Chavez says food prices "massacre" of world's poor

[Bushknew]

Source: Reuters


"The problem is not the production of food ... it is the economic, social and political model of the world. The capitalist model is in crisis."

"Developed countries want to feed the cars of the rich with food -- this is the irrational world we live in today," Lage said, echoing Chavez's frequent accusations that Washington's promotion of biofuel is boosting prices of staples like corn.


Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKN2233242820080423

[Dreamer Tatum]

1. Then give your oil to the poor nations of the world so they can sell it, Chavez

Easy for a guy sitting on billions of barrels of $100 oil to decry the world's poverty.

[David__77]

3. Venezuela is indeed poor, oil or no oil.

Your point is soaked in typical American imperialist chauvinism.

[cstanleytech]

12. "American imperialist"???

I hope you meant that in a joking, tongue and cheek sort of way.

[eridani]

24. Really? What is the reason for having 700+ military bases around the world?

They have no role in defending the country, so I'd call their existence imperial.

[cstanleytech]

47. Varies reasons I imagine,

some were built during the cold war others during WWII and others are in place because we have an economic interest in that area of the world.
That aside let me ask you since you say we have 700 bases how many of them are *new* bases?
By new I mean less that 10 to 15 years old and no I dont mean the ones put in the middle east since the time Saddam first invaded Kuwait.

[eridani]

80. Whatchu mean "we," Kemosabe?

"We" have economic interests in various areas of the world? Personally, I gain no benefits from the imperial project of making the world safe for dollar a day labor. And as far as the resource theft our corporate thugs have been working on lately, how's that working out for you at the pump these days?

Not sure how to define "new" as real info about the extent of base proliferation is very hard to come by. Even the 700 figure is a guess--many analysts suspect quite a few others.

[cstanleytech]

81. "We" as in the US, unless you are not

a US citizen however if you are /bonk :P lol
As for the bases, do you happen to have a link to where you are getting the info?

[eridani]

84. "We" are not all on the same side here in the US

The sociopathic shitstains who expect the US military to conquer the world for them, even as they relocate their corporate headquarters to Dubai and the Bahamas to avoid paying for it, are not on my side or on the side of any average citizen. If you want to identify with them, go right ahead. Just include me out.

I can't seem to get Google up on my computer right now. Just google 700 and "US military bases."

[eridani]

85. OK, Google back up. Check out Chalmers Johnson

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2004/01bases.htm

[Judi Lynn]

86. You can scratch the base in Ecuador! Ha ha ha. Thank you for this outstanding article.

I've already filed it away for future use.

Noticed Chalmers discussed "lilly pads," a repellent term I've only recently heard. Rumsfeld. Hideous.

Hope many, many people will take the time to read this closely.

[eridani]

95. Got another one--

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0804/S00357.htm

The Encarta Encyclopedia describes militarism as “advocacy of an ever-stronger military as a primary goal of society, even at the cost of other social priorities and liberties.” And it relates militarism to chauvinism, fascism, and national socialism. As uncomfortable as it may be for many, this chilling definition accurately describes the historical trajectory and current reality of U.S. national security policy. The threatened first use of nuclear weapons remains at the heart of that policy, and at the core of StratCom’s mission.

In many ways, StratCom embodies the hidden architecture of U.S. militarism. By architecture, I mean structural underpinnings and plans that provide coherence. I include both policies and “hardware” (i.e. delivery systems and manufacturing plants).

Much of this architecture is “hidden in plain sight.” All of the information presented here is available from open sources. None of it is classified, yet it is hidden from public view, barely mentioned in the mainstream media, and the U.S. arms control establishment chooses largely to ignore it because of the complexities it introduces into the short-term, “pragmatic” mindset prevalent in Washington, DC.

[Judi Lynn]

96. And your link has a special message for the poster who wondered about the 700 bases!

From the article:

“These numbers, although staggeringly large, do not begin to cover all the actual bases we occupy globally.... If there were an honest count, the actual size of our military empire would probably top 1,000 different bases in other people’s countries, but no one -- possibly not even the Pentagon -- knows the exact number for sure, although it has been distinctly on the rise in recent years.”

