Archives | 2012 August
I also couldn’t find, after a few searches on Google, any information about a Venezuelan aid ship being turned away by the US government in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Whether or not the story is true, it is an interesting hypothetical. It is one thing for the US government to decline an offer of assistance from Cuba, a country towards which the US already has insane policies. But it would be another thing altogether to decline assistance from a country just because its President happens not to share the same ideological views as the currrent US President. US-Venezuela relations are still much friendly by comparison.
For example, the CITGO-Venezuela Heating Oil Program has been helping over 400,000 Americans keep warm every winter for the last seven consecutive years. As far as I know, the US government hasn’t tried to have it shut down. In fact, former US Representative Joseph P. Kennedy actually appeared in a television commercial promoting the program!
After hyper inflation (in the hundreds of percent yearly)
This is false. And I can prove that it is false by citing actual statistics and facts. The current inflation levels in Venezuela are high, but are nowhere near “hundreds of percent yearly”. The highest inflation has ever been under President Chavez were 30.4% in 2008, 29.8% in 2010 and 27.1% in 2009.
I would surmise that those who complain about Venezuela’s “hyper inflation” under Chavez–as if it somehow ‘proved’ the ineptness of his government–probably aren’t even aware that Venezuela’s inflation levels were much, much higher during the late 1980s and throughout most of the 1990s.
Here’s a handy graph of the history of Venezuela’s inflation rate, from 1987 to 2012. And here is another.
Go ahead and compare the highest inflation rate under Chavez, 30.4% in 2008, to the inflation during the decade prior to Chavez becoming President: it was 30% in 1987 and 1988, 84.5% in 1989, 40.7% in 1990, 34.2% in 1991, 31.4% in 1992, 38.1% in 1993, 50.85% in 1994, 59.9% in 1995, 99.9% in 1996, 50% in 1997, 35.8% in 1998, and 23.6% in 1999.
Take a look at the whole thread,
OK, I’ve re-read the thread, and there is still not a single comment arguing that “every bad thing that happens in Venezuela is the US’s fault”. The only ones here making unfounded generalizations are CriminalMacabre and you.
The bet that Chavez will blame the US (independently of whether or not he is correct) is a pretty safe one, because that’s his modus operandi.
This has not been established, and you have done nothing to prove this to be the case.
Then, Goatstein argues that he’s got the right to blame the US because they supported a coup against him. Don’t you see there’s something here that warants my comment being posted?
It is you who needs to re-read the whole thread, because Goatstein DID NOT say “that he’s got the right to blame the US….” His exact words were “yeah that wacky chavez, disliking america just because they tried to topple his government…” No one here is arguing that Chavez is justified in “blaming america, like he alwats does… [sic]” (CriminalMacabre).
There are problems in Venezuela that are not the US’s fault, among them negligence of infrastructure and a hostile environment for profesionals capable of maintaining it.
Again, who the fuck is saying otherwise? You look foolish debating a straw man. Who the fuck is arguing that problems with Venezuela’s infrastructure are “the US’s fault”? Certainly no one here. And so far you have not yet provided any evidence to support your assertion that blaming the US for all problems is indeed Chavez’s “modus operandi”.
Yes, the US Govt would looooove to topple Chavez… doesn’t mean he’s some faultless hero or an inocent victim of the empire.
Again, who the fuck is claiming that Chavez is a “faultless hero or an inocent victim of the empire”? No one here! Why do you insist on debating arguments that no one is making?
As a matter of fact, he’s probably just as bad for the Venezuelans as the US
Dude, you need a better grip on reality.
You’re being downvoted not because people disagree with what you said. You’re being downvoted because of the fact that you said it, period. Who the fuck thinks that "every bad thing that happens in Venezuela is the US’s fault"? No one. But there *are* people who are misinformed the extent of US imperialist aggression in South America. Take a look at [this comment I just posted](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/yup2j/venezuelan_president_hugo_chavez_has_ordered_an/c5zfzhc), wherein a former **U.S. Secretary of State argues that the U.S. should destroy Venezuela’s economy, "so that [Chavez's] appeal in the country and the region goes down".**
This isn’t immediately relevant but I came across something in a book today that people talking about Venezuela might also find interesting. But I’m not suggesting a CIA connection to the current newsstory or anything….
In a note to the CIA, advising them on how to undermine the Allende government, Henry Kissinger wrote succinctly: ‘Make the economy scream’. Former US officials are openly admitting today that the same strategy is applied in Venezuela: former US Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger said of the Venezuelan economy on Fox News:
‘It’s the one weapon we have against [Chavez] to begin with, and which we should be using, namely the economic tools of trying to make the economy even worse, so that his appeal in the country and the region goes down’.
