Hugo Chavez is my Hero!

Look, there are people who have negative things to say about this guy, but to me he is a leader who cares about the people he has been voted into power to lead. He is putting his money where his mouth is and showing US how we should be taking care of our own people by providing deeply discounted fuel to the poor in OUR country. The money Venezuala makes on their plentiful oil revenue goes back to the people not to greedy-ass corporations.

The article in our morning newspaper here in Duluth, MN said it all:

"Citizens Energy Corp., a Boston-based nonprofit cooperative, bought 12 million gallons at a steep discount after U.S. oil companies ignored its written plea for help."

Rep. Jose Serrano, D-NY - "To those who say this is to score political points," he told a shivering crowd when the first oil arrived, "I invite any American corporation that wants to score points with my community to start this afternoon."

Sadly, American corporations are not concerned about scoring political points, they'll just buy political points and help put moronic oilmen in power. And, they'll continue ignoring pleas for help as they rake in record profits.

People should not even mention any political motive, especially not Democrats like Serrano. Don't even mention it, just talk about the good thing that has been done. The Republicans have basically done exactly what they wanted to by getting people to continue putting these little caveats in front of everything good that is being done.

Chavez is a real leader of people. I wish we had a leader that was some semblance of what Chavez is.

But, he seriously needs to watch his ass... This admin is out to murder him one way or the other!

I'm sure. I'm glad the people are happy with his work too.

http://www.citgo.com/CITGOLocator.jsp

It's well worth the extra couple of miles to find a local station. Also, I know they sell to secondary/independent companies as well...maybe someone has the list of those companies.

Cheers...

but thanks anyway.

in the end it's only like 4 cents more a gallon and i'd rather give to a corporation that annually gives away 20% of its "profits" to charitable causes (not to mention as a state-run Oil co. it pays for much of Venezuela's health care system and some infrastructure needs such as road repair and education). Do you want your money going to Exxon/Mobil? Take a stand! Buy from Citgo!

than help the plutocracy at home.

I don't think any middle class person in the world suffers when another middle class person somewhere else gets an education and health care and an opportunity to make a life for him or herself.

in my neighborhood... on 31st near Shields.

:eyes:

psssst, maybe somebody should tell castro....... so he can go the way of all other Communist leaders.

Brazil - Lula
Argentina - Kirchner
Venezuela - Chavez
Chile - socialist Bachelet poised to win
Mexico - socialist Obrador poised to win
Bolivia - socialist Morales poised to win
Nicaragua - Sandinistas poised to win.

The entire continent is going socialist!
The one good outcome of the Bush presidency.

Socialists of the more benign Democratic variety (hmmmm, and should I add hopefully more practical?), not closet Communists who look to examples like Cuba as their utopian model.

nephew's CEC is accepting help from Chavez.

Kennedy hated Communism! Remember The Bay of Pigs ?

Sure do wish some people would buy a clue. Guess only a commie would believe in education and literacy. Sad, sad, sad...

He didn't exactly come up with the plans for false-flag operations in Cuba all by himself. He rejected plan A as to radical, and only reluctantly supported plan B. When it failed miserably as it did, he cursed himself for listening to his advisers - and publicly took full responsibility for the failure.

It's more the RW-ers who pushed for such actions on Cuba who hated Communism.

Our very own Demopedia has an interesting article on the subject.

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Bay_of_Pigs#The_Nixon-Bush_Connection

Nixon (& GW Bush) were more responsible for thinking up the fiasco than Eisenhower. Kennedy felt the plan was so far along that he couldn't cancel it. Some Cuban "exiles" felt he betrayed the invasion attempt by not sending in US forces. On the Watergate tapes, "Bay of Pigs" was Nixon's code name for the Kennedy assassination.

Remember that Kennedy put aside his "hatred" of communism to make a deal with Khrushchev & avoid WWIII over the missiles in Cuba.

Besides, Chavez is a bit to the left but is NOT a Communist.

had a lot to do with the Bay of Pigs op... maybe even the CIA agent in charge? link on DU somewhere...

A Stalinist wouldn't listen to the people anyway. Chavez has.