As a special bonus for the Dr. Strangeloves among us, a wonderful pie chart which can be printed out, and laminated to carry in their wallets!





Don't bother making "the pie higher!"
Anything more might make it seem excessive!
Thanks for posting this great article. It's one to save for future reference.

[Dreamer Tatum]

29. His countries' net worth is going up by the day

His bread and butter is in feeding the machine he's criticizing.

Would LOVE, just LOVE, to know how my post reflects "imperialism" in any way.

[DCKit]

4. Think globally, act locally.

Chavez has had his eye on this (and everything else) for some time and likely saw it coming. He'll have his hands full taking care of his own people and his neighbors, but at least he has the resources and wasn't willfully ignorant of the situation until AFTER the riots began.

I may tend to automatically take any position directly opposite of the malAdministration and go overboard in doing so, but some folks need to step back whenever they find they agree with WH propaganda and do a little research on their own. And I don't mean in the MSM. Aside from the controversies generated with the Constitution and term limits, I am unaware of anything Hugo's done that hasn't been of benefit to the people - specifically, the formerly and completely disenfranchised NATIVE poor.

What is it? That he and his people, the majority population, are Mayan? Or that they're demanding a share of what was stolen and kept from them for nearly half a millennium by the Spanish? Other than racism, and in the face of tons evidence that he is building his country and it's people, I see no other reason for the irrational hatred.

Please explain it to me.

[happyslug]

23. The Majority of his People are Native American but NOT Mayan

Mayan are a Southern Mexico Guatemalan Tribe. For more on the Mayans:

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

http://www.native-languages.org/maya.htm

Venezuelan Tribes:
http://www.native-languages.org/venezuela.htm
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/68122/the_venezuelan_indigenous_population.html
http://www.kacike.org/cac-ike/Venezuela.html

[Peace Patriot]

36. "Aside from the controversies generated with the Constitution and term limits..."

Why do you set this aside as un-beneficial? The Chavistas PUT IT TO A VOTE OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE. They lost by a hair (50.7% to 49.3%), and moved on. How is that un-beneficial? The people voting on things? Or Chavez being able to run for a third term, IF THE PEOPLE HAD APPROVED IT?

There were 69 proposed Constitutional amendments. Among them was equal rights for gays and women. Possibly this sank the overall proposal (Venezuela's rightwing Catholic clergy was active). But it's hard to say why the overall proposal lost. It also included, for instance, social benefits for Venezuela's informal workers (street vendors, etc. - a substantial part of the work force), and other such proposals. It may be that the overall proposal was just too complicated, causing about 10% of the voters to sit on their hands. Chavez won the last presidential election with 63% of the vote, and enjoys a 65-70% approval rating. It was an unusual loss for Chavez, but it is only a wild guess that the 69 proposals lost because 10% of normally pro-Chavez voters don't want him to run again.

Our own FDR ran for and won FOUR terms in office, and died in his fourth term. (He was "president for life.") Was that bad--and non-beneficial? Many of our Founders OPPOSED term limits as undemocratic. They felt that the people should be able to keep a beneficial president in office. It's up to the people. Our term limit on presidents was touted and passed by rightwing forces, in the 1950s, because they never wanted to see another "New Deal" in the U.S. ever again. Good, pro-people presidents need TIME to overcome the entrenched, untoward power of the rich. As FDR said, "Organized money hates me--and I welcome their hatred." They fought him every step of the way.

Chavez needed the clout of being able to run for a third term--even if he didn't do it, and even if, by then, he might lose--to overcome the CONTINUAL U.S.-Bush interference in Venezuela in cahoots with the fascist elite, whose idea of government--in the 2002 coup attempt--was to suspend the Constitution, the National Assembly, the courts and all civil rights, and kidnap the elected president and threaten his life. Next they would have been jailing, torturing and killing leftists--if the Venezuelan people hadn't emerged from their hovels in the tens of thousands and peacefully shut down the coup (by surrounding Miraflores Palace). Chavez has to contend with this kind of opposition--vicious, anti-democratic opposition--and also with items like Exxon Mobil seeking to freeze $12 billion in Venezuela's assets (in order to bully their way in negotiations with the Chavez government over Venezuela's share in their own oil profits), and relentless propaganda from the Bushites and their lapdog corporate press, not to mention Bush-CIA plots, dirty tricks and war plans.

