In Venezuela, Faith in Chávez Starts to Wane

[Psephos]

Source: New York Times

CARACAS, Venezuela — These should be the best of times for Venezuela, blessed with the largest conventional oil reserves outside the Middle East and oil prices near record highs. But this country’s economic and social problems have become so acute lately that President Hugo Chávez is facing an unusual onslaught of criticism, even from his own supporters, about his management of the country.

In a rare turnabout, it is Mr. Chávez’s opponents who appear to have the political winds at their backs as they reverse polices of abstention and prepare dozens of candidates for pivotal regional elections. Mr. Chávez, for perhaps the first time since a recall vote in 2004, is increasingly on the defensive as his efforts to advance Venezuela toward socialism are seen as failing to address a growing list of worries like violent crime and shortages of basic foods.

While Mr. Chávez remains Venezuela’s most powerful political figure, his once unquestionable authority is showing signs of erosion. Unthinkable a few months ago, graffiti began appearing here in the capital in January reading, “Diosdado Presidente,” a show of support for a possible presidential bid by Diosdado Cabello, a Chávez supporter and governor of the populous Miranda State. Outbreaks of dengue fever and Chagas disease have alarmed families living in the heart of this city. Fears of a devaluation of the new currency, called the “strong bolívar,” are fueling capital flight. While the economy may grow 6 percent this year, lifted by high oil prices, production in oil fields controlled by the national oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, has declined. Inflation soared by 3 percent in January, its highest monthly level in a decade.

In fact, some economists see a slow-burning economic unraveling playing out in a country flush with oil revenues. But as Mr. Chávez embarks on his 10th year in power, it is becoming harder for him to blame previous governments for the malaise. This holds true especially in poor areas where voters failed to turn out in support of the president in a December referendum on a constitutional overhaul that would have vastly increased Mr. Chavez’s powers, a stinging defeat from which the president has yet to recover. “I cannot find beans, rice, coffee or milk,” said Mirna de Campos, 56, a nurse’s assistant who lives in the gritty district of Los Teques outside Caracas. “What there is to find is whiskey — lots of it.”

<snip>


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/world/americas/09venez.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

[Binka]

1. Ah Shit Are The Corpo Whores Slamming Hugo Again? Jesus.

Enough. John Pilgers new documentary really blows the shit off the propaganda. Why are you spamming this board with Corpo shit?

http://www.johnpilger.com/

Read his site. Read it and understand. Jesus. Do you not get that that the elites of that country are trying to break Hugo because he helps PEOPLE? These rich fucks are trying to BREAK him.

[Zorra]

13. Of course they are trying to break him.

The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. The great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dictates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel . .

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html

[DuaneBidoux]

17. I all along also thought it was a conspiracy by right wing capitalist pigs.

We must overthrow all governments for the stooges who call themselves democratic and install our people's revolutionary state in every country.

[fascisthunter]

41. Danke (nt)

[Voltaire99]

65. "Spamming this board with corpo shit"

A judicious line!

Not surprisingly, the source for said corpo shit has only recently endorsed HIllary Clinton. Should she be installed as president, I would expect American liberals very shortly to be demanding the head of Hugo Chavez along with the vast oil reserves he will be said to be oppressing and repressing and depressing in all but price.

And Hillary, in all due haste, trying to deliver it (and the loot) to them.

[wolfgangmo]

77. I used to live in Venezuela

And I still have friends there. I must say that they like Chavez.



Before he took power the ownership class was looting the country of oil money and everything else that wasn't nailed down. He stopped that. The problems that exist today are directly the result of the rich robbing the poor in that country.



At one time Venezuela was on the way to becoming a south American first world country and then the corruption in the oil industry started with privatization. And it went downhill fast. And now they are clawing their way back up.



I wish Venezuela well. I wish those that would destroy her for their own profits ill.

[EFerrari]

2. This would be the same New York Times that lied about the referendum

not being monitored. Thanks!

[killbotfactory]

3. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's all about to unravel

They say the same shit every year.

[Demeter]

4. And They Have Bad-Mouthed Castro For How Many Years?

[thunder rising]

6. They are projecting Castro onto Hugo. Painting him with the same brush without a bit of evidence.

[ronnie624]

21. Well, it *was* reported

that there was some graffiti somewhere in Caracas.

How much more evidence do you need?

[Judi Lynn]

5. Oh, christ! "once unquestionable authority is showing signs of erosion." Unquestionable? By whom?

By the right-wing oligarchy-owned media, mocking him, making fun of him 24/7, every day of every year? Calling him an ape OFFICIALLY, ON TV "NEWS" PROGRAMS? Snickering at him, calling him crude, clumsy, stupid over the peoples' airwaves?

Oh, yeah. I really see what the New York Times means. They've really got a point, don't they?

How about this photo published in a leading Venzuelan newspaper, Tal Cual, showing Hugo Chavez standing at a podium, brandishing a gun high in the air?



Well, they were lying! He was holding a rose in the air which had been given to him just before he went on stage, and was this photo, before they ####ed with it:



Dirtballs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for this article? As always, we consider the source.

[bitchkitty]

7. I call mierda!

It's been a while since I bought a Sunday Times - and I feel very good about that!

[AlphaCentauri]

36. I did stop buying my local news paper

in the last 5 years they have become so RW cheerleaders that what they publish does not make sense to me.

[dipsydoodle]

8. I cannot find beans...................

Without Chavez they'd find the food ok - just wouldn't be able to afford it. What is available is fairly distributed and price protected.

That's an NYT editorial - hardly LBN.

Perhaps this should be moved to the Humour Group.

[Judi Lynn]

10. The writer, Simon Romero has been a total ass for a long time. He showed his colors years ago.

Here's an article which takes a look at his style of "journalism:"

The Times’s Anti-Chávez Bias
By Amitabh Pal
December 6, 2006

The New York Times seems to have it in for Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez. The paper’s Latin America bureau chief, Simon Romero, has a big anti-Chávez bias, and it shows.

Take Romero’s story on Chávez’s massive electoral triumph the past weekend. The lead reads: “President Hugo Chávez won a landslide victory in the presidential election on Sunday. But campaign officials for the opposition candidate contended that the results were tainted by intimidation and other irregularities.” The headline writer adopted the same tone. “Chávez Wins Easily in Venezuela, but Opposition Protests,” the headline read, while the subhead stated: “Challenger’s Vote Exceeds Predictions.”

Now, charges of fraud should be reported on, but Chávez’s margin of victory should have made Romero question the opposition’s accusations, instead of giving them such prominence. The fact that these assertions were half-hearted can be seen by the fact that Chávez’s opponent, Manuel Rosales, conceded defeat the same day.

Curiously, it seems that the Times’s web editorial staff recognized the problematic aspects of Romero’s piece. The online version reads quite differently, with the headline and opening sanitized and the subhead taken out altogether.

Romero continued his anti-Chávez crusade the day after Chávez’s triumph. “If President Hugo Chávez rules like an autocrat, as his critics in Washington and here charge, then he does so with the full permission of a substantial majority of the Venezuelan people,” his piece opened. The pull quote for the piece referred to “some heads being chopped,” come January. (Interestingly, the person quoted is Steve Ellner, a progressive scholar who has written on Venezuela for publications such as In These Times, and his full quote is much less hostile to Chávez.) Another person cited in the piece says that “Chavez is not a dictator, but he’s not a Thomas Jefferson either.” Well, who is? Not too many current world leaders have Jefferson’s caliber, including the person currently occupying his post.

Romero’s hostility toward Chávez was also obvious in the run up to the presidential election. In a story two days before election day, he chose to highlight a crime wave in Venezuela, and quoted the opposition presidential candidate Rosales (without providing any balance) blaming Chávez for the phenomenon.

http://www.progressive.org/node/4286

[Judi Lynn]

11. The N.Y. Times has NEVER been straightforward about Venezuela since Chavez was elected.

It's not just this crappy reporter. You might recall Simon Romero, whose story is recalled in this article, in the second half of the page:

NY Times reporter quits over conflict of interest

By Al Giordano

Jan. 14— The New York Times’ Venezuela problem continued to snowball yesterday as its Caracas correspondent Francisco Toro resigned.
Toro acknowledged, in a letter to Times editor Patrick J. Lyons, “conflicts of interest concerns” regarding his participation in protest marches and his “lifestyle bound up with opposition activism.”
(snip)

Then, last night, Toro came clean: “my lifestyle is bound up with opposition activism at the moment, from participating in several NGOs, to organizing events and attending protest marches.”

It is admirable that Toro disclosed what the New York Times did not want him to disclose: his clear bias and his conflicts of interest. By resigning from the Times in an open and public manner, he did the right thing.

But the New York Times comes out of this episode with its already broken credibility regarding Venezuela reporting more damaged than ever. The Times’ Venezuela coverage is adrift, caught between its self-proclaimed “objective” mission and its hidden agenda: the distortion of news from that country in order to destabilize a democratically elected government.

If the Times International Desk had a shred of journalistic ethics, it would have either hired Toro as a partisan columnist or disclosed his activity in organizations, protest marches and the rest of what Toro himself calls his “opposition activism” on its pages when it hired him as a news correspondent.
(snip/...)

http://www.theglobalreport.org/issues/210/mediawatch.html

[w4rma]

9. This article is so much bullshit and wishfull thinking. (nt)

[bluestdogest]

12. Now that the world's economy is slowing, idiots like Chavez will

have a hard time holding on to power.

Fascism sucks.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[dipsydoodle]

15. Lol

Well put ! :rofl:

[Binka]

29. Love your spot in the world

Visited in 2006 and I never wanted to leave. :loveya:

[bluestdogest]

16. Brilliant post...!

I'm impressed with your intelligence and insight.

:rofl: at those who wear knee pads for fascists.

[bemildred]

19. You call people fascists while whining about "intelligence and insight"?

Name calling is an entirely appropriate response to name-calling.
Tool.
:rofl::rofl:

[ohio2007]

26. Hey, "they'll drag you down and beat you with experience"

name calling is the only counterpoint to protect their side of a debate.
"Rule by decree" will get the counterrevolutionaries out of the closet for proper justice especially when Hugo nationalizes the asphalt companies ;)

[AlphaCentauri]

32. Yeah, I want my asphalt back, God made it, it's ours

All resources in earth belong to us it's Gods will and our destiny.

:sarcasm:

[Binka]

34. Thank You For Reminding Me That I Needed To Put That Asshole On Ignore

Another 10 year old playing on his Mommies computer.

[Binka]

30. Oh My You've Seen My Hugo Knee Pads?

I must be more discreet.

[AlphaCentauri]

33. Best post in many clicks

:toast:

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Display Ignorance Much?

Fascism is the authoritarian meger of the corporate establishment and the state. We have a mild form of it right here in the USA. Socialism, more specifically Democratic Socialism as in Venezuela, is quite different from Fascism.

[bluestdogest]

22. Fascism is a variant of socialism. Mussolini, the father of fascism, was a socialist.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. The operative term is 'was'.

Mussolini was a socialist, and then he became an anti-socialist, a fascist. Fascism is not a variant of socialism, it is opposed entirely to the idea and ideals of socialism. You seem to have gotten your political education from the rightwing disinformation academy.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

24. Someone has been reading Jonah Goldberg's bullshit.

Main article: Fascism
Once Mussolini returned from World War I he gave little credence to socialism (though for a time, his paper still called itself "a Socialist paper"). By February 1918, he was calling for the emergence of a leader "ruthless and energetic enough to make a clean sweep." In May, he hinted in a speech in Bologna that he was going to take that position.