In the current economic emergency, too, we are clearly not dealing with blind market processes but with highly organized, strategic interventions by states and financial institutions, intent on resolving the crisis on their own terms—and in such conditions, are not defensive counter-measures in order? (Slavoj Zizek, philosopher)
From what I have read Chavez has made the lives of the poor even poorer,
I recommend that you look for other sources of information, because the information you are getting cannot be accurate if it has led you to think that “Chavez has made the lives of the poor even poorer”.
It is not true that Chavez is “driving out business”. I’m sure one can point to a handful of companies have decided it would be more profitable to take their business elsewhere, presumably some country where there is little if any government regulation intended to restrict the exploitation of its people.
If you looked at the official numbers, you would see that, the private sector has actually enlarged under Chavez’s presidency, keeping pace with public sector growth! In 2011, the government’s share of the GDP was the same as it had been in 1998, the year that Chavez was first elected!
Even FOX NEWS has confirmed that **“the private sector still controls two-thirds of Venezuela’s economy**—the same as when Chavez was elected in 1998, according to Central Bank estimates”.
The notion that Chavez “has made the lives of the poor ever poorer” is the most ridiculous claim ever.
During the past decade under Chavez, the income poverty rate in Venezuela has been reduced by more than half, from 54% of households below poverty level in the first half of 2003, down to 26% at the end of 2008. “Extreme poverty” has fallen even more – by 72%. Furthermore, “these poverty rates measure only cash income, and doesn’t take into account increased access to health care or education.” (Wikipedia)
His revolution has the possibility of opening an entire generation’s eyes to socialism, showing them that socialism is not only possible, but is democratic, not tyrannical.
I share your thoughts 100%. I am dismayed there isn’t more support for him among socialists in the U.S. It’s not that there shouldn’t be criticism of his government, but it should be constructive criticism, for goodness sake! No one who calls himself or herself a socialist should be dismissing the man, or his efforts, because, like it or not, Chavez has come to represent “socialism for the 21st century”. He’s doing his part to advance socialism, and we must do ours!
Chavez has a democratic election to win. And unless you actually want to see his government turn toward the type of tyannical rule one finds in Iran and Ghaddafi’s Libya, you should accept that one must make necessary alliances to prevent the restoration of oligarchic power and the overturning of years of progress. Revolution cannot and will not happen overnight. It does no service to anyone to demand ideological purity.
I have no doubt that there is truth in your criticism, and I am not downvoting you. But I just want to say that, in my opinion, Chavez has been and continues to be one of the most revolutionary political figures of our lifetime.
I don’t understand in what sense you mean to call Chavez a “nationalist”. He may not fit the pure ‘revolutionary’ mold that you see fit to lead a socialist revolution, but he still doesn’t fit any definition of ‘nationalism’ that I know about. The Bolivarian revolution is inspired by Simon Bolivar, a supposed ‘national’ hero’, but the ‘nation’ here encompasses not just Venezuela but much of northern South America and part of southern Central America.
To call Chave a ‘nationalist’ is to minimize the positive, encouraging, significant work that he’s done to “unite the international working class in the struggle for socialism”, from CITGO’s heating oil assistance to low-income families in the U.S. (hundreds of thousands annually), to Mision Milagro, which provides free eye care to low-income people from 35 countries (nearly 1.8 million so far), the enormous amount of Venezuelan Aid to Haiti, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), to his still unanswered call for a “Fifth International” at a mass meeting in Caracas (to name just a few international connections that Chavez has spearheaded, off the top of my head). This does not mean that one should not be concerned by articles like the one you cite about workers’ protests (which I will follow up on, and expect the government to give serious attention to), I just hope that occasions like these are not used to undermine support for the progress that has been and continues to be made not just in Venezuela, but throughout South America, or, even worse, to fuel support for the opposition coalition that is uniting around Henrique Capriles (who truly is more ‘nationalistic’ in the standard sense) for the upcoming October election!
I
Nearly 80% of the population in Caracas (approximately 4 million people) has been living in the slums for most of their lives–but go ahead and complain about the size of your studio fucking apartment. Poverty in Venezuela increased during the 1980s and 1990s (46% in 1984 to 66% in 1995) but has decreased during the Chávez presidency (48% in 2002 to 24% in 2009). The poverty level is the lowest it has ever been. >During the past decade under Chavez, the income poverty rate in Venezuela has dropped by more than half, from 54% of households below poverty level in the first half of 2003, down to 26% at the end of 2008. “Extreme poverty” has fallen even more – by 72%. Furthermore, “these poverty rates measure only cash income, and doesn’t take into account increased access to health care or education.” (Wikipedia)
Chavez won the last presidential election (in 2006) with a 26% lead over the opposition candidate. With a little over a month to go, the AFP reported last week that “Most polls give Chavez leads of up to 35 percent to win the election.” I’m looking forward to seeing whether Chavez will defeat this year’s opposition candidate by an even wider margin! ’
I define him as non democratic.
