network that is TODAY critical of Chavez? There is going to be a very long pause before you answer.....Because they do not want what happened to RCTV to happen to them.
Ruthru, did you learn the words "corporate bitch" from your mother? Or did you think them up yourself. If so, you are very creative. When I grow up, I hope I can be as eloquent as you. Besides, calling someone a "corporate bitch" is SO MUCH easier than actually engaging in a reasoned debate with them. Especially if you have no valid ideas to debate with.
Ken Mitchell: Name one single newspaper that Chavez has shut down. There is going to be a very long pause before your answer, because NO NEWSPAPER HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN BY THE GOVERNMENT SINCE CHAVEZ TOOK OFFICE. If you really have any doubt about freedom of the press in Venezuela, READ TODAY'S INTERNET VERSIONS OF ALL ON-LINE NEWSPAPERS IN VENEZUELA. Assuming you can read Spanish (which you probably can't), you will find that all Venezuelan newspapers have one thing in common: they hate Chavez, and they freely express that hatred every day of the year. But I imagine that you would prefer to continue spouting anti-Chavez propaganda, unfettered by any connection with what is going on in Venezuela today as we speak.
It is my belief that the U.S. desperately wants to attack Iran, but a major part of the fallout would be Venezuela stopping U.S. oil shipments in protest. With oil supplies so tight in the U.S. it would destroy the economy. Venezuela is the fourth leading importer of oil to the U.S. The undermining of Chavez is key to also attacking Iran. While many geopolitical issues in the world are related, I believe these two are at the head of U.S. foreign policy.
dIM, give your must be youngsters comment a rest. My point, which you have no response for, is that our ally right next door to Venezuela is a thousand times worse across the board and the mainstream press and the right wing says nothing what so ever about that fact. Does my age have a thing to do with this point? Or the fact that the RCTV nonsense doesn't hold up logically? Or that countless independent observers have pointed out the huge social gains for the vast majority of Venezuelans, ignored by previous government we DID support. Tell me, what would any US administration, not only the Bush administration, do to a station that did as RCTV did in Venezuela here with money from a country considered an enemy? They certainly wouldn't wait five years for the station's license to run out. The heads of the station would be lucky to dodge treason charges. Again, what would my age have to do with this simple logic? I guess when I get older I blindly believe everything my government, or the corporations who own the media, tells me and refuse to challenge the logic or facts they throw out. Obviously being a good little Stalinist is a sign of maturity.
It's funny that someone using the name of the Mexican president, a corrupt head of a corrupt government, would talk about someone else's country with the economic policies he's backed. Economic liberalization that's lead to hundreds of thousand of farmers going bankrupt, an eight fold increase in immigration to the US since NAFTA was signed, with a recent study by the Mexican government that found that the environmental costs of "free trade" policies in Mexico since their mid 80's reforms are more than twice the benefit received from Mexicans (this is aggregate, the benefits are highly concentrated, so it's worse than it even looks), growing disparities in wealth, growing pollution across the board, etc. Your post is hilarious. Carlos Andrés Pérez, who Chavez led the coup against, was actually impeached the following year on, guess what?, corruption charges! I thought Venezuela just got corrupt since Chavez took over!
Here's a link about the costs and benefits of "free trade" in Mexico: http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/NAFTAEnviroKGAmerProgSep04.pdf
An interesting quote, "First, since 1985 real incomes have grown at just 2.5%per year, and less than one percent per capita. Second, according to INEGI, major environmental problems have worsened since trade liberalization began in Mexico. Despite the fact that Mexico reached levels of income beyond the range of a predicted EKC turning point ,national levels of soil erosion, municipal solid waste, and urban air and water pollution all worsened from 1985 to 1999.Rural soil erosion grew by 89%,municipal solid waste by 108%,water pollution by 29%, and urban air pollution by 97%.The results have been costly to Mexico's prospects for development. The INEGI studies estimate the financial costs of this environmental degradation at10% of GDP from 1988 to 1999, an average of $36 billion of damage each year ($47 billion for 1999). The destruction overwhelms the value of economic growth, which has been just 2.5% annually, or $14 billion per year"
What about Venezuela before Chavez took over? Was it a free market paradise? Well..."The income share of the poorest 40 percent of the population dropped from 19.1 percent in 1981 to 14.7 percent in 1997, while the wealthiest 10 percent increased their share of the national income from 21.8 to 32.8 percent...During the 1980s and 1990s, no South American country deteriorated more than Venezuela; its GDP fell some 40 percent...In 1970, Venezuela's long-term debt had been only 8.7 percent of GDP. By 1985, it was 46.1 percent...Neoliberal policies, combined with low oil prices, took a terrible toll on the Venezuelan working class. Real wages dropped 23 percent during the 1990s, and 60 percent of the population was forced to turn to the informal sector of the economy to survive. Poverty rates skyrocketed, reaching, according to one estimate, 66.5 percent in 1989. (http://www.isreview.org/issues/54/venezuela.shtml)
Where were you right wingers when the US was training more Venezuelan military leaders in the "School of Americas" (basically a training camp for state terror) than most any other country in Latin America? Or when the "free market" reforms caused poverty and lack of access to healthcare or education to be amongst the worst in the region? Since Chavez has taken over access to healthcare, education and land has gone up for the poor majority.