On March 23, 1919, Mussolini reformed the Milan fascio as the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento (Italian Fighting League), consisting of 200 members.<8> Its first manifesto promised broad reforms. It became an organized political movement a month later. The Fascisti, led by one of Mussolini's close confidants, Dino Grandi, formed armed squads of war veterans called Blackshirts (or squadristi) to terrorize socialists, anarchists, and communists. The government rarely interfered. The Fascisti grew so rapidly that within two years, it transformed itself into the National Fascist Party at a congress in Rome. Also in 1921, Mussolini was elected to the Chamber of Deputies for the first time.<5>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini

[Judi Lynn]

27. Isn't that sad? Right-wingers started trying to change the definition of fascism several years ago!

I couldn't believe my eyes when it started showing up on message boards in 2000. It was their fondest wish to be able to tie everything negative they could think of in world history to "liberals" and thereby exonerate the right-wing TOTALLY of all responsibility for all the suffering and hideous bloodshed.

They've been attempting to blame "liberals" for both left AND right-wing politics. Nice work if you can get it, right?

The only way you can swallow their latest left wing "fascist" crap is to be almost completely braindead.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. The debate was in full force on the usenet newsgroups in the 90s.

The typical idiotic argument presented the term 'socialist' in National Socialist German Workers Party as 'proof' of the assertion that fascism was a form of socialism. The irony that the nazis deliberately used Socialist in their official party name as part of their strategy to co-opt the German working class, to steal their support them from the real socialist parties, and then 60 years later this trick would again be used to attempt to dissaasociate the right from their historical totalitarian problem was of course lost on those presenting the argument. Then again our opponents on the right are not too interested in honest debate but instead prefer clever word games, emotional irrational arguments, and rhetorical dodges to be persuasive. Unfortunately they are actually quite good at that game.

[provis99]

94. Pretty soon Goldberg will start blaming us for being "conservatives"!

Why not? We're already "fascists" according to him. What a f*cking tool Goldberg is.

[bitchkitty]

28. That's an argument that is repeated by right wing trolls,

ad nauseam, in forums such as FreeRepublic and other choice places.

I am not saying that you are a right-wing troll, just wanted to let you know that's how it appears when you repeat things that make you sound like a dumb-ass....

[AlphaCentauri]

35. didn't Hitler and Mussolini ideas were to infiltrate socialist and destroy them?

That's how WWII started by them trying to "protect" europe from the socialist reds.

[NGC_6822]

46. Here are some definitions from Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary

SOCIALISM

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

COMMUNISM

1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

2 a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d: communist systems collectively

FASCISM

1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>

NAZISM

: the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the Nazis in Germany from 1933 to 1945 including the totalitarian principle of government, predominance of especially Germanic groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer

[Judi Lynn]

48. Wikipedia actually has an interesting definition:

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.
(snip)

Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism.
(snip)

Since Mussolini, there have been many conflicting definitions of the term fascism. Former Columbia University Professor Robert O. Paxton has written that:

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."<11>

Paxton further defines fascism's essence as:

...a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination."<12>

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#_note-5

[Warren Stupidity]

50. What fascism clearly is not: democratic socialism.

Venezuela has experienced an increase and strengthening of democratic institutions since 1999. Socialism can certainly take on a totalitarian form, but it can also be implemented within a democracy. The simple facts are that Chavez and his Bolivarian Party have been going about doing just that: implementing socialism within a democratic framework, and there is nothing that scares the real fascists more than democratic socialism.

[Judi Lynn]

51. Absolutely! They have no respect for democracy whatsoever, as they don't stand a chance to control

everyone once democracy becomes involved.

That's why they go to unacceptible, unwholesome extremes to "win" elections, and control the flow of information, relying upon wild, fact-free emotionalism created through their propaganda specialists.

[NGC_6822]

52. Could Hugo Chaves be seduced by fascism?

Thanks for the Wikipedia ref. It is an interesting expansion on fascism. I think the thing that disturbs many people about Hugo can be found in the last paragraph that you sighted, "....a sense of overwhelming..."

An assessment of Hugo's attitudes seems to fit this paragraph rather well; his sense of being a victim, a need to shut down unfavorable news media, stack the parliament, etc. He does seem to be currently constrained by the forces of his country's established democracy tradition, however, but one has the feeling that he would like to overthrow that if there was a possible way. Your commenter says that Venezuela is a socialist democracy. That is true at the moment, and we can only hope that the situation will continue as such.

Militarism is always sighted as a characteristic of fascism. This is another disturbing quirk about Mr. Chavez. He likes to frequently wear his uniform in public. No North American, European, Japanese, Australian, or other western democratic leader that I know of does that, even though they are all considered the civilian superior to their armed forces. Mr. Chavez is in the process of buying military equipment including possible submarines. Who is he going to defend against--the US? I don't think he intends to defend against anyone; he just wants to glorify the ideal of militarism.

Now I will wait for everyone to jump on me for America doing the same thing!

[Judi Lynn]

53. Do yourself the simple honor of finding out about Venezuela's history.

You'll have a much easier time understanding that Latin American countries are wildly different from the United States.

Please take time to learn about your subject as your first investment. Attempting to discuss things from the assumption you already know all about it is a mistake of astonish proportions.

Once you start paying attention to historical events you won't be asking questions like "Who is he going to defend against."

As a small courtesy to yourself, read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman," by John Perkins. It's a small book, but it should at least serve to open your eyes a bit to what has been going on the the Americas a long, LONG time.

[NGC_6822]

56. Latin America and fascism

I quite well understand that Latin American countries are "wildly" different than America. I lived in Puerto Rico for several years, and I have traveled considerably in Columbia, Venezuela, Brazil, down the Amazon River, and virtually all of the Central American countries from Mexico to Panama.

My question about "Who is he going to defend against?" was to rather cynically demonstrate a practical futility in spending large amounts of money on something that is irrelevant to the social needs of the country that many here would like to see as the only priority.

To answer my own question, though, I would guess that Hugo wants to wear his uniform in public as a symbol to promote his own self-importance and authority, and the point is: that is a little bit fascist. The same techniques and motivations have also been used by some other notable Latin American leaders in countries such as Cuba and Argentina, and we might also note that these countries derived from Spain which has had its round with fascism as well.

Thank you for your advice to give a "small" courtesy to myself. I recognize that I'm not anywhere in your league of historical competence, but I do the best I can.

[Judi Lynn]

57. How does your claim he wears his uniform a lot square with all the photos of him in civilian clothes

and even red shirts for festive events? I have to confess I've seen very few photos of Chavez wearing uniforms.



Here's your pResident wearing a medal he never earned:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x654437

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For DU'ers who enjoy John Pilger, here's a great opportunity to see his War on Democracy from the convenience of your own desk!

http://throwawayyourtelescreen.wordpress.com/2007/08/23/war-on-democracy/

[AlphaCentauri]

59. misleading question, lets check some facts

Since you have travel all over latin america, you'll probably know that Mexico, Peru, Colombia an other countries acquire helicopters, airplanes and ship to train their soldiers and to combat Drug Lords. Venezuela's national security is a social need, they don't want to become another Colombia. That should answer your first question "Who is he going to defend against?".

Hope this answer your answer to your own question. Latin American countries don't derived from spain, spain conquer latin america slavering native americans for hundreds of years, the result was a Mestizo culture and race. From la conquista to the ascend of the fascists dictator Franco to power in spain there is a gap of 500 years. If you are saying that there were similar events during the Franco years in Spain and latin america you are correct, Pinochet in Chile was killing socialist, in Mexico the government was killing students and teachers, in Puerto Rico the FBI was prosecuting the independentistas and we know argentina military juntas, Peru, Uruguay, Brazil. While Franco killed socialist in spain other did it in latin america.

[NGC_6822]

70. Fascists killing socialists--it's a fight for the top.

Your point about fighting drug lords is well taken. We can also add kidnapping, and many other criminal activities such as money counterfeiting. To illustrate the latter, when I last visited Venezuela and Columbia it was impossible to change currency of one country in the other. There was no bank or exchange window that would take the other's currency, because they didn't trust the validity of the money.

These kinds of national threats certainly justify the purchase of items like helicopters, but Hugo's interest in buying submarines and fighter aircraft seems a bit over the top.

To your point about fascists killing socialists: I refer you again to my post #46. The definitions show that socialism, fascism, communism, and nazism all include control of the economy and politics by the central government. These 'isms are differentiated by other control interests such as education, foreign intrusion, military etc. But, since they all spring from the same starting point--central government control--they kill each other in an effort to superimpose their own vision of a "just" society. It's simply a deadly competition for control of the top. This is the tragic pitfall of these 'isms. Social democracy attempts to solve this dilemma by ensuring that the general population retains ultimate control of the government if things get too far off base. We hope Hugo will remain committed to the principal of social democracy and won't morph into fascism. However, many people on this website are seeing some bad signals.

Consider this quote from: “Foreign Affairs” magazine, May/June 2006 “In Search of Hugo Chavez” by Michael Shifter pages 48-49

“To rule, Chavez depends chiefly on the military, the institution he knows and trusts most. Thanks to a specially tailored law, Chavez remains an active military officer, and more than one-third of the country’s regional governments are in the hands of soldiers directly linked to Chavez. As editor of the daily Tal Cual, Teodoro Petkoff, has noted, 'For all practical purposes, this is a government of the armed forces.' Moreover, the government has been organizing private unarmed militias and developing plans to mobilize up to two million reservists in the name of national defense.”

[AlphaCentauri]

74. Fascists don't kill fascists to get to the top

Extending on the acquisition of submarines and fighter aircraft, we have to realize that drug lords and human traffickers are changing their tactics, before they had Mexico as a secure port to supply drugs to the consumers in America, now they are changing they routes using speed boats, airplanes and submarines, that would explain why Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela and other countries should be ahead of any technology the drug mafias use.

Here is a small reference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503123.html?hpid=topnews

Drug Traffic Beneath the Waves
Sophisticated Submersibles Are Raising New Challenges for Colombian Navy

Now, the cartels seem to be increasingly going beneath the waves, relying on submarines built in clandestine jungle shipyards to move tons of cocaine.

Last year, 13 of the vessels were seized on dry land or stopped at sea by Colombian or U.S. patrol boats -- more than in the previous 14 years combined, according to the Pacific fleet of the Colombian navy, which is responsible for interdiction efforts across 130,000 square miles.

Naval officials say they are concerned that many more submarines may have gotten past patrols, especially now that the newest models are faster and feature more seaworthy designs than the first such vessels that Colombian officials discovered in 1993.

On the fascists definition
Don't know who writes those definitions on the dictionary but if there is a government that is not a central government who has no control to manipulate their economy, certainly don't know what it is.
The best example of fascist is the institution of corporations as part of the government, like Mussolini did in 1938 when he abolished the Parliament and set up in its place an Assembly of Corporations.

The point that Chavez relies on the military to be in powers it's just absurd, top military officials were involve in the coup against him.

[NGC_6822]

75. Socialism and Welfarism

Thank you for the heads up on the illicit submarines. I must admit that was an incredible article. I only scanned it, but I'm going to reread it carefully and save it. Thank you again.