That’s not true either. Venezuela has had nation-wide elections or referenda nearly every year that Chavez has been President. He and his supporters have won 12 out of 13 of him. Venezuela’s electoral system has received positive ratings from the Carter Center, the Organization of American States (OAS), and the European Union (EU). The country regularly welcome international observers to monitor its elections to ensure they are free and fair.
In his only electoral defeat (the 1 in 13), Chavez conceded his loss and did not challenge the outcome. When the opposition gained (nearly half of all the) seats in the last National Assembly election, he congratulated them.
I won’t even bother to mention the examples of direct, participatory democracy that he has endorsed as a major part of the Bolivarian revolution he champions. As for the charges that he has suppressed political freedom, or freedom of the press, you only need to open a Venezuelan newspaper to realize that there’s little truth to them.
I never really learned what happened to those laptop files. Nothing really came out of it. Interpol never managed to verify the authencity of the files on those laptops and the Colombian Supreme Court found them inadmissable as evidence, and stated their validity of their content could not be verified.
The links should point to different articles on venezuelanalysis.com, a great resource for Venezuelan news (lots of which are aggregated from other sources) and, you guessed it, analysis (from a generally socialist perspective). The news stories are factual, the opinion articles are subjective, it’s a fine information outlet. I started to add links to Reuters, NYTimes, etc., but I quickly reached the max characters allowed.
You’ve getting upvoted? You havent even provided any sources! I don’t understand that.
I broke my promise in staying up this late. I have work in the morning, and need my sleep. Since you don’t seem like one who can be persuaded easily, I regret I cannot offer an adequate response
I remember Chavez once called Colombia the most “destabilizing force in the region.” Oh, the irony. Also, I didn’t realize “stability” meant kowtowing to him.
Did you read my post? Uribe authorized incursions into Ecuadorian and Venezuelan territory, at a time of friendly relations between the countries, nearly leading to an outbreak of war.
You can view comments about Colombian-Venezuelan relations and FARC at my personal site.
harboring a narcoterrorist guerrilla group hellbent on toppling Colombia’s government isn’t an act of aggression?
There are FARC encampments within Venezuela, but Venezuela isn’t intentionally harboring FARC! Its border with Colombia is 1375 miles long and much of it is covered by dense jungles and mountains. It’s impossible to control the entire border. Fuckit, I’m copying and pasting an old comment:
Colombia’s decades-long civil war (1964 – present) has been spreading beyond the country’s porous 1375-mile border with Venezuela, into the border regions covered by dense jungles and mountains.
In 2007, Colombia President Uribe asked Chavez to help negotiate the release of several high-profile hostages held by the FARC, but then abruptly ended Chavez’s role after a series of apparent diplomatic breaches. Tensions between the two countries got worse, and Venezuela became reluctant to help Colombia’s effort against the rebels. (Chavez: ‘I tried to help, but you pulled me out of hostage negotiations too early, now deal with this fucking mess yourself!’)
The 2008 Andean diplomatic crisis began when Colombia launched an unauthorized incursion into Ecuadorian territory. Venezuela warned against similar operations inside its borders.
In 2010, Colombia’s new president made nice with Chavez, restored diplomatic ties with Venezuela. The relations between the countries are now very close, as evinced in Venezuela’s response to latest FARC attack in Colombia.
[President Juan Santos (who calls Chavez “my new best friend”)] said in a brief televised appearance that Chavez told him he had sent two army brigades to the border. “The brigades have clear instructions to try to find these FARC bandits. And if they do they are going to capture them, and if they resist they will use their weapons,” Santos said. “Those are the instructions that President Chavez gave, to fire on them.”
So Venezuela is now more inclined than ever before to help Colombia rout out the rebels along its border. Its prior reluctance had nothing to do with siding with the FARC and everything to do with Uribe being kind of a dick to Chavez and Chavez wanting nothing to do with him.
See Wikipedia on “Colombia-Venezuela Relations”. Also, here’s a good discussion about their border:
WILPERT: Well, no, we don’t know very much, but *one can be almost certain that there is some FARC in Venezuela*, because we’re talking about a 1,200 mile border between the two countries that is *practically uncontrollable*. Venezuela has something like three times as many soldiers along the border as Colombia does. So it’s actually controlling—just from a military point of view, it’s controlling the border a hell of a lot better than Colombia is. But, still, *it’s impossible to control the entire border*. And *so it’s pretty certain that there’s infiltration not just of Colombian guerrillas, but also of paramilitary forces, and of course of drug traffickers of various kinds*. And there have been fights between the Venezuelan military and those various armed groups. So, yeah, *they cross the border, but that doesn’t mean that Venezuela is actively supporting them, which is the actual main argument of Colombia*. There’s absolutely no proof that Venezuela is supporting them. As a matter of fact, Chávez now—in this recent agreement, said that *Venezuela will not tolerate any Colombian camps, guerrilla camps in Venezuela and would do all it can to actually promise—he will do all he can to get rid of them if they are found by the Venezuelan military*.