That if they don't give money to his campaign and have their workers ready to be picked up at a certain time to go vote for him, he might lose or be less powerful and perhaps the fire station that services their business may not be able to respond in time should "something bad happen." What a guy.

your novel assertion. It's the first time anyone's ever written that here.

We really could use a good hard squint at your source.

How stupid do you imagine DU'ers are? He has NEVER been charged with voter intimidation in any source I've ever heard of so far. NOT ONCE.

If he were a dirt bag who would do something like that, he still wouldn't need to do it. He's already enormously popular with the ordinary people of Venezuela.

I do know lots of oil people do bidness in Venezuela.

sorry

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/venezu9843.htm



<snip> Venezuelan democracy passed an important test in August 2004 when it held, in a lawful and peaceful manner, a national referendum to determine whether President Hugo Chávez should remain in office. According to election authorities and international observers, a solid majority of Venezuelans voted in favor of the president’s continued tenure. But President Chávez and his supporters in the National Assembly continue to take steps to undermine the independence of the country’s judiciary and to threaten freedom of the press.
The country’s political polarization has diverted attention from other pressing human rights issues, including a longstanding problem of police abuse. Extrajudicial executions of criminal suspects by both state and municipal police forces are common and all too often go unpunished. Cases of torture continue to be reported. Violence and anarchy prevail in many Venezuelan prisons. Refugees from neighboring Colombia, in areas close to the border, face legal insecurity, difficult living conditions, and sometimes threats to their lives. <snip>

When taken in context, Venezuela under Chavez has done better than it has under previous leaders. Is the government in Venezuela perfect? Absolutely not. I doubt any government is. In fact, if one queries HRW with respect to the US, one would find reports just as grim with respect to civil liberties in the US, especially over the issue of prisoner detainees and the war in Iraq. Police abuse in the US is an ongoing problem as well. This doesn't detract from whatever wrong is still happening in Venezuela though.

In total, I would say Chavez' government is far cleaner than certain regimes the US has supported in the past or continues to support. (See Saudi Arabia, Chile, etc.) Given which side in Venezuela to support, I choose Chavez. When he was illegally overthrown by Pedro Carmona and many leading members of the current opposition, they not only liquidated the legislature but also the judiciary as well. They suspended the constitution entirely and were maneuvering to install another Latin American pro-business rightwing dictatorship.

With respect to "media independence," I would assert there was very little before Chavez arrived. Most of the major news outlets, like in the US, are wholly owned by corporations, and many of those corporations were big supporters of Carmona's aborted coup and Chavez' opposition. They did not provide unbiased reporting on the Chavez, and they still do not, so when people say Chavez is attacking media independence in Venezuela, they often leave out the fact that he is attacking the corporations who have used the news media to push forth their own agenda without regard to the people.

for replying to that comment with more thoughtfulness than i could muster. I just don't understand why there's so much inherent distrust of Hugo. If people examine his "record" i'm sure they'll find he's the best thing that's happened to Venezuela in a long time. As for the person who has friends that don't want to do business there... has he talked to any Venezuelans about Chavez lately? Any president that has the support of the near totality of the working class and poor and whos main opposition comes from the landed rich and corporations is alright in my book. Peace out.

because of our media. They are being conditioned to dislike him. Try and find an article about Chavez in the MSM that doesn't have the word "dictator" thrown in there somewhere. They are few and far between.

The worstest, most evil, words in the amerikan language. :scared:

"Talk to people who do business in Venezuela`"


So if he is favoring his people over corporations that makes him bad?

Hint: it won't be the one that let the oil companies starve, steal, and murder them.

And that implicates Chavez directly how? You're more likely to implicate local thugs who only claim to speak for Chavez for their own personal gain than you would Chavez or his inner circle directly. Most of the Venezuelans I've met were solidly middle to upper class and very anti-Chavez. If I listened to just them, I'd get the picture that he is a brutal communist dictator.

When I look at the demographics in Venezuela, something like 60 percent of the country lived below the poverty line. The next third were middle class, and the top 1 percent owned everything, including the news media, which they used to spread propaganda to cover the illegal, brutal coup against Chavez in 2002.