The definitions that I quoted above refer to a family of 'isms that focus on a central government to "control" the economy and politics of a country. The word "control" in this context is much stronger than we are used to. It generally means to actually run the manufacture and production of products. The government is the owner and employer of the whole works, and incidentally, they are also the profit takers, because they need the profits to build the new industries. Sometimes they don't collect the profits and therefore they fall behind the rest of the world. What we call the free western world, private money owns the industrial output and distribution and the government tries to control the economy with regulations and manipulation of interest rates for example. But this is a far less intrusive control than above. It's the difference between the referees of a football game either being separate from the players or actually being the quarterbacks for the teams.

Americans often confuse socialism with welfarism. I don't hear any democratic candidate speaking about the government taking POSSESSION of the total computer industry in America, for example. But, there is a lot of talk about health care, education and aid for the poor. In my mind these are welfare issues not classical socialist issues.

Merriam-Webster: the complex of policies, attitudes, and beliefs associated with the welfare state

Regarding your last comment about the military and the coup against him, here is another quote from the article in the Foreign Affairs ref that I gave above (pg 49):

"In April 2002, a failed coup not only raised questions about the democratic credentials of the opposition; it also gave Chavez the perfect pretext to take full control of the armed forces, purging any dissidents."

Incidentally, if Judy Lynn is watching, there is a BEAUTIFUL picture just above that quoted paragraph showing Hugo in his uniform and paratrooper beret with a raised fist overlooking a sea of supporters on February 5, 2004.

Last, I like your handle, Alpha Centauri. I prefer NGC_6822, though because it's farther away. If things get worse on this planet, NGC_6822 is where I want to go. Also, it's an unusual SQUARE nebula, not like here where everything seems to go in circles.

[AlphaCentauri]

79. Social necessities do not equal welfarism

Welfarism must be the way we are handling the social necessities at this time. When individuals expect corporations donations to solve their necessities true charity, that's what I would call welfarism. The trickle-down economics theory is all about welfarism, it makes individuals totally dependant of the rich without respecting that individuals freedom, on the other hand when a society comes together to solve a problem like health care where everybody depends on the other members of society working as a team it's not welfarism.

Lets not ignore the fact that Mussolini's government was conformed by industrial and professional corporation. That implied that fascism is not directly linked to governments taking possession of property but corporation taking control or forming the government. A government where elected officials represent or lobby for corporation its much closer to be a fascist government.

About the long article in Foreign Affairs, what it hi lites is the cry of the author criticizing the Venezuelan opposition for their failure. There are many articles with the same approach, some of them were directed to the ex president Alberto Fujimori of Peru, where the same cheerleader that congratulate him in the pass for privatizing all the state owned enterprises attack him because it was to fast and did not work as expected.

[wolfgangmo]

86. They are the Alpha and the NGC

Not to jump into your discussion but a simple definition I learned about fascism is as follows; a totalitarian control of politics in conjunction/collusion with private ownership of wealth. Imagine a grid with a spectrum of politics from completely democratic to complete totalitarian on the x axis and a spectrum of ownership from completely private to completely public on the y axis.


This gives a grid with 4 boxes in it that encompasses all possible political/economic systems. Each box could be labeled either communist , socialist , fascist , and libertarian (or anarchist if you will) . There are shades of grey all over the graph.



I don't know if this will help you but it certainly clarified my simple thoughts on the matter.

[NGC_6822]

92. Poltical and economic spectra

You are certainly welcome to jump in on the discussion, but I would just like to say one thing. This thread is really about Venezuela, and I wasn’t intending to open up a debate about political and economic theory. That’s for a classroom. I’ll just pass my opinion on pol/econ theory for what it’s worth, then I will close my side of the theory discussion.

First I recognize that there are two distinct spectra, one is political and the other is economic. On paper, I draw a horizontal line and put the political spectrum above and the economic spectrum below the line.

The political spectrum begins on the left, let’s say, and we write “totalitarianism” which requires a total commitment of every individual in the society including how they think—hence the word totalitarian. Proceeding from left to right, we successively right “authoritarianism” where the government says “think what you want but stay out of my way, then “dictatorship” (including kings, queens, emperors, etc.), then “representative democracy,” then “full democracy” and finally “anarchy” on the far right. Other political systems can be injected on the line as you wish, but the idea is that the line flows from highly centralized government control on the left (government by a few) toward ultimately decentralized government (no government) on the right.

The same procedure is used below the line for the economic spectrum. Start on the left with “managed communism” which is total control of the economy big and small, then “socialism” which classically is defined as control of heavy industry which Chavez does with the oil industry for example, then “regulated free market,” then “less regulated free market” if you will, and finally “laissez-faire” on the far right which is totally unregulated economy with no rules. Again, play with the tags as you wish, but anchor the ends of the line with centralized and decentralized extremes.

Finally, you can draw a line from one political system down to any of the other economic systems to form a marriage. I suppose nearly every combination has been tried on this planet with some degree of success or not, although some combinations look like they would be ridiculous.

I’m finished with this subject.

[NGC_6822]

91. Submarines and Foreign Affaires

Regarding your ref. article for the clandestine submarines: I finally read it in detail and found a completely different meaning than when I scanned it. These submarines are indeed being built in the jungle rivers but on the other side of the continent from Venezuela. The area is on the Pacific side, and according to the article, the intent is to run drugs into the US. My guess is that they may try to land in Mexico and then go north. In any event the operation has nothing to do with Venezuela. In fact, I don't suppose such an operation would cause any tears to come to Hugo's eyes, if America was infiltrated by drug smugglers. So again, I return to my skepticism about Chavez expressing an interest in fighter planes and submarines. He has, on the other hand, mentioned that South American countries should build a counter military to the US.

The article was absolutely fascinating, however. I was especially impressed that they are building these things out of fiberglass which cannot be detected with standard anti-submarine warfare detection equipment. That could make for some interesting clandestine terrorist prospects regarding ports-- and not only in the US.

You are right that the opposition political party in Venezuela does come under severe criticism in the FA article--and deservedly so. If they weren't so stupid, they would probably still be there today. But two wrongs don't make a right. I simply think that we shouldn't be so naive as to give Chavez a two-thumbs-up in the face of some disturbing policies that he is putting in place. He has acquired a huge amount of political and economic power very quickly, and he wouldn't be the first in the world to misuse such a windfall.

[AlphaCentauri]

97. There is the Caribbean corridor as the new alternative to Pacific corridor

Drug cartels are using the Caribbean corridor which is the connection Colombia-Miami, and Venezuela must be worry about it. Remember that the enemies of Venezuela operate from Miami and also don't forget that in the pass drugs had been used to finance militias like the Nicaraguan contras.
I thing that will justified the purchase of the submarines, by the way mexico is buying Russian airplanes.

Drug Situation: Florida is a prime area for international drug trafficking and money laundering organizations, and a principal thoroughfare for cocaine and heroin transiting to the northeastern United States and Canada. The over 8,000 miles of Florida coastline and the short distance of 45 miles between The Bahamas and Florida provide virtually unlimited opportunities for drug trafficking organizations to use maritime conveyances to smuggle drugs. Miami International Airport (MIA) is a gateway for heroin and MDMA trafficking in Florida. South Florida, specifically Miami-Dade and Broward counties, are still favorite areas of drug traffickers for the smuggling of large quantities of cocaine, heroin and marijuana into the continental United States from South America, Central America and the Caribbean. Smuggling occurs via various types of maritime conveyances and cargo freighters, as well as via private and commercial aircraft. Additionally, there is a continued shift to ground transportation (e.g. bus, rail and vehicle) as a means of transporting narcotics throughout the state and to northern destinations. Miami is the primary domestic command & control center for Colombian narcotics traffickers. Methamphetamine remains a large problem and is the primary drug of concern in Central Florida.

http://www.dea.gov/pubs/states/florida2006.html

[Judi Lynn]

69. Here's an AP photo of Hugo Chavez taken Saturday, proudly wearing his nice bright

red uniform, as you point out to DU'ers. Red shirt, black slacks, very catchy as a uniform. Makes you want to salute, doesn't it?



Here's he is, going to vote, wearing his nice red shirt, driving his red VW.



This blue suit uniform is really nice. He is holding a red rose given to him by his audience before his speech.

[wolfgangmo]

87. Judi Lynn, I don't know what you call it where you are from ...

... but where I am from we call that red thing he is wearing a shirt and not a uniform. Kind of like there are red states and blue states. His political party seems to have adopted those colors. I do agree with you that it looks pretty good.



Admittedly it is not as striking as a flight suit....

[Judi Lynn]

93. I meant it as somewhat humorous. For a really cool effect, it's very nice to have BOTH a read shirt,

AND a red Volkswagon. Beep.



I'm driving, here!

[Diclotican]

85. NGC_6822

NGC_6822

For the most part European, North-American Japanese and Australia, plus other western leaders are not military when they assume office either...Not after WW2.... Not the democratic part then.. You had a military leader in Spain to 1975, and even today King Carlos of Spain have military uniform in many duties as head of state. Even our own King Harald V of Norway have military uniform in many duties.. But we don't fear that our king should take power as a military dictator either I guess.. Chavez on the other hand WAS a military man when he come to power in 1999?.. And for some reason military uniform in some part of the world are a sign of "trust-wort" when it come to leadership.. Even in China, where the communist party leadership nominally is civilian, they use military insignia and uniform when in office as head of the armed forces... Even when they may have not been in the Armed forces in China for years...

But US have some military leaders after ww2. If I don't recall it absolutely wrong, mr Eisenhower was before he was elected as president an military commander. But after what I know, he never used uniform after he was sworn in as President?

Why Mr Chavez are building up his armed forces I don't know why. But one thing is that mr Chavez specially after what happened for some year ago, when CIA tried to topple him, and give the power back to the corrupt leadership of before (I am not saiing that mr Chavez are clean, no way) And the current administration have threatened to topple mr Chavez many times over when he is talking over his head, and maybe are saying so meting he should have been.. If you know that a nab-our of your want you dead in a ditch, you do what you need to protect yourself.. And in this instance United States of America (this administration) really want mr Chavez dead and buried.. They would never tell you that this is the fact, but this administration are seeing mr Chavez as something of a "danger" to what they want to do in South America.. It is worst enough that they have lost control over much of South America the last 8 year, because of shifted political leadership in many country's But a plain spoken man who insulted Dear Leader on the UN stage are something the current administration in US have some REAL problem with...
I wounder, if this crying about Mr Chavez buildup are more that mr Chavez are buying weapon from Russia, then that they are buying it at all. If Chavez wanted to buying the same weapon from United States of America, at a much more money, the US would never give a word about it.. If Chavez was to buying fighter jets, and submarines from american contractors, US would never say a word,.. many contractors in US almost willing to sell their old grandmother if they are given enough money to do that... Weapon are no problem if the buyer just have enough money to keep everyone happy...

I believe for one, that the fact that Venezuela don't by american made weapons are the REAL REASON that United States "fear" Mr Chavez so much.. Russia have not been sleeping for the last 17 year And have made a lot of high-tech weapon who are really dangerous to american "Interest" in the region.. And today Russia are waking up, very slowly but they are weakling up. And that is something the Right wingers of the world really fear.. If the full potential of Russia is made, Russia will start to be a power. And that is something they don't want... If China and Russia was to be good friends, they can treated the interest of US in areas that either China or Russia before have been capable of doing some in pass to..