Yes, yes, it’s not far-fetched. I didn’t present the best argument above. I’m still not prepared to convince you of my position, and you don’t have to believe me, but I’ve got to say I feel strongly one cannot equate the Venezuelan Bolivarian militia to armed thugs of an oppressive regime. I think to look at the Bolivarian militia this way is a real injustice. I look at it differently, from the context of the unique history of Venezuela and the [Bolivarian revolution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Revolution), which has always celebrated direct, democratic participation of the people, and which boasts the people as *major protagonists of revolutionary change*. Recall that [the coup attempt against Chavez in 2002](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d’%C3%A9tat_attempt) was nearly successful, having ousted Chavez from office for a brief period of 47 hours, before a combination of military force and *mass demonstration of popular support* restored the democratically elected President and the democratically elected National Assembly to power. [According to Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d’%C3%A9tat_attempt#Pro-Chavez_Uprising_and_Restoration), Pedro Carmona’s installation as President (and his subsequent dissolution of the Constitution, National Assembly, Supreme Court, etc.) generated a widespread uprising in support of Chavez, leading to a demonstration in which *hundreds of thousands of people* surrounded the Presidential Palace and demanded a return to constitutional legality. In contrast to the opposition marches, "it was the poor from the peripheral barrios who returned Chávez to power" ([all summarized from Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d’%C3%A9tat_attempt#Pro-Chavez_Uprising_and_Restoration)). One can witness these events as they happen in [the documentary](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolution_Will_Not_Be_Televised) "[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id–ZFtjR5c)". These were no thugs of the Chavez regime, but rather [the *demos*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_rhetorical_terms#Demos) bravely standing up to fight against such a powerful threat to popular goverment. And, maybe I’ve just been drinking the kool-aid, but, in my mind, the Venezuelan Bolivarian militia represents an effort to institutionalize the peoples’ legendary capacity to serve ‘guardians of liberty’, to defend the republic from threats to its security (reference to ancient Rome). I don’t think the other countries you mentioned can boast about having such an active citizenry. Maybe I’m not making the best case here, but I feel strongly Bolivarian militia are not simply armed thugs of the regime.
Just because it is not true that "elections are always honest" doesn’t mean that if Chavez wins the next election, that election is not honest. BTW, Venezuela’s [electoral system](http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1503) receives favorable [evaluations](http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1533) by numerous reputable international organizations including the [Carter Center](http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/331), the Organization of American States (OAS), and the [European Union (EU)](http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/2243?page=124). Venezuela [welcomes international observers to monitor its elections](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/12/venezuela-opens-election-to-observers/), something the U.S. never does.
>The word "war" was mostly on Chavez’s lips. What do you mean by that? Technically it could be true that, in reading the news, it was most often Chavez, rather than Uribe, who warned about the possibility of "war" between their countries. But just because Chavez was warning about a possible war, that doesn’t mean that he was the one responsible for nearly causing it. I don’t think you could take an objective look at the facts and not conclude that Colombian President Uribe was the major cause of the animosity between the countries. Uribe showed a willingness to invade the sovereignty of two of Colombia’s neighbors, Ecuador and Venezuela, by *authorizing military incursions into their territories*! Why would anyone think Chavez was [the belligerent one](http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/02/us-venezuela-colombia-idUSN0227633020080302), merely because [he warned Uribe not to violate his country's sovereignty](http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/02/us-colombia-rebel-chavez-idUSN0126952620080302) by sending Colombian military forces into Venezuelan territory without permission! Especially in light of [WikiLeaks's reports that Uribe had authorized "clandestine operations" in Venezuela](http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2011/02/23/wikileaks-uribe-authorized-clandestine-operations-venezuela/). >"A 2006 confidential US. diplomatic cable… shows that the conservative Uribe, who governed from 2002-2010, **gave the authorization at a time of friendly relations** between his government and that of leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez." Uribe also authorized a military incursion into Ecuadorian territory in what became known as the [2008 Andean diplomatic crisis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Andean_diplomatic_crisis). Uribe nearly brought all these countries to war–he was a fucking menace to the region! Wikileaks has plenty of other dirt on Uribe: former Colombian Army Inspector General Maj. Gen. Carlos Suarez reported that [President Álvaro Uribe "continues to view military success in terms of kills"](http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/wikileaks-on-colombia-uribe-%E2%80%9Cviews-military-success-in-terms-of-kills%E2%80%9D-army-commander-ospina-tried-to-initimidate-witnesses-to-extrajudicial-executions/)… Edit: I almost forgot to mention President Uribe’s [alleged ties to **right-wing death squads**](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/18/colombia.rorycarroll). These allegations [haven't gone away](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/08/alvaro-uribe-accused-paramilitary-ties)! [New Book reveals Colombian ex-leader Uribe's alleged paramilitary ties](http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/23310-colombian-congressmans-book-implicates-uribe-in-parapolitics-scandal-.html). Etc.