His request to the Venezuelan people that he be able to run again was neither ill-considered, nor the action of a "dictator" (or "would-be dictator"--the most recent Bushite lie). Bush's 'little dictator' in Colombia (Alvaro Uribe) has been bribing, bullying and threatening people behind the scenes, in Colombia, to get the legislature to let him run for a third term, by stealth legislation. But of course that is never mentioned by the Bushites! A fascist sneaking around is okay. But a populist, pro-people leader like Chavez putting it to a general vote--that's bad. That means he "wants to be" a tyrant!

As Chavez himself has often pointed out, strength in a democratic, leftist leader is not the same thing as tyranny. Strength in dealing with the likes of Exxon Mobil is to be desired. Chavez has been running a scrupulously lawful, beneficial government for ten years. He has harmed no one, invaded no one, jailed no one unfairly. He is using the oil revenues to bootstrap the poor--with education, medical care, low cost housing, land reform and many other highly effective policies. (Venezuela has achieved significant reductions in poverty over the last five years, and has shown a near 10% growth, with the biggest growth in the PRIVATE sector, not including oil.) And it is a tribute to his democratic beliefs that the Venezuelan people--some of those who may have voted against a Chavez third term--believe that those benefits will continue, and that Venezuelan democracy will survive, if someone else gets elected in 2012. It means that the Chavez government has laid strong foundations for democracy, after decades of rightwing mis-rule and fascism. They don't fear rightwing dictatorship so much any more. Chavez has established the rights of the poor majority, and their sovereignty as a country with regard to U.S. interference and corporate exploitation. They feel they now have choices.

There ARE differences among the many leftist governments in South America on how social justice can be achieved. The left-center "bishop of the poor," Fernando Lugo, just elected president of Paraguay, distinguishes himself from Chavez by saying that he disfavors centralized government (statism), wants to de-centralize power, and work more by consensus with all parties (including the rightwingers, the big landowners, the corporate entities and the U.S. (--though he wants the U.S. military out of Paraguay). And it will be interesting to see if this milder approach works--and it might, given the new context of the overwhelming leftist trend in South America, that Chavez has spearheaded. Ten years ago, Lugo would have been eaten alive by the rich and the corporatists. Also, the leftist compromisers in Brazil and Chile have not been as successful at social justice or other goals as have the Bolivarian leftists (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina), and have made some rather bad decisions (such as Lula da Silva's decision, in Brazil, to go for corporate biofuel development--thinking short term, re: jobs and investment, instead of long term, about food production, and global warming). But Lugo's statements do illustrate that there can be a variety of approaches in leftist government, none of which is "tyranny." Chavez the "dictator" is a shibboleth of the global corporate predators. They also called FDR a "dictator." But he wasn't. He was elected to take strong action on critical problems on behalf of the people. So was Chavez.

[DCKit]

40. I said they were controversies, not that they were bad. Jeebus.

It was a comparison of actual concerns vs. those the malAdministration and MSM are trying to ram down our throats.

But thanks for the book. I'll save it for later PP.

[judasdisney]

7. Stunning ignorance

Is it snark? Is it a Far Right troll?

What type of colossus of ignorant irony would make the statement "Give your oil to the poor nations of the world" about Venezuela?

[cstanleytech]

13. Maybe he should have said donate, would that have made you happier?

Anyway its an interesting question to raise, his country exports what? 1 million or so barrels of oil a day right?
At about $100 per barrel say thats a rough income of $100,000,000 per day right for a rough total of $3,000,000,000 per month, even one days worth of the oil income would help feed some of the poor worldwide.

[judasdisney]

15. Trolls a-plenty here

Chavez has donated heating oil to lower-class U.S. citizens for 2 years, and has been accused by the Right-Wing of "exporting socialism" for his efforts.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002641186_cheapoil23.html
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/1713

For his trouble, U.S. Right-Wingers launched a boycott of Citgo and 7-11.

Chavez & Venezuela are the BIGGEST donors of food OF ANY GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD to the current food crisis in Haiti. http://current.com/items/88908068_venezuela_sends_364_tons_of_food_to_haiti

Chavez has been donating for years to Latin nations and is accused of trying to "export socialism."