And if the right winger of the world can spin everything mr Chavez does or don't do as prove he are a villain they NEED to put down, they would to it.. The right wingers of the world have pointed mr Castro as a evil foe for more than 40 year now. And he is still ticking.. Old yes, and he Will not live forever, but he is still living if I don't get it wrong.. I believe him to live on dam stubbornness.. To this administration are out and a more friendly administration are in place..Then the old man can die in some peace.. With this administration he Will never die... He just can't he need to protect what is made in Cuba... Even that Cuba ARE a poor country, they DO have a better health care then in United States.. And it is public. And that scare the holy shit out of many right wingers... And with some help after mr Castro is Dead, Cuba can be a rather rich country, stable and with a public who have a good education and are living pretty well... And after Castro, it may be that the country can rise from the aches and be little of a pearl in the caribian... If you renovate the old quarters of Havana, it Will be a wonderfully city to wisit...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

Ps, Nice name you have given yourself, http://aida.astroinfo.net/displayimage.php?album=94&pos=0 :party:

[AlphaCentauri]

98. Thanks for the European Monarchies snip

:hi:

[Diclotican]

104. AlphaCentauri

AlphaCentauri

It is the fact, that many european monarchies have military uniform when acting in some roles.. But that is _not_ the same as the the kings, and Queens would end up as military dictators.. Rather the opposite.. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, United Kingdom, Spain and the other monarchies have a clear role for the kings and Queen as head of state. And they are in no way in the position to acting alone against the will of the Parliament.. In sweden The King are not even allowed to do more than the Parliament want him to do... He is absolutely a head of state, nothing else...

In the other Kingdom, the role as king and queen are Little more up to local tradition, the British monarchy are maybe the monarchy who have more than just nominal rome as Head of State.. The current Queen Elizabeth 2 of UK are maybe the most powerfully woman in Europe... And in practice and theory he is always given the information about setting thing by the Prime-Minister every day he is coming to Buckingham Palace or other places where the monarch is living...

But she are in no way in the position to try to go alone and get the army to do what she want.. And I doubt she ever wanted to do it either... The monarchy at today are not willing to lose their crown over a stupid tryout for absolute power... And I believe that they have a slim Chance of success too.. Slim to non..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language

[Prophet 451]

100. Always possible

Like any politician, Chavez should be watched like a hawk for signs of abusing his power. Power is intoxicating and a slide into fascism is always possible. I don't think it's very likely though. Yes, Chavez likes to wear his uniform but that seems to be either a fairly harmless quirk or an attempt to create a sub-conscious image of authority. Possibly, he genuinely does believe he's going to have to defend his nation against the US and, given US actions in the area, I can see his point.

Militarism is only one of the generally accepted 14 points of fascism. Chavez also exhibits another one: The repeated use of nationalism but those are the only ones on the checklist that he consistently exhibits so I would think the chance of him sliding into fascism, while always present, is rather small.


Incidently, using those same 14 points, the US is either already fascist or very nearly so.

[NGC_6822]

102. 14 points of fascism

I appreciated your post. I would like to ask if you could post the 14 points of fascism and then tick the ones that fit Venezuela and those that fit the US. Don't bother with a table. Just number the points and then list the numbers that apply to each nation. That would be very interesting for me to see.

[Prophet 451]

106. Sure

I'll quickly point out that obviously, my only knowledge of Venezuala is gleaned from the MSM and may therefore by limited.

The 14 points (basic principles must be stated so everyone's working from the same basic understanding) are:
1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
2. Disdain for human rights
3. Identification of scapegoats as a common cause
4. Supremacy of the military
5. Rampant sexism
6. Controlled mass media
7. Obsession with national security
8. Religion & Government intertwined
9. Corporate power is protected ("supreme" in some versions)
10. Labour power surpressed
11. Disdain for intellectuals and/or the arts
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
13. Rampant cronyism & corruption
14. Fraudulent elections

Venezuala (based on my admittedly limited knowledge): Satisfies points 1 and 7, possibly satisfies 4 as well (depending on how "supremacy" is defined) but largely innocent of the others.

USA (going on the last five years or so): Definately satisfies points 1, 2, 4 and 7 thru 13. Probably satisfies points 3 (liberals, pacifists and "elites" identified as scapegoats) and 14. One could make a convincing arguement for point 5 (the campaign against reproductive choice and the approach to HRC's candidacy). The only really arguable one is point 6 since the US mass media is privately owned and therefore, at least nominally, "free". However, since virtually all US media is owned by corporate interests who, these days, are almost entirely Republican, one could make a convincing arguement that the media is controlled and that therefore, the US is a fascist state.

Incidently, this also demonstrates why "Islamofascism" is a nonsense phrase. While certainly authoritarian and often brutal, most Islamic states don't have the developed corporatism necessary for point 9 to apply and many don't even have the pretence of elections. It's a pet peeve of mine that people tend to attach the word "fascist" to any authoritarian regime and/or assume Nazi-style racism is an integral part of it. I did my minor in PoliSci and I'll admit to being a linguistic pedant and "fascism" is a precise ideaology with a precise meaning. While racism is often a feature of fascist states (ethnic groups filling the "scapegoats" role), it is not an integral one. It is the process of scapegoating certain groups which is a key feature of fascism, not necessarily which groups are scapegoated.

[NGC_6822]

107. An alternate view of Venazuela

Thank you for the quick reply. The definition of fascism that I quoted from the dictionary in post 70 is more succinct and general; your 14 points attempts to breakout more specifics. As I studied these points, I was quickly struck by the degrees of subjectivity, gradation, and weight that each individual can apply to the assessment of them. Self-deprecation is a great American pastime, and for those that haven’t traveled much, they can develop an overly pessimistic view of their own circumstances.

To demonstrate my point, let us take your conclusion from the 14 points (I’m not being accusative, here; this is a friendly debate.) that America leans much more toward fascism than does Venezuela. Consider the following assessments that other organizations have spent a huge amount of effort to compile.

A. 2008 Index of Economic Freedom is an index that ranks countries according to the degree of economic freedom that is available in the society. Here are the ranks for the US, Venezuela and six other nations that I have added for reasons explained later:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm

US 5
Venezuela 148

Canada 7
Japan 17
India 115
Indonesia 119
China 126
Russia 134

B. Transparency International tries to measure the amount of corruption in each nation. The organization provides 179 ranks with some nations sharing a tie for a rank. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2007
US 20
Venezuela 162

Canada 9
Japan 17
China 72
India 72
Indonesia 143
Russia 143

C. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy rates all 192 nations in the world and, for convenience, further divides them into four different categories of 1) full democracies, 2) flawed democracies, 3) hybrid regimes, and 4) authoritarian regimes.
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf
US 17 (full democracy)
Venezuela 93 (hybrid regime)

Canada 9 (full democracy)
Japan 20 (full democracy)
India 35 (flawed democracy)
Indonesia 65 (flawed democracy)
Russia 102 (hybrid regime)
China 138 (authoritarian regime)

D. Wikipedia population by nation. This is shown only for my follow-up comments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
China 1,322 mil
India 1,129 mil
US 303 mil
Indonesia 232 mil
Russia 142 mil
Japan 128 mil

Canada 33 mil
Venezuela 28 mil

Here are my points:

1) These measures of economic freedom, corruption and democratic processes show an enormous difference between the US and Venezuela. Furthermore, anyone that accepts even a moderate accuracy in the assessments would have to conclude that the US is a fairly pleasant place to live relative to most of the rest of the world and specifically relative to Venazuela.

2) I have also shown the US together with the other large nations in the world. With the exception of Japan, the US stands out far above the other large nations. My point here is a personal opinion, that it is very difficult to manage a large country in a way that provides political and economic freedom, and at the same time avoid significant large corruption. Again with the exception of Japan (incidentally, my favorite country in the world), all the other large nations have failed in this endeavor.

3) I chose Canada for two reasons. First it is a smaller nation that demonstrates (along with others, notably Scandinavian countries) a success in winning most of the top honors in the surveys. Secondly, I also chose Canada because its population is very close to Venezuela and is also an oil producing nation that must also deal with the large oil corporations, and lives immediately adjacent to the “big, bad monster.” The economic, political and corruption index differences are stark! It seems that Canada has not found it necessary to make all the excuses that Chavez does, occasional disagreements notwithstanding. So, why doesn’t Hugo book a flight to Canada and try to learn the secret? He should be able to find ample help to improve his country.

Thank you for your indulgence.

[Prophet 451]

108. Granted

Academic definitions of anything are always subjective. If there wasn't room to argue about things, we wouldn't have anything to do!

As I say, my knowledge of Venezuala is limited so I'll happily concede the points you raised with the sole caveat that any comparison between the USA and Venezuala is always going to be, by necessity, a flawed comparison as the respective histories and cultures of the two nations are so different.

Compared to much of the world, the USA is a fairly pleasent place to live (naturally, I think my own England is nicer but then, we all feel that way about our homes). Compared to other parts of the world, less so. Raw numbers are useful of course but can't take account of varying circumstances while academia can. Of course, in the process, that makes academic definitions subjective and off we go again :)

Canada seems to have got it right on most things (including a nominal allegiance to the Crown :) ), managing to combine the better features of a socialist state without the social engineering that usually accompanies it. Perhaps both our nations (and Venezuala) should start taking notes...

[NGC_6822]

109. Signing off

It was a pleasure discussing this issue with you, especially given the currents of hot air that usually waft through this site and the freeper. I am an American living in Belgium for nearly two decades, but that's another.....well, you know the story.

Since the US and Canada turned out relatively decent, I'll recommend Hugo talk to the Queen.

All the Best

[Prophet 451]

110. Peace with you, sir n/t

[AlphaCentauri]

111. That is a fair alternative view but can't blame Chavez for it

The culture of corruption in latin america has been developed over a long period of time mostly under our friendly governments.

[provis99]

95. well that's interesting

Wikipedia gives a definition of fascism that I think is a direct reflection of modern day conservatism.

[TankLV]

84. Your definitions there of "socialism" is the definition of "communism", not socialism...

whoever wrote that doesn't know what socialism is at all...

[NGC_6822]

105. Perhaps you should write to Merriam-Webster and correct them

[fascisthunter]

43. Redefining the Word Fascism to Favor Real Fascists Like Jonah Goldberg

and those that read his shit twisting propaganda. Thank you for highlighting how fucked up the right is and how desperately twisted they are.

[Larkspur]

101. Chavez was democratically elected

And he overturned a US backed coup against him. Fascism is practiced by the United States, not Chavez.

[bemildred]

18. In the USA, faith in the New York Times starts to wane ... nt

[UTUSN]

25. BwahaHAH!1 Naomi CAMPBELL is a much more unbiased source on Huguito's STRONG ARMS1!1 n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

40. A certain coherency is lacking in your post.

Perhaps you could elaborate?

[UTUSN]

45. Neh. It's all there. Anybody who can't interpret & who doesn't connect recent references

oughten jump to ad hominems about "coherence."

[Warren Stupidity]

47. actually as I attacked your message for its incoherence

that would be an ad epistula attack. Had I stated that your post could be ignored as you are a boob, a cad, an oaf, a fool, a shirker, and a welch, that would be attacking you the messenger and not the message and would be an ad hominem attack. But I have lost any interest in whatever it was you were trying to say. You win.