>thankfully the tide seems to be turning I urge you to read the last sentence of the article submitted above: "[Most polls give Chavez leads of up to 35 percent to win the election](http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ien4Pn_g8yWFTatsHQ1MPOR2Hx9g?)." Keep in mind Chavez won the last presidential election by a 26% margin.
>Chavez may be popular now, but he isn’t always going to be. There is already many people in Venezuela who don’t like him and the number grows every year. For your information the last line of the article submitted above reads "Most polls give Chavez leads of up to 35 percent to win the election." Chavez won his last presidential election by a 26% margin. 35% > 26%. Make of that what you will but it is hardly suggestive of an impending confrontation between a ‘guerilla army’ (which, by the way, probably doesn’t even exist, as this is the first article to ever mention it) and an "oppressive state". Chavez will not be President forever, sure, but if more and more Venezuelans dislike him every year, why wouldn’t they just vote him out of office? I can imagine him stepping down if his cancer returns. There are so many other plausible scenarios whereby Chavez would leave office, a confrontation like the one you imply is so unlikely.
what you’d expect him to do.
Maybe it’s what you’d expect. But I’d look at it a different way, within the following context (which places the Chavez government outside a comparison with the regimes in Iran, Zimbabwe, Syria, etc. I’d argue).
Recall that the coup attempt against Chavez in 2002 was nearly successful, having ousted Chavez from office for a brief period of 47 hours, before a combination of military force and mass demonstration of popular support restored the democratically elected President and the democratically elected National Assembly to power.
Pedro Carmona’s installation as President (and his subsequent dissolution of the Constitution, the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, etc.) generated a widespread uprising in support of Chávez, resulting in a demonstration outside the Presidential Palace by hundreds of thousands of people. In contrast to the opposition marches, “it was the poor from the peripheral barrios who returned Chávez to power” (a Wikipedia summary).
One can witness these events as they happen in the documentary “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised”.
I think it is a profoundly good thing that the demos were prepared to bravely stand up to fight against such a powerful threat to popular goverment. And, maybe I’ve just been drinking the kool-aid, but, in my mind, the Venezuelan Bolivarian militia represents an effort to institutionalize the peoples’ legendary capacity to serve ‘guardians of liberty’, to defend the republic from threats to its security (reference to ancient Rome).
I don’t think the other countries you mentioned can boast about having such an active citizenry. Maybe I’m not making the best case here, but I feel strongly Bolivarian militia are not simply armed thugs of the regime.
This bit of news comes from an opposition lawmaker, Representative Maria Corina Machado. Not from Chavez, not from anyone in his administration, not even from a Chavez supporter. I’m not saying that Venezuela wouldn’t defend itself from an invasion, or that Chavez isn’t concerned about possible US aggression, just that this latest news about "Plan Sucre" should probably be taken with a grain of salt. I won’t speculate about the possible motivation behind an opposition lawmaker going to the newspapers with this story but I’m wondering why this news isn’t coming from the Chavez government, or from the President himself, since it’s not like he’s shy about discussing things like this, denouncing US imperialism, etc.
They say all these great things to win the votes of the masses but they don’t really plan on doing any of it. They just plan on stealing shit.
I thought you were talking about Radonski for a second! I seriously doubt that he would have the political capital to govern from the center-left or make good on his promises (which he makes in seeking to win the vote of the masses) not to dramatically cut popular social programs if he were to get elected, and I’m not the only one.
I wouldn’t deny there are government officials who claim to be loyal to Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution, but who are actually corrupt and who steal from the people whom they are supposed to serve and represent. I say one should definitely root our corruption even among Chavistas, fight within the PSUV or PPT for great space for dialogue, and criticize the government when it deserves it, but voting for the opposition is no solution at all.
Some people may regard Chavez as the savior, but I don’t. The choice this election is not between good and evil but between (A) deepening the revolutionary process and (B) suspending if not reversing it altogether.
You do serious damage to your credibility when you make absolutely ridiculous allegations such as this… which are verifiably false! I’m sorry, but this is why I do not trust your perspective on Venezuelan politics.