The simple fact of the matter is that the majority of Venezuelans I've met were anti-Chavez because they were rich enough to travel. That's not the same with Chavez supporters, who are largely very poor and the product of three decades of neglect by a corrupt government that spent big on big business interests but pennies for the people who needed it most. I haven't spoken to them because for them buying a plane ticket to where I live would cost them a year's worth of their own salary. It got that bad before Chavez came. It's still very bad on the ground in many of the poorest neighborhoods, but there are social programs being implemented now to fight poverty and eliminate things like illiteracy.

Um. since when?

so what on earth are you talking about?

About him, about Socialism, about Communism, about anything it seems.

Chavez founded his own party, the "Fifth Republic Movement" that focuses on social welfare programs, ending corruption, & liberal reforms. He's definitely left-leaning or socialist, but that doesn't make him a Communist. Most European countries have similar government policies.

You should hit the books. Gott's second edition of his book on Chavez is a good starting point.

Not that it means he is a Communist, but it is.

book's second edition.

There are an awful lot of parties in Venezuela, and some of them on the left are considered Chavez opposition. And some of the Communist parties are included in that group.

But the Communist Party of Venezuela is staunchly in the Chavez camp, and has been since 1998.

Guillermo García Ponce has been a long-time supporter of Chavez.

However, Luís Miquilena, a co-founder of an anti-Stalinist communist party and a Leninist himself supported Chavez in '98 but became a member of the oppisition in 2001.

You know that Chavez opponents (of the "he's communist!" variety) don't read books!

A lot of people are happier not knowing anything. Or the rely on people not taking the time to learn anything.

a communist........ I simply think he is a loudmouth........


As for the criticism that someone who may be anti-communist has not read Communist works...... that's false...... Their are plenty of people very familiar with different forms of Marxism who simply have not bought into Marxist/commnunist ideology.......... That comes as a surprise to many pro-communists who fal for the ideology hook line and sinker. It's an escape for the pro-communists who do not acknowledge the failures of 20th century communist regimes to accuse non-communists of not being familiar with Marxism. I read Marx in college, and I have many friends from former communist countries who are very familiar with Marx, most of Lenin's work, Trotsky, etc. When people who lived in Communist countries and know what it was like, see these threads, most are simply amused. Pro-communist Americans to them come across as dumb as any Bush voter.

reduces the polarization of wealth between rich and poor, then what's the problem with it?

Richard Gott in his Chavez book says that Chavez knows the language that the poor speak and that the opposition does not. I wonder how much crticism of Chavez from DU'ers is because they don't uderstand that Chavez is representing the poor in Venezuela.

George Bush is not fit to polish his boots.

politician as my hero.

Chavez is my hero, too :)

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

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

I should clarify that I don't necessarily thing of Chavez as my hero. Although I believe that providing fuel to heat houses for the poor is most certainly heroic. Hugo Chavez is one of the world's best leaders right now in my opinion.

themselves here... Chavez is a great leader. Even if he were less great, though, I'd applaud him every day because he is one of the very, very few leaders who call the Bushistas by their real name.

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

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

from what i understand Chavez is something of a reluctant leader. Primarily he was a soldier whom was well loved by his people and his command. He rose to power as a socialist because he was elected by the people and held fast to his christian ideals. As a pagan i have in the past held no great love for the intolerance of the Christian faiths. But i have met true christians and false christians. I listened to a speech where Hugo quoted the Sermon on the Mount (The Beatitudes Matthew 5:3-12)... towards the end he was all choked up. It made me look at my bible for the first time in a great while. He is NOT your regular "politician". He truly seems to actually care about his people. I think there's a couple of his speeches on Archive.org... check out the one he gave to the UN a couple of months ago. We can have more than one hero can't we?

I'm not sure how reluctant he was to lead; he tried to seize power in a military coup in 1992 & was elected democratically a few years later. He does seem to actually care about his people, in contrast to so many leaders who only wanted to take money & power, so I give him a lot of credit for that. But the ends don't always justify the means, and I wonder about the consequences of some of the changes he is making.