What kind of dumb-ass CLOWNS post such ignorant, fact-free filth?

[cstanleytech]

22. Hey, no need for you to be disparaging.

I am merely talking about him donating the "cash" from the income from 1 day a month to say something like feed the children or something and I never said at any time that he did not donate anything.
In my opinion the cash would be a better option since it could be used to do many things like food and medicine as well as fuel for heating.

[Bushknew]

38. That's something you WON'T hear in the mainstream news. Thank You.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=51531§ionid=351020706

[cstanleytech]

Thanks for the link,

it puts chavez in a slightly better light.
I still dont trust him fully mind you (then again I dont trust most leaders of most countries and that includes the shrub) for him nationalizing it alot of stuff in his country but still that was a very nice gesture on his part, better than the presidents response to Katrina.

[Judi Lynn]

50. Aren't you aware that things were NATIONALIZED in Venezuela until the 1990's?

He has been RE-NATIONALIZING them. Please take time to do your homework.

[cstanleytech]

68. Yes I know but I dont see how it makes it all right though

for him to do it now regardless if it used to be years ago.
I mean heck slavery used to be all right in the US so should we start allowing people to be sold legally?

[Judi Lynn]

76. The majority of Venezuelans WANT the government to do this. That's their decision, not yours. n/t

[cstanleytech]

78. Never said it was mine just that I dont care for it nor

agree with it.

[cstanleytech]

bah, double post NT

[cstanleytech]

45. Bah, triple post

[AdHocSolver]

59. Buying food for the poor would just drive up food prices. Chavez strategy is brilliant.

There is an old saying that describes what Chavez is doing.

It says: "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for the rest of his life."

Chavez is using his oil profits to invest in infrastructure. He is planning for the long term, when the oil runs out.

In America, the oil companies are squandering the wealth of the planet for their own selfish interests. Americans who support this waste and extravagance have no basis for criticizing Chavez.

[Dreamer Tatum]

30. It's a response to Chavez' fatuousness

The economic model that he decries is also the one that secures Venezuela's future via purchase of the black, viscous matter under his control. No one said the Chavez regime isn't charitable - the point instead is that playing the "rich" against the "poor" very conveniently ignores his critical role in that process. If he wants to soak the "rich," then let him turn down the spigots. Of course, we know he won't do that.

[Vidar]

72. We have clowns who worship at the altar of capitalism here, unfortunately.

[rAVES]

9. Go back to freerepublic for christs sake..

[Dreamer Tatum]

33. Never even visited there.

Not even sure how you got that from my original post.

[ronnie624]

35. No shit.

No topic on DU stirs up the reactionary ding-bats like an article about Hugo Chavez.

[fight4my3sons]

21. He gave my family oil when we needed it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

32. And that's a good and charitable thing.

I'm saying, he shouldn't whine about the beast he's feeding with $125 oil. If he's disturbed by wealth inequality, he is in a
unique role to do something about it.

[Selatius]

26. Wow, you have a picture of Karl Marx and spout the lie the Venezuela is rich?

What a fool of a troll.

[Dreamer Tatum]

31. That thing arcing above your head is my original point. n/t

[happydreams]

88. You are a sorry, stupid, jackass Dreamturd.

[JDPriestly]

2. Without trucks, tractors, fertilizers, cars, we produce less food.

Chavez is oversimplifying. In many cases, the technologies used in poor countries does not produce enough food for their own use. We are importing food we don't need -- to please the leaders of the developing nations who want us to buy their food. Chavez is wrong on this.

[AdHocSolver]

5. Our food prices, such as for dairy products, are rising, also, because of ethanol.

Use of ethanol made from corn for fuel is a giant fraud. It does NOT reduce pollution and it does NOT save oil.

Cars get less mileage when ethanol is added to the gas, so a car needs refueling more often to go the same mileage, and in burning more gas, creates more pollution. It is used solely to create more profit for the agribusiness corporations.

The only current technolgy to save oil, lower costs, and reduce pollution, is electric and hybrid-electric vehicle technology, and development of more mass transit. This is doable, cost effective, and it works.