Who is the “they” in your sentence? “Venezuelans” (the subject of the one-sentence-comment to which your comment was a response)? Or is it Chavez and his supporters who you are alleging “own the polling agencies”? And which polling agencies? Take your pick! Because nearly all of them show, and have shown for months, Chavez leads the opposition candidate by a wide margin and is likely to win re-election in two months.
Are you claiming that Chavez and his supporters own all of “the polling agencies”? The only polling agency that I’ve heard Capriles criticize is Hinterlaces, which shows Chavez leading by about 19 points. He accused the firm of publising “bogus polls”. In this attack on the integrity of this firm, he never claimed it was “owned by” Chavez.
The truth (the sources for which you can look up, or I can provide you if you don’t believe me) is there are just as many if not more links between polling agencies and the opposition (as there are between pollsters and the government). And pollsters like Datalisis, which in the past were considered sympathetic to the opposition, show Chavez leading by over 15%. Even reputable opposition blogs believe they accurately reflect public opinion.
The only polling firm that shows Capriles with a chance of winning is Consultores 21. Consultores’s record shows it has made some disastrously bad predictions in the past. For example, it underestimated Chavez’s support in the last presidential election (2006) by over 10 percentage points (it gave Chavez a 13% lead, but he won by 26%).
You do serious damage to your credibility when you make absolutely ridiculous allegations such as this… which are verifiably false! I’m sorry, but this is why I do not trust your perspective on Venezuelan politics.
Who is the “they” in your sentence? “Venezuelans” (the subject of the one-sentence-comment to which your comment was a response)? Or is it Chavez and his supporters who you are alleging “own the polling agencies”? And which polling agencies? Take your pick! Because nearly all of them show, and have shown for months, Chavez leads the opposition candidate by a wide margin and is likely to win re-election in two months.
Are you claiming that Chavez and his supporters own all of “the polling agencies”? The only polling agency that I’ve heard Capriles criticize is Hinterlaces, which shows Chavez leading by about 19 points. He accused the firm of publising “bogus polls”. In this attack on the integrity of this firm, he never claimed it was “owned by” Chavez.
The truth (the sources for which you can look up, or I can provide you if you don’t believe me) is there are just as many if not more links between polling agencies and the opposition (as there are between pollsters and the government). And pollsters like Datalisis, which in the past were considered sympathetic to the opposition, show Chavez leading by over 15%. Even reputable opposition blogs believe they accurately reflect public opinion.
The only polling firm that shows Capriles with a chance of winning is Consultores 21. Consultores’s record shows it has made some disastrously bad predictions in the past. For example, it underestimated Chavez’s support in the last presidential election (2006) by over 10 percentage points (it gave Chavez a 13% lead, but he won by 26%).
The other day someone from r/Conservative commented “Ask any Venezuelan and they will tell you that he is a dictator…” Obviously the only Venezuelans that those in that subreddit are likely to know well enough to be able to ask are those living in the U.S., or those who live in Venezuela but know perfect English and have the luxury of bullshitting with U.S. conservatives on the internet. Needless to say, they are not exactly representative of the vast majority of Venezuelans.
As I wrote in response, if you were to “ask Venezuelans”–in a statistically representative sample–as professional pollsters have done, you’d find that most will say they support President Chavez.
I still think it’s pretty funny and ridiculous that he would play with that accusation even loosely.
I don’t think (even playing loosely with) such an accusation is funny or ridiculous, nor would you if you were familiar with US interference in the political affairs of Latin American countries (the widespread misconception about Chavez, referred to above, is possible because few U.S. citizens know anything about the subject). And neither does Chavez (who barely survived a failed coup against his democratically elected government in 2002), which is why he is careful to state explicitly that “I don’t want to make any reckless accusations”.
It’s interesting that “after reading his actual words”–including his explicit denial that he’s making any accusation–you still think Chavez is nonetheless playing loosely with the idea that the US may have given him cancer. It might be because, in light of the historical facts that Chavez goes on to cite–about how, during the 1940s, the United States ran “scientific tests” on the Guatemalan people–the accusation begins to seem a lot less far-fetched.
Maybe you didn’t catch it but Chavez is referencing a news story from the previous year. In October 2010, President Obama offered an apology to the Guatemalan President for the US testing that infected hundreds of Guatemalans with gonorrhoea and syphilis. This is not the only example of the US’s misdeeds in the region.
The truth is that, far from being paranoid and deranged for the Venezuelan President to reflect on the possibility that the U.S. has developed technology to induce cancer (they have, it’s called an X-ray machine), Chavez’s reflections were actually more rational than ‘over-the-top’, as they took into account the reality of the US’s historical meddling in the region, but, as you now concede, stopped short of making any actual accusation.