[Judi Lynn]

49. It was a baffling post. I was inclined to believe it was written in code!

Referring to the President of a country in intimate terms, however, suggest a mind not completely at rest.

[UTUSN]

54. Judi Judi Judi ... !1

I was going to leave it at the semi-Cary GRANT reference (or does THAT need to be explained, too?), but your reverence for a "President of a country" (so long as it's Huguito) adds a new wrinkle.

It smacks of Royals-worship, which would seem incongruous for lovers of democracy. A-HAH!1 Caughtcha in contradiction!1 A citizen ELECTED president is supposed to be the equal of any other citizen. That's why I get my jollies slurring Shrub all day every day. And since Huguito shat his mouth off about the ELECTED former prime minister (whose Shrubbite alliance and HIM I detested) and current prime minister of Spain, and the restorer of DEMOCRACY (Juan Carlos), uh, you have at last admitted that Huguito is supposed to be exempt from the rules that apply to other of democracy's citizens.


As for the "mind not at rest" gibe, Judi, it's beneath you. Not beneath your pals, but you're better than that.

[Judi Lynn]

99. Nope, you referred to a President of a country in an intimate way, a term of endearment.

THAT'S what I was talking about. Or, maybe I'm wrong: maybe you are actually extremely CLOSE to "Huguito." In that case, never mind.

Tell me, do you DANCE with "Huguito," in the manner _Bush employs, with his friend, Ricky Martin?


Do you walk, hand in hand with "Huguito," as _Bush does with King Abdullah?

http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/Bush,-prince-Abdullah-399.jpg
If you do, then you are correct in using intimate forms of address, no doubt.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. I wish there were an emoticon for a

:high five: :7

[Warren Stupidity]

62. What? :5: is broken again?

dang. :5:

[Peace Patriot]

31. "The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

Yup. That Donald Rumsfeld. In Dec 07.

If you read between the lines a bit (always necessary with Rumsfeld), he says we need to get rid of any remaining "checks and balances" in our own government (Congress, the State Dept.) in order to take "swift action" ("unitary executive") in support of "friends and allies" (fascist thugs planning coups) in South America, after larding more billions of our tax dollars into the Colombian military (and paramilitaries) and creating a "no rules about killing union leaders" 'free trade' zone in Colombia, and destroying Venezuela's economy.

Then there's Exxon Mobile...

Exxon wins freeze on $12 billion of Venezuelan assets 2/7/08
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080208/bs_nm/exxon_venezula_dc
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3173540

Exxon shatters profit records 2/1/08
Oil giant makes corporate history by booking $11.7 billion in quarterly profit; earns $1,300 a second in 2007.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon_earnings/

----

(re: Exxon Mobile walking out of talks with Venezuela cuz they couldn't kneecap Venezuela into a higher percentage of profit in a new oil venture (that other companies including France's Total agreed to), and running to the World Bank for "arbitration," followed now by their current effort to freeze Venezuela's assets...here's what Don Hodges, of the $700 million Hodges Fund in Dallas, said about it in September...)


"Resistance Applauded 9/12/07

"'I'm glad to see them (Exxon Mobile) do it,' said Don Hodges... 'You don't know what the outcome will be, but you'd rather see them resist it than just lay down and say, `Help yourself to it.'" (emphasis added)
http://oilsandstruth.org/hugo-knows-value-his-tar


(Venezuelans "helping themselves" to their own oil? That's Dallas money men's and Exxon Mobile's view--it's their oil, not Venezuela's.)

-----------------------------------

We are looking at Oil War II: South America. That's what the above highlighted dates mean. Fall 07 to now. It has begun. Exxon fired the first shot on 9/12/07. Rumsfeld announced the economic warfare (and broadly hinted at U.S. military intervention), on 12/1/07. Exxon has now moved to freeze Venezuela's assets. And they and their corporate news lapdogs have been bad-mouthing Chavez all year, calling him a tyrant and a dictator (after numerous failed efforts to overthrow him starting in 02). It's a compressed version of the preliminaries to the Iraq War.

And we thought Rumsfeld was "retired"!

-----------------------------------

The role of the New York Times (and this article)

Simon Romero's role (so like Judith Miller's!)--in the NYT--is to LIE ABOUT Venezuela's economy--to make shit up out of whole cloth--to segue into the strategy of economic ruination (so like the "sanctions" against Iraq), to weaken Chavez, and destabilize the country, preliminary to overthrow. Venezuela in truth has one of the best economies in South America, and the highest approval rating of its citizens--with the most growth in the private sector. Poverty and illiteracy have seen big reductions. All sorts of new enterprises have been undertaken--such as the building of new Orinoco Bridge to Brazil (completed 06), manufacturing (for instance, machine parts for the oil industry, which Venezuela previously had to import), land reform (for food production), and much else, including fervent activity in the education field (also music and recreation--the Venezuelan Children's Orchestra, famed throughout the world, which is training thousands of street children in classical music, and new equipped baseball fields for kids all over the country).

All of this must be slandered--in order for the Bush Cartel to regain control of the Andes oil fields, by the planned destruction of Venezuela's economy (with moves such as Exxon Mobile freezing its assets--on such a flimsy excuse--a failed negotiation!), instigating rightwing chaos and riots, then "swift action," as Rumsfeld describes it, in support of "friends and allies" (the fascist thugs in Venezuela who have been biding their time, while Rumsfeld & co. lay the ground work).

As everyone knows, economies--especially the fragile economies of the third world--can be influenced up or down with slander--lies, rumor, psyops. The slander against Chavez and Venezuela has been very, very intense in the corporate media. Simon Romero is adding some new spin--and re-spinning some old crap--that the fabulously popular Chavez government (70% approval rating!), with the most vibrant economy on the continent, is somehow failing. He cites Chavez's loss of the constitutional referendum--a rare loss for Chavez, and a very close one (50.7% vs 49.3%), amidst voter confusion about the 65 amendments (guess who contributed to the confusion?). Chavez has won presidential and legislative elections with increasing margins for the last 9 years--the most recent with 60% of the vote. His loss on the amendments is more plain evidence that Venezuela is a DEMOCRACY than it is that Chavez is "on the wane." Every politician has failures. His incredibly successful career was due for one. THAT'S DEMOCRACY!

Look what FDR went through, in trying to put the New Deal in place. And he's a good example of why it's okay for a peoples' president to get elected four times, and NEEDS TO BE elected multiple times, to get anything done against "organized money" (as FDR put it). Was FDR a tyrant and a dictator because he ran for and won the presidency four times, and took strong action to help the poor (such as trying to "pack the Supreme Court" and save Social Security)? The fascists called FDR a "dictator," just like they do Chavez.

In any case, what Simon Romero and the NYT are doing here is taking every item of disinformation that the Corporate shit-heads have tried to make true, and saying that they have come true, because they say so. It's the delusional narration that they've done on a lot of things, most notably the Iraq War. And then--in the scary way of delusional narration by "organized money"--and in concert with dirty tricks, black ops, and billions of dollars in black budgets--they start getting little victories (like the food hoarding by big business in Venezuela, creating shortages; or Chavez' narrow loss on the referendum; or a bit of inflation), and play them up BIG, into huge "signs" that helping the poor ruins business--and then, of course, this psyops campaign can and does create doubt in money markets and among investors--jitteriness, wariness--that can be very damaging to a country that is just starting to develop itself and to seriously address problems of poverty and past first world decimation. The corporate poverty-profiteers create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It is appalling to see all of this effort expanded on destroying a democratic country. Disgusting, saddening, in the extreme. Why aren't we helping the Chavez government and the people of Venezuela? Why aren't we arm in arm with them in improving democracy and achieving social justice--and addressing other threatening disasters like global warming?

If we didn't have Exxon Mobile, and the Bush Junta, and collusive Democratic leaders, we would be helping rather than harming. Because that's who we really are, as a country, as a people--helpers, doers, lovers of justice. We are an overwhelmingly compassionate and peace-minded people--who have been overpowered by global corporate predator thugs, thieves and murderers. That is what is saddening--to see our potential so suppressed.

"Chavez is scum."

It is also very dismaying to see this thuggish, callous corporate point of view expressed by some DU posters. One of the anti-Chavez crowd keeps posting "Chavez is scum." That's what the Bush Junta and the NYT wants us to think. But it is the Bushites who are "scum"--liars, deceivers, of low motive: greed. Low-lifes. The poorest peasant in Venezuela, who is organizing her community to put in street lights and build a school, is better than them. Better than Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Better than any owner, editor or writer at the NYT. Better than our Democratic candidates who echo the Bush Junta that Chavez is a "tyrant." She is doing something for people. They are not only not doing anything to help other people--they want to tear her school down and shoot out the streetlights, and enslave her in a sweatshop, and if that doesn't destroy her desire to help, they want to kill her--the fate of people like her in Colombia, supported by billions of our tax dollars.

Her president, the man she voted for, and organized grass roots efforts to elect, is fulfilling his promise to her to provide the money for the streetlights and the school by a fairer cut of Venezuela's oil profits going to the development of Venezuela. And it is for this that Exxon Mobile is seeking to freeze $12 billion of Venezuela's assets, and Donald Rumsfeld is plotting war. A fairer cut (60%) for Venezuela.

Oil War II: South America

I think there is urgency in Rumsfeld's words. They need to get this done while their idiot is still in the White House. (The Dems may be disgusting 'free traders,' and yea-sayers to unjust war, but they are less likely to initiate use of the U.S. military for such a purpose). There is also the problem that Ecuador (oil rich, member of OPEC, close ally of Venezuela, also very much into social justice) will likely throw the U.S. military out this year (not renew its lease on its base in Ecuador), which might interfere with Rumsfeldian military intervention plans.

Ecuador is on one border with Colombia--the hotbed of Bushite/fascist paramilitary planning--and Venezuela is on the other. Colombia in between. The U.S. base in Ecuador is used for surveillance. If there is a military move on Venezuela, this base will be important for spying on Venezuela's ally Ecuador, and other allies like Bolivia, at the least--and may be used for military ops that, for some reason, can't take place in Colombia (perhaps because of the leftist guerrillas in Colombia, who control a wide swath of territory). It could be a marshaling point. It could also be used to subdue Ecuador, if it tried to come to Venezuela's aid.

I think it more likely that Rumsfeld will strike first in Bolivia, also a Venezuelan ally, and possibly try to draw Chavez into a shooting war, in defense of ally Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of mostly indigenous Bolivia. The fascists there are trying to split the country in two--sever the gas/oil-rich rural provinces off from the central government. Bolivia is weaker than Venezuela, economically, politically and militarily. Rumsfeld likes to prey on the weak--people or countries. Torturing prisoners is easy--they can't fight back. Slaughtering 1.2 million innocent Iraqis--piece of cake, they had no air force by then, and their economy and military had already been decimated by war, sanctions and "no fly zone" bombings. So I suspect that Bolivia will be his first victim--where, in Rumsfeld's words, in the Washington Post two months ago, the U.S. will take "swift action" in support of "friends and allies" (the fascists planning to spit up the country and control the gas/oil reserves). He thus gains a second base of operations in the Andes (rich in oil), cripples one potential Chavez ally (Bolivia), and creates a spying and operations base next door to a third Chavez ally, Argentina (where there was a big oil find last month).

Does all of this sound fantastic and unthinkable? Consider the Iraq War. It is not unthinkable to Rumsfeld. And he has not retired. He is orchestrating Oil War II.