I don't know enough about it to be sure... i was under the impression that the coup in 92 was not entirely his doing. He was a respected person in the military and may have been "installed" as the leader. As for the changes he's making, i have higher hopes for them than the changes our gov't is making... but only time will tell.

In fact, two politicians (one of whom had been president before, Cardenas) gave speeches in the VZ congress that came within an inch of endorsing the coup.

Cardenas said that it was important to note that not a single class of society criticized the coup attempt. Cardenas was elected president in the next open election and then pardoned Chavez. Another person practically endorsed it, and he was elected mayor of Caracas soon afterwards. Perez (the president against whom the coup was directed) was eventually deposed by his own party and tried for corruption.

who demanded his state police fire into a crowd of unarmed, protesting poor in the massacre known as El Caracazo.

You'll see it mentioned in this timeline:

1989 - Carlos Andres Perez (AD) elected president against the background of economic depression, which necessitates an austerity programme and an IMF loan. Social and political upheaval includes riots, in which between 300 and 2,000 people are killed, martial law and a general strike.

BBC's Nick Miles on the return to power
1992 - Some 120 people are killed in two attempted coups, the first led by future president Colonel Hugo Chavez, and the second carried out by his supporters. Chavez is jailed for two years before being pardoned

1993-95 - Ramon Jose Velasquez becomes interim president after Perez is ousted on charges of corruption; Rafael Caldera elected president.

1996 - Perez imprisoned after being found guilty of embezzlement and corruption.

1998 - Hugo Chavez elected president.
(snip/...)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1229348.stm

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

DU'ers can find lots to read on the subject. Look up "El Caracazo," and "Carlos Andres Perez."

This is classic "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic.

Chavez hates Bush, does nice things to embarrass Bush, and therefore must be on our side. I am skeptical.

I agree......... without treading carefully you may just step in a different type of sh*t.

Or did you just reflexively post that talking point?

That is a rhetorical question really, had you read the thread you would know that this is not about Bush hating its about programs that help poor people.

Considering that Chavez is actually doing more to help the American people than our own Head of State should tell us something about both their characters.

I think so too; should we try to dodge the flames together?

when the right wing realized that actually talking about what Chavez is doing was making Chavez more popular.

So, just like the RW did with the 2000 election and the (falied) 2004 ABB strategy, they decided that if they could just spin Chavez as a Bush hater, then people would see him as not standing for anythign but hatred.

So, don't believe the hype.

If you're skeptical about Chavez, let's talk about what Chavez actually does that would make you skeptical, and let's set aside the RW spin that all he does is hate Bush.

He speaks harshly of him all the time. It's not a "meme".

The right-wing propaganda that IS a "meme" is that Chavez is dangerous, in cahoots with terrorists, unstable, corrupt, etc.

Suddenly, in the last 5 months Fox news and a handfull of DU'ers can't mention him unless they add "he hates Bush." Nobody ever said that before. Chavez stands for what he stands for, and it isn't defined by Bush. And if you stand for the things Chavez stands for, a consequence of that will be that you don't agree with Bush. But trying to define him according to how he feels about Bush -- now THAT'S A RIGHT WING MEME.

Really.

it is.

Wouldn't it be nice if each time they referred to him, they added, "he hates Bush... because the Bush administration tried to overthrow his democratically elected government, at least once."

It is fairly disgusting that this fact is never a reason mentioned for Chavez's dislike of the Bush administration. If anything, perhaps Hugo should talk about it more often -- maybe throw it in whenever criticizing the American administration.

But if the US media reported on it, it might turn the world upside down (with the poor masses on top and the oligarchs on the bottom).

Which is why, instead, they pretend the only thing he stands for is being against Bush for unstated reasons which they hope people attribute to dementia or a personality disorder.