Let’s recap. The joke in your first comment under this submission plays on the image of Chavez as a paranoid, deranged anti-American political leader who, irrationally, blames the U.S. for his (presumably ‘natural’) health problems. My point is that the image is false not only because (1) Chavez never accused the U.S. of giving him cancer, but also because (2) even if he had, the accusation (which Chavez did not make) wouldn’t even be that far out of line, if one is honest about the US’s efforts to undermine leftist political leaders south of the border (e.g. the CIA’s plots to kill Castro by poising his cigars, or placing explosive seashells in his favorite diving sports).
I wonder if the Chavez government did make tackling local crime a top priority (rather than land reform, housing, food, healthcare, etc.) whether the opposition wouldn’t, in fact, be more inclined to denounce him as a ‘dictator’… After all, to tackle local crime, he would have to develop a highly trained, disciplined, militarized police force. He would likely have to increase the police force’s presence and surveillance in various (rich and poor) neighborhoods; he would need to order the construction of supermax security prisons like in Colombia, Brazil, and the U.S. Like in the countries just mentioned, there would undoubtedly be instances of police brutality that are difficult to control…. Something tells me as much as the opposition is demanding a crackdown on crime, they wouldn’t like it at all.
For example, the international media has already, for years, portrayed the government’s efforts to crack down on crime in the corrupt banking sector and justice system as instances of supposed ‘political persecution’. Read the excellent “Fighting Corruption or Persecuting Political Opponents in Venezuela? A Response to the New York Times”.
I really don’t think that’s what he’s doing. First, Venezuela holds nation-wide elections or referenda regularly, nearly every year. And so far, Chavez and his supporters have won 12 out of 13 of them. The opposition has accused Chavez of election fraud, but no accusation has ever proven to be credible. The country’s electoral system receives favorable evaluations by numerous reputable international organizations including the Carter Center, the Organization of American States (OAS), and the European Union (EU). Venezuela welcomes international observers to monitor its elections, something the U.S. never does. No clear cases of election fraud.
Second, why would Chavez resort to election fraud when nearly every poll (over the past several months), from nearly every pollster (out of many), shows him ahead of his main rival by a wide, double-digit margin? And with only a few months to go until the election, polls show Chavez maintaining or extending his lead; his opponent shows little momentum.
If anyone is taking “preemptive” action, it is the Venezuelan opposition! Consider how less credible their accusations of fraud will be when the election results turn out to reflect what the polls have been saying. Since the polls suggest a Chavez victory would reflect the people’s will, the opposition have begun to claim that the polls themselves are ‘rigged’. More than remaining optimistic despite the odds, it’s starting to look dangerous.
(Consider the August 3rd claim that “Capriles is”now winning in the polls", because one poll from June showed Capriles losing by less than 1%! In what universe is losing–45.8 to Chavez’s 45.9–’winning in the polls?)
Finally there is very good reason for Chavez to worry that the opposition might be planning to “refuse to accept the results if he is victorious” because, in contrast to Chavez, who has repeatedly promised that he would accept the electoral results and relinquish power if he loses in October, the opposition has still not publicly confirmed that they will accept the election results no matter what their outcome might be!
allegedly gave him cancer
“Allegedly” Alleged by whom?
I understand that you are making a joke, but at the same time you’re perpetuating a falsehood (started by the media and now widely accepted as true) intended to discredit the Venezuelan President and paint a false image of him as paranoid and deranged. As Hugo Chavez himself made clear, responding to the hysteria in the international press last December: “I have not accused anyone of inducing cancer”, noting that he “just made a reflection” on the strange coincidence that several leaders in the region had been diagnosed with cancer, and that these cancer-striken leaders all just happen to be leftists. If you read what he actually said, you’ll see Chavez went out of his way to say he wasn’t making any accusations, and that doing so would be “reckless” and “irresponsible”.
Edit: Downvoted for correcting a widespread misconception? Then why do I even bother?
I agree it’s more likely the guy is a mercenary (than a CIA agent).
If you recall, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence the CIA was involved directly in the failed coup against Chavez’s democratically elected government in 2002, either. (Although, as the NY Times reported, intelligence documents declassified in 2004 confirm that the CIA did, in fact, have advanced knowledge that “dissident military officers and opposition figures in Venezuela were planning a coup….” And there’s still some suspicion.)
The interesting question, then, would be, who might this guy have been working for? And what, exactly, might he have been hired to do? Well, it’s already pretty widely known (in Venezuela) that hundreds of peasants have been assassinated by hired gunmen and right-wing paramilitaries, for attempting to implement the Chavez government’s land reform policy. “The crimes strongly implicate wealthy landowners who vehemently oppose land reform.”