The increase in food prices in the U.S. is going to increase hunger in this country as well.

[mortismo]

14. That's right. Rice and wheat are being turned into biofuel as we speak.

Please.

[AdHocSolver]

58. Correct! Wheat and soy acreage are being converted to grow corn for the more profitable ethanol.

This is reducing the supply of wheat and soy for food production driving up their prices as well.

Corn is used in cereals, corn syrup sweetener for soft drinks and baked goods, pet food, food for livestock, poultry, and hogs, and other uses. Conversion to ethanol is reducing the supply of corn for these products and driving up prices.

Since ethanol neither saves oil nor reduces pollution (since it reduces gas mileage), it is stupid to convert corn into ethanol solely to increase the profit of the agribusiness corporations.

[Pavulon]

64. Happy to pay it

I will pay 6.50 for milk and 5.50 for fuel if it kills these petro states. Petroleum, except for a scant few, is delivered by assholes. They take our money and use it to make our world worse.

Westinghouse reactors, ADM corn, and smart people hold the gun. I will pay extra to see these guys put down.

[AlphaCentauri]

82. Rise the minimum wage to 15 dollars per our

since some here can afford it

[greengestalt]

6. Methane

Put animal manure in a covered pool. Keep at 95-105F, using solar mirrors to save energy. Natural bacteria will break it down, the methane can be extracted. For paper, vegetable matter like lawn clippings, organic garbage, put in a metal container and heat. Extract the gas. The waste from either process can go into the ground as safe fertilizer.


The process has ZERO "Carbon Footprint" since it uses existing biomass and Methane will readily run a gasoline car or generator. Furthermore, Methane has a greater impact than CO2 in the "Global Warming" issue.


Ethanol is Everclear. That belongs in Winos or in the punch at college parties.

[mortismo]

17. Alge grown in vats and shot full of sucrose genes thanks to science.

Need to ditch your CO2? I'll buy it. It could be going into a vat if people would get over their fear of agricultural science.

Drained and processed, something like that could rival the energy production possibilities of rival technologies, such as turning humans into living porn batteries in some kind of futuristic dystopia.

[gear_head]

8. food and oil are interchangable

so the price is the same

[rAVES]

10. Chavez should be more diplomatic.. He knows whats happening in the world is NOT CAPITALISM

[Judi Lynn]

11. Using Food to Make Fuel Is `Criminal,' Venezuela Says (Update2)

Using Food to Make Fuel Is `Criminal,' Venezuela Says (Update2)

By Fred Pals and Ayesha Daya

April 21 (Bloomberg) -- Using crops to produce fuel is ``criminal'' as the world suffers a food shortage, Venezuela's oil minister said in Rome where energy ministers from around the globe are meeting to discuss investment plans.

``Look at the effect it has, the craziness,'' Rafael Ramirez told reporters today in the Italian capital, where he is attending the three-day International Energy Forum. ``All countries, and particularly in Latin America, have problems with food stuffs. It is such a bad idea to use foodstuffs for fuel, it is criminal.''

The U.S. and Europe have been encouraging the development of fuels made from crops such as corn and soybeans to limit their dependence on oil imports as prices reach a record. Biofuels are also being promoted as a renewal energy source to limit climate change.

Global food stocks are at their lowest since the 1980s, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization as food lines form in the Philippines and soaring rice prices cause riots in Haiti and Egypt. Biofuels are partly to blame for rising food prices because they displace crops that might otherwise be used to feed people or animals, oil industry officials said.

More:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aVWkvzDDYy3I&refer=news

[Caradoc]

16. Capitalism in crisis...

Yes, indeed, it is in crisis and in its current state is not sustainable. Capitalists have ignored what Adam Smith, the very man they lionize, said regarding the virtues of 'enlightened self interest.' 'Enlightened' meaning within the context of creating personal wealth that does not undermine your own social best interests and that of your neighbours. He was warning against unchecked personal and nationalistic greed, which is at the very heart of modern capitalism. It can only go on so long.

[Judi Lynn]

19. It seems they hope to die peacefully in their sleep at an advanced age, without ever seeing the

consequences of their "values" on the rest of the world. The "me first" attitude gets a lot of conservative votes, but it's genuinely destructive.