He really dislikes Bush, so he gets points for that. But Chavez isn't necessarily a democratic hero. He first tried to come to power in a military coup in 1992; when that failed, he formed his own party & was later re-elected. Some human rights organizations have found violations in Venezuela under his rule; and there are allegations of election fraud & persecution of political enemies. http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/ven-summary-eng Under a new law he created, it is a crime to be "disrespectful" of the President. He's actually being charged in the ICC on allegations that he was complicit in the deaths of civilians during a 2002 coup attempt against him. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/venezu10368.htm However, he is very strong on protecting the poor, free education, nationalizing indudtries, supporting unions, etc. and is very popular among the lower class in Venezuela. He's an interesting figure - a lot of the criticism in the US seems like overblown propaganda by conservatives, but a lot of it is valid.

Here are some things I've read in the book.

The coup in '92 was inspired by the Caracazao riots in 1989 when, in Caracas alone, almost 2000 people were murdered by the government for protesting the new president's Washington Consensus neoliberal policies which he enacted to the great surprise of the people who elected him on a very different platform.

Perez was a second-time president. In the '70s he presided over an oil boom during which he nationalized the oil companies. In the 80s, the economy was not doing well for a variety of reasons relating to corruption, an absence of real democracy, and bad planning which destroyed the agriculture-based economy while focusing on oil and the cities. Perez was elected in 89 under the presumption that he would be the same guy who nationalized the oil industry in the 70s. While president-elect, he toured OPEC nations giving people hope that he'd revive Venezuela's participation in OPEC.

Perez, however, was an ideological blank-slate and was manipulated by the University of Chicago market fundamentalists he hired to advise him. Ten days into his presidency he brought on the neoliberal economic plan that was exactly the opposite of what people thought they were getting when they elected him.

The first part of the plan was to gradually double the cost of oil and the public bus fares. However, rather than gradually increasing fares and oil costs, they doubled the first day the policies were enacted. There were no organized radical revolutionary groups in Venezuela at the time. The guerrillas had disappeared in the 60s. However, much to the surprise of the secret police, poor people rose up in a chaotic, unplanned, and disorganized revolt against the government. It was repressed with violence.

At the time, Hugo Chavez was in the army. He had been a professor at the war college where he organized a group of the best and brightest into a revolutionary group, however, they were little more than a progressive reading group at the time. They were the most popular and talented professors in the army so, although the military police knew what they were talking about in their classrooms, they couldn't punish them. If they had, the whole army would have revolted. Instead, the army sent Chavez out to the farthest outpost from Caracas where he decided that he would implement some of his social theories. He used his military outpost progressively. His soldiers helped build infrastructure for the local people. He organized a community theater and he instituted a project to record the oral histories of the locals. (Needless to say, they still love him in that region.)

Somehow, his paperwork was lost and he ended up back in Caracas before 1989. He was getting a masters degree in political science and was assigned to the presidential palace at the time of the Caracazao. There were three key members of his study group. On the day of the Caracazao, Chavez was sick with a serious viral infection. One of the others was sent out to fight the rioters and he was shot. Today, many believe that the secret police shot him and believe Chavez would have been shot too had he gone out to suppress the riot. The third leader of the study group was assigned to a towerblock where he arrived with his unit to relieve another unit that was shooting indiscriminately at the impoverished residents. He gave a speech to his unit. He asked everyone who was a member of the country club to raise their hands. He asked everyone who lived in the rich parts of town to raise their hands. Nobody did. He told them to look at the people in the tower block. He said that those are our people. He said that nobody was going to shoot anyone. (Think of George C. Scott in Patton, but the opposite message.)

Before the Caracazao, Chavez's group had said that something like that was going to eventually happen. When it did, they were ashamed that they could harness the energies of the people to accomplish something good. They weren't prepared.

Chronologically, that's the point I've reached in the book. However, I do know from things briefly mentioned in earlier parts of the book that it was the Caracazao that encouraged Chavez's group to carry out the coup in 1992. When the coup failed in Caracas, Chavez was arrested and TV stations aired a statement by him which the authorities had hoped would convince the people supporting the revolution out in the countryside (where they were having more success than in Caracas) to give up. Chavez said that the revolution has failed, "for now" -- por ahora. "Por Ahora" captured the imagination of the people. It instantly became a slogan that gave people hope. They believed that soon they would have a government that was democratic and that cared about the misery they were experiencing and that in good times, would lay down the groundwork that would help more than just the rich (which was what went wrong when the rich 70s led to the miserable 80s). Chavez himself realized that those two words -- Por Ahora -- had more power with the people than all the guns in Venezuela, and although he always thought of the armed forces as a great tool for progressive change (partly proved correct by his project out in the countryside when he was banished from Caracas), he realized that the real revolution would come not through an armed revolution, but through winning the hearts and minds of the people through the political system.