I don't think they will be successful. I do they will try. They are trying. It has begun (--with Exxon Mobile's move against Venezuela's economy--freezing the assets)(--and has been in motion for some time, with black ops, dirty tricks and massive funding to rightwing groups in Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina, and planning groups in fascist Colombia, also in Miami). If Rumsfeld can't get U.S. military intervention, he will use Colombian forces and U.S. mercenaries. (Blackwater is active in Colombia, recruiting for Iraq.) One more part of the world to be messed over, and tumbled into chaos, for the benefit of the oil/war profiteers. South America will defend itself, however, and will quickly recover--and relations with the U.S. will go permanently and pervasively negative. Most South American countries now have leftist governments and are allies of Chavez (including Brazil). They will not take kindly to this interference. It will split the western hemisphere.

[Binka]

37. Good God Damn BEST Post On This Board In Many Days

I've read it twice and cried both times! You just rock PP. Holy shit will these fuckers never stop? Their reptilian brains are so fucked up, they are so callous and crude I have a hard time understanding them. But I will fight them because they must be exposed for the BASTARDS they are.

[Judi Lynn]

38. Undoubtedly you're right about Bolivia as being the link they will attack first. Hard to forget

what Rumsfeld did to Evo Morales before he was Bolivia's President officially, in conspiring with selected Bolivian officials to remove Bolivian defensive missiles from their arsenal. That's truly diabolical, isn't it? Here's a reminder:

US Denies Removal of Bolivian Missiles Was Secret by David Gollust
Article Posted: 12/23/2005

US Denies Removal of Bolivian Missiles Was Secret

The United States denied Thursday that it removed anti-aircraft missiles from Bolivia without the knowledge of top officials in La Paz. The State Department says the operation was at the request of Bolivian authorities and in line with an Organization of American States resolution.

Officials here acknowledge that the United States removed a small number of MANPADS, man-portable air defense system, from Bolivia earlier this year as part of a broader effort to keep the shoulder launch missiles out of the hands of terrorists.

But they are denying charges from Bolivia, which figured in that country's presidential election campaign, that the operation was conducted without the knowledge of senior Bolivian officials.

Bolivian President-elect Evo Morales, the victor in last Sunday's election, has alleged that the 28 Chinese-made missiles were spirited out of the country in June in an operation he described as international intervention.

http://www.amazines.com/article_detail.cfm/74308?articleid=74308

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyone who still doesn't grasp what the _Bush administration has in mind for Venezuela only has to take some time researching a pattern put in place LONG ago already, which has been repeated endlessly, and Latin Americans are very well aware of this pattern! Everything _Bush has been doing to Venezuela was done long ago, unfortunately:

Chile, 9/11/73
Declassified documents reveal the US government's role
in the Pinochet coup
by Peter Kornbluh
The Nation magazine, September 29, 2003

~snip~
Chile, it must be recalled, constitutes a classic example of a preemptive strike-a set of operations launched well before Salvador Allende set foot in office. Nixon ordered the CIA on September 15, 1970, to "make the economy scream" and to foment a military move to block Allende from being inaugurated six weeks later, in November; the Chilean leader had yet to formulate or authorize a single policy detrimental to US interests. "What happens over next 6-10 months will have ramifications far beyond US-Chilean relations," Kissinger predicted in a dire warning to Nixon only forty-eight hours after Allende actually took office. "Will have effect on what happens in rest of LA and developing world; our future position in hemisphere; on larger world picture...even effect our own conception of what our role in the world is."

As in the distorted threat assessment on Iraq, this was sheer speculation-unsupported, indeed contradicted, by US intelligence. In August 1970 CIA, State and Defense Department analysts had determined that "the US has no vital national interests within Chile," and that the world "military balance of power would not be significantly altered" if Allende came to power. But an Allende victory would create "considerable political and psychological costs," including "a definite psychological advance for the Marxist idea."

Indeed, the recently declassified record reveals that what really bothered the White House was not what actions a narrow, distant country that Kissinger had once disparaged as "a dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica" could take but the fact that Allende could establish a model for democratic socialist change. As Kissinger informed Nixon on November 5, 1970, the "example of successful elected Marxist gov. in Chile would have . impact on-and even precedent value for-other parts of the world, especially Italy. . .similar phenomenon elsewhere would in turn significantly affect world balance and our own position in it." When the President convened his National Security Council the next day to discuss how to "hurt" Allende and "bring him down," he made this point: "Our main concern in Chile is the prospect that can consolidate himself and the picture presented to the world will be his success."

The story of US efforts toward regime change in Chile is well known. Since Allende was democratically elected (with a margin of victory that far exceeded George Bush's edge in Florida), operations needed to be covert, and plausibly deniable. For three years the CIA engaged in a destabilization campaign in Chile-what CIA Director William Colby described in secret testimony as "a prototype or laboratory experiment" to discredit and undermine an elected government. Covert ops consisted of political action to divide Allende's coalition; massive propaganda operations aimed at disrupting the economy and discrediting the government; covert funding of opposition political parties, including those agitating for a coup; and contacts with the Chilean military.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Chile_9_11_73.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The old "make the economy scream" plan sounds somehow strangely similar by now, doesn't it?



What DOES all this mean, one wonders......

[wolfgangmo]

88. And as long as we rightfully damn to hell our current crop ...

... of home grown fascists,



let us not forget the fuhrer of the american fascist movement Milton Friedman.



Milton, I hope you are roasting on a spit right now. "And the devil said, 'mmmmmmmm. Tastes like chicken, only greasier.'"

[fascisthunter]

42. Very Informative

gives insight into who these anti-Chavez posters are.

[Blue_Tires]

64. great info....thanks

[ronnie624]

66. Another excellent essay. Thanks. n/t

[Voltaire99]

67. Excellent post, but I do not think the invader need be Bush.

I doubt the Bushies will move first. They're bogged down in Iraq, lack manpower and funds for a second front and would face revolt from the services. Moreover, the wolf is at the door: we face an economic downturn that may be harsh or even catastrophic.

These problems, however, also create urgency. Our unfolding economic crisis, exacerbated by a failed war, leaves us longing desperately for new treasure, new markets and new distractions for our scared public. Judi Lynn is right that Bolivia is the easier pickings. So Bolivian gas first, and then the Venezuelan oil.

Why not Hillary or Obama as the liberator in this scenario? Neither will resist the logic of imperialism any more than did, say, JFK or Bill Clinton. Unlike the first Clinton's brutal neoliberalism, there won't be the leisure to use the World Bank; dire needs at home and the truth on the ground will favor even less tender approaches.

Good luck, Hugo.

[Peace Patriot]

80. I don't know about throwing JFK in there. He was in a deadly battle with the CIA,

and was making an astonishing transition from "Cold Warrior" (1960, coming out of the 1950s and WW II) to social justice advocate/peacemaker (1963) while he was President, and with the CIA setting various deadly traps for him that served the interests of war profiteers. The first was the invasion of Cuba, early in his term. He managed to scuttle that. Another was Vietnam. He and Bobby were both very young, and were just figuring all this out--what the CIA was up to, operating independently of the elected government. In between, he saved the U.S. and Russia (and the planet) from a nuclear holocaust by making a concession to Russia on U.S. bases in Turkey, against the advice of "hawks" within the "military-industrial complex." He also negotiated the first non-proliferation treaty, and gave a remarkable speech about world peace to the U.N. And he began to convert the military budget to peaceful uses, the most visionary project being NASA, space exploration and putting men on the moon. He and Bobby also became civil rights advocates and backed Martin Luther King, even though, at that time, white southern bigots still dominated Congress and the Democratic Party. By the end of his term, he had figured out what the CIA was trying to do in Vietnam (set up a full scale war), and signed executive orders to begin the withdrawal of U.S. military "advisers" from Vietnam.* At that point, they assassinated him, using Miami anti-Castro Cubans (who were bitter over the scuttled invasion of Cuba). He was too much of a threat to the war profiteers.

You can see the full arc of JFK's development as a thinker and a leader--what would have occurred had he not been murdered--in his brother Bobby's transformation by 1968. They were very close and like-minded brothers, but Bobby was even more of a "Cold Warrior" than JFK. He had been counsel to the communist witch-hunter Sen Joe McCarthy in the 1950s. But by 1968, he was heading the anti-war movement, in the political arena, and most certainly would have been elected president, with a mandate to stop the war--if the CIA hadn't assassinated him as well, on the night he won the California primary. They had assassinated Martin Luther King three months before (partly because of his public opposition to the Vietnam War).

Bill Clinton was a young potential Draftee at that time, and an anti-war protester. He was a brilliant youngster in the Tom Hayden mold--part of this high consciousness generation that opposed the war and changed the country forever, on issues of aggressive war, black civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, and so much more. It is simply not fair to JFK to throw him into the soup with Clinton as being unable to "resist the logic of imperialism." JFK did, in fact, resist it, in an era of low consciousness, just preceding the amazing '60s--and he did it at the cost of his life. He in fact laid the ground work for the leftist earthquake of the mid- to late 1960s, during which a generation of Americans completely revolted against the imperial project.

The aspirations to a peaceful world, social justice, ridding the world of nuclear weapons, ending poverty and exploitation, putting our wealth and our technical savvy to better purposes than war, and other great hopes of the 1960s, were all stoked by the JFK presidency. JFK opened up the pathways to change, and RFK then took it further (including his new understanding of poverty in Latin America, and his advocacy of the poor, by 1968).

What I'm saying is that Clinton should have known better. He was smart. He had the benefit of the whole arc of progressive learning from JFK to the present. JFK didn't have that benefit. He was only just getting an inkling of how bad the imperial project was, had only been in office three years, had taken the bastards on several times, and then they shot him.

I am not naive about JFK. I saw his speeches and the Kennedy/Nixon debates, live on TV, and I remember what he said. His campaign points in 1960 were bullshit (for instance, the "missile gap"--he sounds like Reagan, for godssakes). But he changed. And his ability to change is the magic that he projected, that inspired youngsters like me to believe that change was possible. In 1960, I didn't have a clue what a "missile gap" was; I just knew that things weren't right in the world, and that this new young guy would change it; so I joined his campaign (I was all of 16). By 1965, I--a white girl from California--was in rural Alabama volunteering for Martin Luther King's voting rights project. (Barack Obama seems to have a similar magic--he is projecting hope for change into the young.)

Anyway, this is the tragedy of Bill Clinton, in my opinion. He knew what he was doing, when he shoved NAFTA on us, and sold our sovereignty to the WTO. He knew what he was doing with the "sanctions" and the "no-fly-zone" bombings of Iraq (softening them up for an easy pickins war). He knew what he was doing when he attacked welfare for the poor, and instead gave welfare to the rich. He knew what he was doing with the Telecommunications Act, to further fascist/corporate monopolies of news and opinion. He has no excuses. His movement is retrograde, whereas JFK's movement was toward more enlightened policy. Clinton had the benefit of the '60s analysis of U.S. imperialism. JFK did not--but his own strong, self-generated movement toward more enlightened policy helped make the '60s possible. JFK took us forward, out of a dreadfully dark era--of 50s witch-hunting, red-baiting, fear of getting nuked, fear of change, segregation and other atrocities. Clinton took us backward, by the wholesale cooptation of the Democratic Party by the corporate rulers and war profiteers, to the severe detriment of workers and the poor, here and abroad. JFK fostered the "big tent" Democratic Party; Clinton fostered tech millionaires and elitism.