Regarding the inflation comments: this is bond trader talk. Bonds lose their value when "goods inflation" goes up, the bond holders do well when you and I aren't doing well. When we are getting a larger share of the pie we spend more and goods go up. When this happens bonds lose their value and, basically, right wingers only care about the bond holding class anyway. The proper economic policy is to have goods inflation low (meaning the average person makes just enough to survive), the monetary base grows but very slowly (interest rates must be decently high to attract investors, so overall it is virtually impossible for workers to get out of debt) and the rich should be able to play around with some numbers on a computer to increase their wealth. Real work is for peasants and suckers.
I'm not going to go through the rest of your post, because the responses take time and this isn't worth it. Just one example of how dishonest you are. Lula, the "moderate", came out of a movement (and receives most of his backing) called the MST, the landless workers movement. The MST is as radical an organization as there is in Latin America, their policies have redistributed huge amounts of land for the Brazilian landless, their agricultural methods an inspiration to countless social movements. Before he took over Brazil was raided by investors, mainly through capital flight, which made many of the social processes virtually impossible. You asked why Brazil is fighting for Chavez's entry into Mercosur? Well, Brazil, despite having the eighth largest economy in the world, and blessed with endless natural resources, had social well being indices on the same level as many under-developed African countries. For decades Brazil had the worst wealth distribution in the entire world, not the region, the world. Certain segments were in such bad shape that their brains were actually smaller than the average human being thanks to malnourishment. This all possible because of a military dictatorship set up after the 1964 coup against ANOTHER democratic government, also backed by the US, and "free market" policies that made them the darlings of the Latin American business community (that's an actual quote from a busines journal I read recently from the early 1970's). The same people who supported the horrible policies in Brazil still have large amounts of power in Brazil. Lula is obviously more moderate than Chavez but the Brazilian public is not entirely happy with his foot dragging. Oh, and he's been besieged lately with corruption charges of his own.
"With independent central banks and a private banking sector."
There is no such thing as an "independent bank" -- all banking is theft.
"What is the robbing of a bank compared with the founding of a bank?"
A couple of decades ago a mordant bumpersticker read "STAMP OUT POVERTY, SHOOT A BEGGAR." I'd love to have one that says "STAMP OUT POVERTY, SHOOT A BANKER" -- except that would probably count as thoughtcrime in Orwellmerica.
?Eres nombrado sinceramente Felipe Calderon? Si asi es...usted se tiene celoso y enojado porque socialismo es mejor que capitalismo. Hugo Chavez y Fidel Castro son mejor que usted gobernarando un pais. Callate cabeza de mierda. Debata eso.
I'm glad the swiftboaters have deemed the pro-chavez folks unpatriotic. I'll sure sleep better knowing these idiots have nothing better to do.
How can support of Chavez be unpatriotic?
Why don't they volunteer to go to Iraq if they are so concerned with everyone else's thoughts? They have entirely too much time on their hands.
Maybe they need the HS folks to tell them - " Step away from the computer and keep your hands in sight".
"Ud. se tiene celoso y enojado" WTF? Please, sir Melvin, forward any comments in Spanish to your Spanish 101 TA for him/her to edit first. Otherwise, you just make yourself look stupid. Why did you use "eres" and "usted" in the same phrase, pray tell? Again, let someone who speaks Spanish check this stuff before you post it.
How can support of Chavez be unpatriotic? I guess that depends on what your "patria" is. If you are Venezuelan, it is certainly not (just as if you are a Venezuelan who chooses NOT to support Chavez, that is not unpatriotic either...). If you are an American who chooses to support the most anti-American (and do not delude yourselves that Huguito is just anti-Bush, he is anti American in general.) leader in Latin America, then I guess it depends on how you define "patriotism:.
"How can support of Chavez be unpatriotic?"
The believers in the Market Fairy think that economic pillage unrestricted by considerations of common wealth or public good is essential to fuhreedom, and therefore anyone who insists that wealth is to be used for the benefit of non-investors & non-managers is the "road to serfdom" (gnarf, zort). Pillage is called profit, tribute is called trade -- to stop the pillagers and refuse tribute is therefore to be a dictator, hence unpatriotic.
Faith in the Market Fairy is more easily conformable to the majority who adhere to religious sentiemnts; religious progressives are welcome, but religious progressivism is an offshoot of political & economic resistance, rather than the reverse.
Here are two links providing info on the Venezuelan economy that refute Calderon's propaganda (funny he uses the same name of the current fraudulently selected Mexican president), http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2388 http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1694 If one explores the parent site, much more info can be gained.
Is Chavez a cadillo? IMO, no, but he's human and thus has faults like us all. Does he make a mockery of every so-called social-liberal politico in the West by truly championing the interests of the majority? Yes, absolutely, which is why almost all Western politicos--and those handling their strings--revile him. Would he take impeachment off the table? NO! He boldly allowed the opposition recall vote to go forward despite their not having submitted the required number of valid petition signatures knowing he'd trounce them. Those and other reasons are why we have the appropriated namesake of a president discredited before he clandestinely took his oath of office posting here.
There's much more to this, but this is all for now. Read the links.
edit--Thanks Grant. I'm traveling and don't have access to my usual database.