And then there’s the assassination of officials involved in the Chavez government. For example, in 2008, Danilo Anderson, the state prosecutor leading the investigation of those involved in the 2002 coup against Chavez’s democratically elected government, was killed when a C-4 plastic explosive device placed under his car detonated.
It looks like every sentence in your comment may be false. Since I don’t have all night to refute each one, tell me which you believe holds up to the facts, and then I’ll explain to what degree you’re wrong. Let’s just take the first sentence (split into two parts).
Chavez has destroyed private business…
In 2010 the AP and Fox News reported that, while President Chavez’s socialist rhetoric might lead you to suspect otherwise, the “reality on the ground” is that “the private sector still controls two-thirds of Venezuela’s economy–the same as when Chavez was elected in 1998, according to estimates by the Central Bank.”
And the balance between public and private sectors remains nearly identical to when Chavez took office in part because the private sector grew faster than the government between 2003 and 2006, when the economy was booming. (Fox News)
Now part two of the first sentence.
…making the country entirely dependent on oil.
First, the country has been dependent on oil since the 1940s, if not soon after oil was discovered there in the early 20th century, then at least by the 1970s and 1980s, when dependence could not have been worse.
Second, if anything Chavez has helped decrease dependence on oil, by increasing agricultural production. After decades of having to import its own food, by 2008, Venezuela was self-sufficient in its most important grains, corn and rice… “with production increases of 132% for corn and between 71-94% for rice since 1998”, and “on its way to reaching self-sufficiency in a number of other important staple foods”. >In 2010 the government announced that there had been a 48% increase in lands under cultivation since 1998. Over the same periods, production of some staples had increased substantially: “Rice production has risen by 84%, reaching nearly 1.3 million tons yearly while milk production has risen to 2.18 million tons, a 47% increase.” Wikipedia.
Ask any Venezuelan and they will tell you that he is a dictator who has killed hundreds of people.
If you ask Venezuelans, as professional pollsters have done, you’ll find that most of them will tell you the same as they tell pollsters, which is that they support President Chavez’s re-election. I guess they could be lying–who knows. Also, I know several Venezuelans (living in the U.S.) who oppose Chavez, and while I’ve heard them call Chavez a “dictator”, none of them has ever claimed he’s “killed hundreds of people”. As far as I know (as someone who follows Venezuelan news and politics on a regular basis) this is not a claim that is being made by anyone, in the opposition, in Venezuela, or anywhere. Why do some conservatives appear to think that they cannot oppose a politician or political leader without exaggerating their danger, without turning them into a ‘mass-murderer’, etc.?
Interesting fact: In 1974, the leftist guerrilla group M-19 (the 19th of April Movement), in a highly symbolic action, stole one of Simón Bolívar’s swords from a Colombian museum. The sword became the symbol of the guerrilla’s fight under the slogan of “Bolivar your sword returns to the fight”.
Have you considered that, maybe, the US is itself responsible for the damage to its reputation that is caused by the fact that this is a country that has tolerated and even stirred anti-black racism for so long, or the fact that it doesn’t care about poor families keeping warm in the winter? I’m not trying to be a dick. I know what you’re saying, maybe these countries too take pleasure in embarrassing the U.S. But it’s embarrassment that’s well-deserved, at least in my opinion. In February Congress passed a budget that cut several billion dollars from the US government’s own heating assistance program (LIHEAP). If Venezuela wants to call attention to this sad fact, then shame on the U.S.
How does providing heating assistance to low-income American families, or condemning anti-black racism “harm the US”? That’s the claim I was challenging.
sells the donated gas at discounted prices to the American populace
You are seriously confused. CITGO may “earn 32 billion a year from its gas sales”, but there’s no way it makes that kind of money from its heating oil philanthropy program! How much of CITGO’s 32 billion a year do you think comes from its providing millions of gallons of heating oil to low-income families, at 40-45 percent below the market price? The value of these discounts comes out to something like $100 million dollars a year. I’d be surprised if CITGO made any money at all from this program, especially since, beginning in 2006, it started sending 100 gallons of free oil to eligible households each year. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, how much of CITGO’s profit do you think comes from donating hundreds of thousands of gallons to hundreds of homeless shelters across the Northeast, for absolutely free?
My comment was made in response to someone’s claim that “Anything that harms the US is good for [Chavez].” Regardless of whether CITGO benefits financially somehow from this arrangement, the fact is that its heating oil assistance program does offer much-needed relief to poor American families. Especially in light of the 2012 budget–proposed by President Obama–which cuts several billion dollars from the government’s energy assistance fund for poor people–slashing the total funding currently authorized by Congress by more than half?
Anything that harms the US is good to him
I suppose that’s why Venezuela just renewed and expanded its home heating oil assistance program in the U.S. (through CITGO), which has helped hundreds of thousands of low-income Americans keep warm every winter for seven consecutive years.