As for our Democratic leaders now--they wholly abandoned us, the "big tent" grass roots, and the American people--when they agreed to electronic voting, run on 'trade secret,' proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls. October 2002. Same month as the Iraq War Resolution (and closely related to it). The war profiteers don't need to shoot presidents any more. They can keep pro-peace, pro-people, anti-corporate presidents out of the White House with a couple of lines of secret code. I do think, though, that the Dems, even the Clintons, would be reluctant to use the U.S. military in South America, unless it were very carefully and artfully set up (real good cover). There is evidence that Rumsfeld & co. are trying to set it up skillfully (in Venezuela and Bolivia), but whether they succeed or not, in the new leftist climate in South America, is another question. Also, they want to move before certain things happen (like Ecuador throwing the U.S. military base out), and to head off further political alliances and economic solidarity and strength among the many leftist governments. And, finally, they have a willing idiot as front man, Bush, a sure thing--as opposed to what may be a more savvy Democrat. So I think Rumsfeld feels urgency to get Oil War II under way; then they can bully the Democrat (if he/she balks) with "supporting our troops" and "soft on 'dictator' Chavez" bullshit.

-----------------


*Note: I remember the debate about depending on the nuclear arsenal for our defense, vs. developing conventional military capability for use in "little wars" to head off the Soviet "threat." That was basically JFK's Defense Secretary Robt. McNamara's contribution, and it was certainly a preliminary to the Vietnam War. But you really have to understand the arc of JFK's development as a leader. He bought these arguments, at first--but began to see how wrong it all was--where it was going. That's how it came to be that he signed executive orders to remove the military "advisers" from Vietnam just before he was killed. And I think that is why he was killed. LBJ immediately reversed JFK's orders, and, one year later, LBJ foisted the "Gulf of Tonkin" scam on Congress, and the huge escalation began. In other words, JFK was a "Cold Warrior" in learning mode, gaining more understanding as he went along, able to change--flexible, creative mind--and increasingly resistant to the CIA/war profiteers' imperial projects. Then...bang-bang, shoot-shoot. His amazing arc: from lying about a "missile gap" to taking a bullet over Vietnam.

[Judi Lynn]

68. After reading your post I found this Wash. Post article which leads one to think Rumsfeld's need to

crush Bolivia might be heightened now that Bolivia is becoming more and more valuable to the very large South American countries. _Bush people will really want to knock Evo Morales off, and give his office over to the Santa Cruz crowd of right-wing, purely European-descended, racist Nazis as soon as "humanly" possible:

Bolivia's Irresistible Reserves
Wealthier Neighbors Need Nation's Gas for Economic Growth
By Monte Reel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, February 10, 2008; Page A18

LA PAZ, Bolivia -- When President Evo Morales took state control of Bolivia's energy sector nearly two years ago, critics warned that investors would abandon the country's gas fields and ultimately sink the industry.

They were half-right. Production has slowed along with investment, forcing Bolivia to renege on some of its export commitments this year. But foreign governments, often in the form of state-owned companies, have jumped in to resuscitate the energy sector.

The reason is simple: They can't afford not to.

South America's largest countries -- particularly regional powerhouses Brazil and Argentina -- are facing energy crunches and need natural gas to fuel economic growth. That has made them dependent on the poorest country on the continent and has helped Morales salvage a sector that critics believed was on the road to ruin.

"With the new investment, we'll be able to increase production little by little starting now, in 2008," said Energy Minister Carlos Villegas. "The increases will allow us to meet our export commitments -- and in some years, we'll have more than enough to exceed them -- by 2010 or 2011."

More:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/09/AR2008020901326.html?hpid=topnews

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't forget to remember at all times that the Native Bolivian population was FORBIDDEN TO WALK ON BOLIVIA'S SIDEWALKS UNTIL 1952. I learned this fact recently and still cannot accept it.

It's THIS culture, the racist Nazis, like former Santa Cruz-born US-engineered and supported bloody butcher Hugo Banzer who actually drove Native Bolivians off their land and GAVE THAT LAND TO WHITE SOUTH AFRICANS in his bid to create a white Bolivia, that _Bush has been sending our taxpayers' hard earned dollars to, in hope of shoring them up to be powerful, violent, and organized enough to seize the reigns of the people of Bolivia's government again.

[fascisthunter]

44. Everybody Wave to the Neo-Cons

Message for Neo-cons (fascists); how does it feel not being in control but pretending to be?

[AlphaCentauri]

60. Hello fascists

:hi:

[Dave From Canada]

58. The most alarming piece of the article is that Chavez embarks on his 10th year in power, with no

end in sight.

[Judi Lynn]

61. His tenth year will start February 2, 2009. Where do you get the "no end in sight?"

It may take time out from your hobbies to be informed on events, but it would do you so much good, and make your comments much more credible.

[Warren Stupidity]

63. 2011 or there abouts.

Its ok. You can calm down now. The constitutional changes to allow another term failed by a small margin. So the hideous dictator Chavez, who somehow botched his rigged ballot operations and was tricked into declaring a defeat, will not be able to stand for election. Why the dictator has to be re-elected is one of those mysteries I have long since learned to not think about.

[Peace Patriot]

71. FDR served as President of the U.S. for 12 years and 3 months. He ran for and

won four terms in office, and died in his fourth term. He was "president for life"!

Thomas Jefferson and other Founders opposed term limits. They felt that the people should elected whomever they want. And you can't find an historical figure more dedicated to "checks and balances," except maybe James Madison, who also opposed term limits.

Real representatives of the people need time to get things done against the forces of "organized money" (as FDR put it). The right has money--entrenched power in service to the few. The left has time and numbers, the majority. The right lives in tight, rich enclaves in the seats of power and operates like a cabal, able to swiftly attend to the interests of the rich and powerful. Whatever form of communication is current--men's clubs, carriages, couriers, in one era, telephones in the next, the right has more of it. The left is dispersed to wherever jobs are, and to wherever the poor are permitted to live, and to wherever cheap land is available--more difficult to organize, less access to speedy communication. The left needs time.

Ergo, when the people--the majority (the workers, the poor, small business, small farmers)--manage to get organized, which always takes time that the poor can't afford, and elect a president, in particular, or other representatives, they need that person to stay in office in order to, a) achieve sufficient power against "organized money" to be able to do something for the poor, and b) to counter the concentrated, swiftly communicating, tight cabals of power that seek to exploit the poor and all resources and government/legal powers for the benefit of the few, on an on-going basis.

Admittedly, this pervasive phenomenon--the poor need time against the power of the rich--can lead to situations like that in Russia with Stalin, and, indeed, Hitler, where, due to acute crises (always caused by the greedy rich--always!), one man takes over, perhaps rising to power legitimately at first, then his egomania takes over, he abuses power, he cannot be dislodged and we know the results of that.

The "check and balance" against that happening is not term limits (a tool of the rich--who always have "bought and paid for" representatives who can replace each other, and who seek to prevent the poor from achieving the long term powers of government against their "organized money"), but, rather, the strength of democratic processes. If elections are genuine--open, honest, with transparent vote counting--as they are in Venezuela (and were in the U.S. during FDR's era)--the people periodically assess the leader and his government, and vote them up or down. This has occurred four times already, during the Chavez government (including the U.S.-funded recall, which Chavez won handily), with Chavez increasing his popularity and vote margin every time (60% of the vote, in Dec 06).

In Venezuela additionally, the people vote on provisions of the Constitution--a power unheard of here--and Chavez lost a vote on constitutional provisions, recently, by a narrow margin (50.7% vs. 49.3%), and, although some of the 65 amendments proposed by the Chavez government would have given the president more power, including lifting the term limit on the presidency (allowing Chavez to run again in 2012)--and included also equal rights for gays and women, retirement and other benefits for informal sector workers (half the workforce), guaranteed free university education, and a shorter work week--Chavez immediately conceded the loss (a vote he could have rightfully challenged--it was so close), and moved on.

Is this a man who seeks to be a "dictator"? Absolutely not. It is man who, like FDR, seeks as much LEGITIMATE, CONSTITUTIONAL, RIGHTFUL power as he can achieve to serve the interests of the majority against "organized money."

And let me tell you, FDR had nothing of "organized money" to contend with that equals the "organized money" of Exxon Mobile and brethren, who just fired their first shot in Oil War II: South America--the Bush Cartel's new war against the poor--with Exxon Mobile's move to freeze $12 billion of Venezuela's assets, in a dispute over Venezuela's 60% share in Venezuela's oil industry. These fuckers would take food right out of the mouths of poor children, and banish them from school into slave labor, just like the rich of FDR's time, but, unlike then, "organized money" now operates like an independent, free-floating country, overriding the sovereignty of the people, in real country after real country, including our own. Indeed, they have hijacked the U.S. military to fight their corporate oil war in the Middle East.

Chavez may have narrowly lost the referendum, but he retains a 70% approval rating. He is hugely popular, not just in Venezuela, but throughout the region, and including many other leaders--his friends and allies--the presidents of Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Nicaragua, in particular (and to some extent Chile). They don't consider him a "dictator," or any kind of a threat. They work closely with him on matters of social justice and regional self-determination.

To these countries--most of South America--Exxon Mobile and the U.S./Bush Cartel is the common enemy--and they all need time to address the current economic warfare against the poor, and the ravages of past economic warfare. In Argentina, for instance--devastated by World Bank loan sharks and now on the road to recovery with a good leftist government--Nestor Kirchner just retired, and his wife, Cristina Fernandez ran for president and won, to continue his policies (among them, close alliance with Chavez and Venezuela). All of these leftist leaders are seeking more presidential power, including longevity, in order to combat the power of "organized" money. And these countries and their leaders are far more democratic than our own, where "organized money" is absolutely out of control, and where our elections, in addition to being filthy with "organized money," are now conducted on electronic voting machines, run on trade secret, proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls!

They have hijacked our military and our election system! Not so in Venezuela. Not so in Argentina. Not so in most of South America, where awesome work on transparent elections and other democratic processes has been done, and where the people are taking back their countries and their governments.

This is what the Bush Junta hates and fears--the power of the people with strong, visionary leaders--and why they have slandered Hugo Chavez as a "dictator." He is not a "dictator." He is not even close. He has harmed no one. He has been scrupulously lawful. And he has helped many. Why did he lose the recent referendum on the 65 amendments? Most probably because Venezuela is a Catholic country with powerful rightwing cardinals and bishops (some of whom colluded in the 2002 coup attempt), and who loathe gays and women! The gay/women's rights amendment probably sunk the lot of them. Further, the Bush Junta has been pouring millions of our tax dollars, through USAID-NED and covert budgets into rightwing/fascist political organization in Venezuela. They ran ads that said, if the amendments pass, the government would take children from their mothers. They created enough confusion--with a complex plebiscite--to cause 10% of the voters (Chavistas) to abstain.

Venezuela has the highest citizen approval of its government in South America (and possibly in the world). It doesn't make much sense that Venezuelans would disapprove of Chavez running again in 2012--the narrative that the Bush Junta and its lapdog corporate media would like us to believe--but, even if that is the sole reason that 65 amendments were narrowly defeated, it is an insult to Venezuelans to presume that they cannot distinguish between a person, the president, and a governmental principle (term limits vs. no term limits). It flies in the face of the facts to say that, by this vote, they "rejected Chavez." The vast majority are hugely benefiting from his government, and approve of it in overwhelming numbers. Possibly this was the only issue to them--term limits. Much more likely, that wasn't the issue at all--neither the principle of it, nor its immediate effect, that Chavez would run again.