Incidentally, it appears that the coup the following year, in 1993, against Perez was carried out not by Chavez's group, but by Parez's own party, Accion Democratica because they too were stunned by how brutal Perez's policies were and how out of character they were with what Venezuelans wanted for their country.

I'll keep you updated as I read more of this book. (BTW, notice how hating Bush was not a motivation for anything that Chavez was doing during those years.)

you know a whole lot more than me. However, any book will tend to favor one side or the other (and if the book is called "In the Shadow of the Liberator," it sounds like a pretty sympathetic view). I've never thought hating Bush was what Chavez is about; it's just what we notice him for in the US. Chavez & Bush have diametrically opposed policies, so it's really the struggle between two different philosophies for the Americas. And in general, I'd prefer the socialist philosopy over Bush any day. It's possible Chavez could be the beginning of a new movement for Latin America; throwing out the US-backed capitalists for leaders that will truly create a new progressive, wealthier, democratic region. I guess my problem w/Chavez is more my basic feeling that no matter how much good you want to do, violence is not the way to do it. President Perez was corrupt & maybe a bad President, but a coup just further destabalizes the country. And someone who attempts a power grap that way makes me suspicious about his goals & methods later on. Hopefully he'll prove me wrong! That book sounds interesting, though, maybe I'll check it out.

Chavez seems to be one of the few leaders other than the ill-fated Saddam to openly detest and disobey our president. REVOLUTION! I'm moving to Venezuela. I hear Angel Falls is beautiful this time of year.

can ya tell me something about what happens to critics of the chimperor?

Wow - there's something special about being the "most ignorant poster ever." It's kind of like an award. Chavez recently passed a law that made it illegal to say anything "insulting" or "disrespectful" about the President - in public or in private. Other provisions also make it a crime to report incorrect info that creates "public anxiety." Anyone who "offends" the President could go to jail for 40 months. Chavez claims these changes are necessary to protect from an unfriendly press that's allied w/the US. Who knows? Maybe he's right about that. But a government leader who uses the law to muzzle criticism of his policies is not a role model. Lots of leaders don't like the press, but when you make it illegal for anyone to criticize your government, that sounds more like an authoritarian regime than a democracy. A leader can help the poor & also be an autocrat - think of Eva Peron. I know Chavez is doing a lot of good, and I know he's angering a lot of corporate interests; but that doesn't give him the right to stop free expression in his country. What happens to critics of Bush? Right now, nothing. You & I can still insult or criticize Bush regularly on DU w/o violating any laws. That's because we still have the right to free speech.

Human Rights Watch report - Venezuela: Curbs on Free Expression Tightened
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/venezu10368.htm

"Chavez's Censorship: Where 'Disrespect' Can Land You in Jail"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5755-200...

Inter-American Official Concerned About New Venezuelan Media Laws
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2005/Mar/30-941199....

that have been organized by big media conglomerates in that country, in cooperation with foreign governments. Just a guess. I'd be curious to see how enforceable it will turn out to be. Frankly, I'm more concerned with curbs on freedom in my own country that have far less justification behind them. Personally, I'm in favor of cleaning up our own act, before trying to dictate to everyone else.

The corporate media has been very anti-Chavez in Venezuela. I hope the US cleans up our act too; in the past, the US has been a least a symbol of democracy & had the moral authority to point out human rights abuses in other countries. I'm not so sure we have that authority anymore. If Bush tried to lecture Chavez about the treatment of prisoners, he'd probably be laughed at.

came in power through a coup. Perez's Accion Democratica carried out a coup against Bettancort.

I think there have were at least four coups in Venezuela before Chavez's, with two being RW coups and two being left wing coups.

It's probably no coincidence that western media and conservatives didn't think Accion Democratica was illegitimate...

It's also no coincidence that you will never see Pres. Musharraf of Pakistan referred to as a "dictator," even though he is one. But he's our dictator. Whether we are willing to call someone a dictator or not seems to depend on how much they support U.S. policy as much as anything else.

Its horrible what they do to Chavez's opposition in Venezuala. They force them to live in mansions in exclusive gated communities. We must intervene quickly before these poor people die of overindulgence.

I'm not saying Chavez is on the level of a dictator like Saddam who would kill or threaten his opponents. These measures are much less draconian; and Venezuela is a democracy. But that said, would you really like a law to be passed here that said you could never "disrespect" Bush? Or imposes 40-month jail sentences for "offending" the President? No way - people would protest & scream about such a law, and say that it basically prevents free speech or democracy. And they'd be right. So why is it OK when Chavez does it?

doesn't seem to have any problem criticizing Chavez in the most exaggerated ways immaginable and nobody has gone to jail?

Aren't you suspicious about how the left has embraced Chavez w/o question? I know that Republicans have made a concerted effort to weaken Chavez (hello, Pat Robertson) & that a lot of the anti-Chavez news comes from biased sources. But I don't consider Amnesty Int. or Human Rights Watch to be biased right-wing organizations - there are valid concerns about what's going on in Venezuela. Hopefully this isn't a law that'll be enforced; hopefully Chavez doesn't have any connection to the alleged corruption & human rights abuses. But I've lived in Latin America, I've studied Latin American history, and I know a little about the long history of strong-arm dictatorships and censorship that that region has suffered. So when a leader seems to be consolidating power & trying to control a free press, I can't help but notice. Basically, the reason why I posted is that it seems like (no offense) a lot of people are supporting Chavez w/o knowing much about him except that he embarrasses Bush. Which is good; but that doesn't necessarily mean Chavez is good as well. Chavez has some issues too. Probably the most difficult thing is to remain sceptical of both sides of the spin - maybe he's not a hero or a devil. Yeah; he's done alot, he's progressive, he's probably better than many other leaders, etc. But it seems like people can support him w/o whitewashing him or attacking anyone who's not on board. I thought Democrats could have a diversity of opinions?

www.maddowonline.com

Congressman Serrano? I don't think I'd heard his name twice before he had Chavez come to his district to announce the Citgo plan.

Danny Glover?

Add Reverand Jesse Jackson to the list and you have all the people on the left who have embraced Chavez, and they don't get any publicity for doing so. If I didn't read DU I wouldn't even know about those three. Perhaps the fact that the US media refuses to publicize support of Chavez mean I should be less suspicious of him? What are they trying to hide from the public?

It seems to me that Chavez doesn't get the recognitiion he deserves from the left.

As for Amazon and Human Rights Watch, someone listed their complaints about Venezuela and most of them were from before 1998. Chavez was sworn in in January 1999, so I have no idea how their complaints count against Chavez.

As for the claim that he's controlling the press, I return to my quesiton in my previous post: the press vocally criticizes him for the most absurd things and not a single person is in jail because of it. Can't really call that controlling or strong-arming the press, can you?

Who's supporting him? Well, liberals. I agree there's not a whole lot of vocal policitians, but liberals in general do seem very supportive. Like here, for example. Progressive blogs & magazines also seem supportive. As far as the complaints, check out the HRW & Amnesty sites. Most of the incidents are from well after 1999, during Chavez's rule. It doesn't seem like he is controlling the press, yet, but this law just passed & might set a dangerous precedent in the future.

And as Chavez is elected, he'd want to be open to criticism in order to remain that way.

Unless I'm missing something, and I was hoping you'd have proactively stated your reasonings behind your comment.

Sorry, I explained it more in post 31 & 51 above. I was referring to Venezuela's recent laws creating censorship of government critics. This was just a flippant off-hand remark - although more people have responded to this than the full post!

recently, on Current tv. I've not even seen a western democracy where that was allowed.

Mr. Danger. Go Hugo.

(Not as if it needed one.)