Run again. Subject himself to the approval of the voters again. Campaign again. Take the vitriolic abuse of the "organized money" all over again. Like FDR did in 1944!

How does this translate into being--or even wanting to be--a "dictator"? The evidence has finally caught up with the Bush liars who said that Chavez is a "dictator." Now they say he is a would be "dictator." And Donald Rumsfeld, as usual, hasn't even caught up with the latest lie--his title, "The Smart Way to Defeat Tyrants Like Chavez" (12/1/07, Washington Post).

Who are the "tyrants"? FDR? Cristina Fernandez Kirchner? Hugo Chavez, 10 years in power from highly transparent, honest elections? Or Exxon Mobile, in power forever? "Organized money," gobbling up lands, resources, and governments and their militaries, beholden to no one, loyal to no country or people, and passing their increasingly monstrous power from one generation's tiny super-rich elite to the next?

Your objection to Chavez being in power for 10 years ignores how it is that he has power, and ignores the reality of monstrous global corporate predator power that would kill him without a thought--that has tried to kill him, at least once already--and that would rob the Venezuelan poor of their only resource at present, oil, and that would, without a thought, enslave them, and torture and kill many of them, in order to enrich itself further. They've slaughtered 1.2 million innocent Iraqis to get their oil. They have tortured and slaughtered leftist leaders like Chavez for decades in South America. And if Donald Rumsfeld is to be believed, they mean to do it again.

"Who's side are you on?" is sometimes an unfair question, used to shut down debate, and disallowing reasonable nuance in a dispute. But not in this case, in my opinion. The "sides" are crystal clear: the poor majority in a democratic system, vs. fascist bastards with ungodly wealth and power, and absolutely zero conscience.

In this case, I think it's fair to ask, Who's side are you on? Or, rather, I would like you to ask that of yourself. There is a lot of disinformation around about Chavez. Please get informed. I recommend www.venezuelanalysis.com, for starters--an alternative view on Chavez, with lots of info and commentary. Also, the Irish filmmakers' documentary, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," about the U.S.-backed coup attempt against Chavez, in 2002, which was defeated by the Venezuelan people, who came out of their hovels in the tens of thousands, surrounded Miraflores Palace, and demanded that their Constitution be restored, and their kidnapped president be returned. The spirit of those Venezuelans is something we need to feel again here--the spirit of democratic revolution.

[Judi Lynn]

72. Exxon as a "floating country" is excellent imagery, especially considering that corporation works

with a budget GREATER than that of some of the actual countries in the world. It's an outstanding term, and very easy to remember.

Hugo Chavez's administration proposed a total of 32 changes to the Constitution. The National Assembly added more, then more until there were finally 69 separate changes. At one point the Chavez administration suggested presenting them for public votes in two separate events, so it allowed more time to focus on the smaller numbers for each referendum.

For expedience, apparently, the National Assembly decided to move ahead and do it all at once.

I was really glad to see you referred to the below the belt, dirty, and deceitful campaign waged by the opposition, informing people who didn't know any better that they would lose control of their children. I have seen this happen before, when the CIA told the Cubans that their children would be taken from them, and sent to Russia, or simply forced to labor in the fields.

You may recall the Pedro Pan operation, which was cooked up by the CIA, and aided by the Catholic Church who helped find homes for the Cubans' children when they panicked, and sent their kids, over 14,000 of them, on airplanes to the U.S., living in the throes of the grand illusion that the Cuban Revolution would take their kids away.

Many of these kids were simply raised by foreigners, some of them eventually reunited with their parents at a later date. _{George Bush's} former HUD head, and current Florida Senator Mel Martinez was himself a Pedro Pan child, or "Peter Pan" child, as he was flown away from home. The CIA concocted this stunt, and as a result, many children were separated from their parents, and usually the parents, then, followed the children to the States to be reunited with them later. Is it turned out, NO children were sent to Russia, of course, and NO children were doomed to toil away in the sugar cane fields. It was totally malicious, deliberately planted and spread propaganda, which has been acknowledged in later years. Books have been written about it by former Pedro Pan children.

Doesn't take long to figure out where that rumor about taking the kids away from Venezuelan parents came from, does it? If people aren't sophisticated, haven't read too much history, they can be blindsided by rank tricks like that.

That one story very easily could have thrown the referendum on these changes to the Constitution for the Chavez administration. Very underhanded, very crooked. Very psy-ops.

[Barb in Atl]

83. Thank you

to you and Judi Lynn and other posters that provided quite a bit of information for me to follow up on...

I never bought the hype and now I can back my "gut feeling" up with facts.

Thanks again...

[wolfgangmo]

89. I have a new hero

PP,


You are the shit. What a great post and response.



I used to live in Venezuela and I was never so proud of a people as I was of the Venezolanos after the coup. Yes, we need some of their spirit.

[Joe Chi Minh]

103. Yes, but then the Democrats and Republicans couldn't take it in turns

to run the country any more, Peace Patriot. And that would hurt their sense of entitlement on both sides. Never mind what the people want, for goodness sake!

[Lautremont]

73. I like that one of the big pieces of evidence of this waning support is

a bit of graffito supporting one of Chavez' friends.

[MasonJar]

76. FU, New York Times. Lay off Cavez. He is right to stop supplying the US

(us.) We are a backward, provincial, homophobic, anti-brown people, cruel nation. Our government tried to overthrow Chavez's duly elected government. I am surprised he did not stop supplying the USA oil immediately. I am sure he has plenty of other nations to sell oil to. We are culpable because we allowed the Bushista to cheat to gain power, and we have allowed it to cheat and lie and kill and steal. Every day I am more chagrined to be an American. We are a ruthless, despicable group.

[Peace Patriot]

78. Well, I don't agree with you on that, MasonJar, about the American people.

When the drumbeat for the Iraq War began, I decided that I really needed to know what my fellow and sister Americans were thinking, so I began a close review of opinion polls over several years. I wanted to know the answer to the important strategic question: Have Americans gone bonkers nazi, goose-stepping to Bush? Or, was something else going on? Strategic, in that the first case would require de-programming, while the second...well, what is going on?

The polls--many polls from corporate and independent sources--on my issues,over time, revealed an overwhelming progressive American majority that was not being depicted in the 'news,' not being represented in broadcast or print commentary, and was almost completely invisible to anyone who didn't open page 57 of the NYT and find the tiny article on polls results.

56% of the American people opposed to the Iraq War. Feb. 2003, just before the war started. (NYT 56%; other polls 54-55%) 56% is a significant majority. It would be a landslide in a presidential election (and believe me, it was). But all you saw on TV was flag-waving warmongers, and even supposedly reliable papers like the NYT were headlining lie after Bushite lie about Iraq.

63% opposed to torture "under any circumstances"! May 2004.

And the numbers on protection of Social Security, women's rights, the deficit, and other issues were even higher. Most Americans disagreed with Bush on all Bush policy, foreign and domestic--way the heck up in the 60% to 70% range. And that 56% against the war, while dipped during the months of the invasion--with U.S. troops at max risk--soon started its climb to the whopping 70% majority against the war today.

So, what is going on? My assessment: Systematic, deliberate, SNEAKY disempowerment--and, above all, disenfranchisement--of the American people, designed just for us, to stay just below our radar, because, if aroused, we are the most potentially powerful progressive force on earth.

I won't go into it all here--although it helps to know that five far rightwing billionaire CEOs control all news and opinion in this country, and, possibly what is more important, all imagery. What they are doing is depicting a country that doesn't exist, in which the views of a fascist/rightwing MINORITY--and a small one--are being trumpeted as if they were the majority.

Thus, people like you and me--people who believe in fairness and justice, people who believe in democracy, people who cheer on the "little guy" against "organized money" (as FDR put it) (--or, who are the "little guy" themselves, working class or poor), progressives, leftists, environmentalists, teachers, union organizers, steelworkers, nurses, government employees of various kinds, small business people, community volunteers, waitresses, techies, the lot of us hard-working, generous, good-hearted, peace-minded Americans--feel isolated and alone. We begin to feel like we are members of a minority. We feel powerless, depressed, exiled.

And the politically active among us feel this worst of all. We work like hell to change things, and we get nowhere.

One way to deal with this pervasive sense of induced powerlessness is to get angry at other Americans. But other Americans are just as mystified about what's wrong as you and I are. And we, the politically knowledgeable, need to figure it out, and recommend some simple broad remedies that people can work on--remedies that address the most fundamental problems, and that can have widespread impact, quickly.

One of them--my very first priority--is the voting system, which has been radically changed, recently--from a more or less transparent system, to a wholly non-transparent one (--electronic voting, run on "trade secret," proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount--all over the country, in virtually every state). This, I think, is the major blockade to change. Now, in addition to all the other ways that "organized money" can oppress us, they can EASILY steal elections. One insider hacker, a couple of minutes, a few lines of code--that's all it takes--to alter an entire state's vote totals, from the real outcome to the desired fascist outcome.

They not only drench us with rightwing opinions and carefully chosen images, they now have the power to put that minority fascist viewpoint in office--directly.

Anyway, that's been my journey. Think about it. When you feel angry at other Americans, and want to heap abuse upon them ("We are a ruthless, despicable group"), who or what are you thinking of? And if it's someone or something you saw on TV, for instance, think about who is bringing you that image, and all the images that they are not showing you. Or, if it's based on Americans lack of action in stopping this fascist government, think of how amazing those poll numbers are, that I spoke of, above. Americans have proven themselves amazingly resistant to the relentless, 24/7 warmongering and fascist propaganda that they have been subjected to. The great progressive American majority is still in tact. But it has been sneakily disempowered, and...this is so important...people don't know what to do. They don't understand what has happened. And what has happened is very hard to face--an enormous bi-partisan betrayal of our democracy by our entrenched, and highly corrupt, political established.

I tried to explain the facts about the voting system to a well-informed, politically savvy friend, a while back, and her reply was this: "But the Democrats wouldn't let that happen, would they?"

The issue, of course, is not what they "would" do, but rather what they did do. And that is very hard to absorb and to face. This friend wanted to believe that the party would protect her vote. And they did not. And then you have to ask, why didn't they? What was in it, for our political leaders, that they wanted Bushite corporations 'counting' all our votes with "trade secret" code?

But we don't even have to ask that. What we have to do is CHANGE it--however we can. And local/state venues--our secs of state, county election officials--is probably the best place to put the effort. Demand transparent vote counting. It is a simple and reasonable demand. (Zogby poll, 2006: 92% of Americans want transparent vote counting.)

[wolfgangmo]

90. mason jar

Do not mistake the government for the people. At best the one represents the other, but they are separate. Having said that ...



... Sharpen your pitchforks fellow peasants. The tree of liberty needs to be fed.

[Judi Lynn]

81. Kick!

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[MasonJar]

82. The New York Times is sending out their unvarnished propaganda once again.

[Holden McGroin]

96. I wouldn't be surprised if Venezuelan economy were being boycotted

by the right-most elements of Venezuelan life.

[classysassy]

112. Lies

from another rightwing lier for $$$$$$$.