He'll help others outside his borders without compromising his own in the process. (unless there's something I don't know... but unlike the US, Venezuela needs all the in-house infrastructure it can get. You'd think the US would be as concerned for its infrastructure and security too...)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5560945

That has no feelings of compassion for others. May we learn a valuable lesson here with said person.

In the interview with Amy Goodman you get this sense very clearly...

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/20/1330218
and followon pages.

America. Why? They don't believe the IMF, World Bank or bushco!

Viva Bolivar!

Why is this guy's success so threatening?

Literacy is a huge threat!

the countries that have followed the Washington Consensus/IMF/neoliberal economic plans have done the worst.

The countries that have rejected it (China, Malaysia, and, since publication, now Argentina and Venezuela) have the steadiest growth and manage to reduce poverty and increase literacy and do all the other things countries should do.

In the past the west sent in Conquistadors and the Marines. Now we have lawyers (and the occasional death squads and covert ops).

powerless.

Marekt fundamentalists want the free market to reign, but they want to make sure that they are oppened at at time when only people on Wall Street have enough money to buy up the private sector. And then the free market becomes simply a mechanism for extracting wealth and shipping it back to New York, which isn't very different from the way the PRIVATE British East Indica Company shipped the wealth of India to London.

"Venezuelan politicians claim that the CIA plotted to kill Hugo Chavez, the President, in an attempt to derail the country's legislative elections on 4 December. President Chavez has often denounced what he called US-backed plans to assassinate him. American officials deny the claims as populist rhetoric meant to increase support at home, and the CIA has dismissed the latest accusation. Nicolas Maduro, a Chavez ally and president of the National Assembly, said that he planned to file charges with the attorney-general and military prosecutors 'of a plot orchestrated by the CIA against the Venezuelan democracy.'"
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=47346

this site:

http://www.venezuelafoia.info/english.html

When Chavez says bush tried to take over his govenment, he has proof.

Sure, the coup-plotters are friends with key members of our government.
Sure, the coup-plotters visited Washington shortly before the coup.
Sure, the CIA knew about the coup attempt beforehand and said nothing.
Sure, during the coup attempt we were quick to falsely say Chavez resigned and claim the coup-plotters were the legitamite government of Venezuela.
BUT THAT PROVES NOTHING!
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

peace and 401k-anxiety, ok, please.

I am not, nor have i ever been, a member of the Communist Party!
I swear to you and to Ann Coulter!

Bush calls Chavez, a democratically elected leader a "dictator". OK, if those are the rules, then you, Mr. Bush are also a dictator. I'll take Chavez the dictator any day of the week...

Chavez has democratically won at least three - 1998, 2000, and 2004.

The two are incomparable.

or missing ballot boxes, or thugs closing down the recount, or a supreme court handing him "victory".

VIVA CHAVEZ!!!

As Michael Corleone said in Godfather "Never side against the family". Chavez seams to support your ideals, but he is really just using you for his own gain! Can't you see that he is power hungry! He is using the weakness of Bush to gain power for himself! Don't believe what he says on TV! Lets find a populist leader in our own country! Come on and wake up.


Here's a quote from a BBC news piece:

"But Mr Chavez's "revolution" had little real impact on the lives of ordinary Venezuelans, who still suffer from chronic poverty and widespread unemployment despite the country's oil wealth."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1925236.stm

By every measure, Venezueal is improving conditions for Venezuelans.

very well according to their measure of competence back in 2002.

And don't you think that, back then, they could have figured out that this was where things were going to go?

By every measure, Venezueal is improving conditions for Venezuelans.

Since then poverty and unemployment have steadily been reduced and growth rates have been high.

And someone in poverty who is receiving help is considerably better off than someone in poverty who is not, though the statistics cannot indicate that. Free health care does not show up in growth rates, nor does subsidized food and housing.

in Venezuela.
For how long have the IMF, WTO, World Bank been busy banning poverty in the world? It's been decades now.

If you don't count Anal-Mart, who can suck my ass and swallow.

VIVE CHAVEZ! CHINGATE EL BU$Hitler!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lu

crooks, liars, propagandists, and murderers.