Very good to read your comments. Welcome to D.U. :hi:

[Pavulon]

63. Cash redirection is beautiful

the oil pimp (and the saudis one hopes) just hanged themselves. Actually they have taken a few years to do so. As e85 is now priced to compete we can now divert another 25% of out grain output to fuel. That destroys supply. Unlike his empty threat to stop selling to us, we can actually disrupt their markets.

Last night's Frontline outlined the simple technologies required to turn the lights out the petro states.

Ethanol, Nuclear powered plug ins and hydrogen fuel distributed through existing channels.

Then his animal farm and the saudis become irrelevant to us.

Did you know that Ethiopia invaded Somalia, no, because it has zero impact here. Did this event impact you, nope.

I pray for the day we can walk away from the mideast. Then their little squabbles are irrelevant.

[Flanker]

87. Oh I knew Somalia was invaded by Ethiopia

Mostly because Ethiopia is a puppet of your govt.

[Judi Lynn]

18. Chavez knows the poor of Venezuela are well acquainted with massacres, first hand.

He was in the military at the time Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez accomplished his huge claim to fame, by having his military fire directly into crowds of desperate poor Venezuelans reacting to some fiendish economic reforms he had attempted to enforce. DU'ers will find a lot to study by doing research on "El Caracazo" massacre, which took place in February, 1989.

Here's a quick summary:

~snip~
One voice in the anti-Chavez chorus has a familiar ring to his voice. Former President Carlos Andres Perez gives TV and newspaper interviews as an authority on democracy and good government. Convicted of embezzlement and having given the command for army troops to fire at his own people, this mass murderer somehow claims to occupy moral high ground. And the media accepts him as if the Venezuela conflict boils down to questions of procedure, not real democracy: majority rule.

Venezuelans overwhelmingly chose Chavez in 1998 and again in 2000, because they remembered what former presidents did--a memory that neither the media nor human rights groups seem to possess.

On February 27, 1989, Perez increased the price of gasoline and the cost of public transportation. Following an IMF model to garner foreign investment, his austerity policies hit the poorest people hardest. But Perez apparently did not expect Venezuelans to respond to "economic shock" programs with spontaneous protests, which erupted throughout the country. In some areas, rioters torched shops and set up roadblocks.

When the police went on strike, the government lost control. Perez called for a state of emergency. The soldiers fired into crowds. By March 4, the government claimed that 257 lay dead. Some non-governmental sources estimated the death toll at over 2000. Thousands were wounded.

Perez, who called himself a socialist, first imposed draconian measures on the poor and then had them shot when they objected. The Caracazo as the event became known, not only destroyed Venezuela's aura of stability but put an end to the political system that had replaced the ousted military dictator Perez Jimenez in 1958.

http://www.counterpunch.org/landau07022004.html





El Caracazo, February, 1989

Here's a 3:45 minute You Tube video with images from El Caracazo. Movies have been made about this event. It's completely familiar to people in Venezuela, but we never heard one word about it here, even though Carlos Andres Perez was very tight with _{George H. W. Bush,} an ally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ChsLu4i1g&feature=related

If you haven't heard about it, then do some research. Some of the military refused to fire upon fellow Veneuelans, as well. Please take some time and find out more about it. Right-wingers who infest message boards really do need to know what they're talking about, and this would be a damned fine place to start getting educated.

[Caradoc]

20. Fascinating...

Your post brilliantly underscores the absolute futility of greed, and how history is chock full of examples where time and again unchecked greed pushed those viewed as weak and powerless into such a hopeless position where all 'moral' restraint would have to be suspended simply to survive, resulting in violence. It's amazing how easily we ignore history. We talk about, we watch it and we understand it, but ultimately cannot translate it into an ongoing lesson plan for our politics and economics whereby we can actually avoid repeating it.

[bitchkitty]

27. Bookmarking - and thank you!

You are a treasure, Judi Lynn!

[Judi Lynn]

52. Hi, bitchkitty. Interesting times, wouldn't you say? We get a lot of traffic on these threads,

don't we? Too bad the real wing-dings only stay long enough to spew the "usual" charges, hysterically, over and over, then slime away.

They just don't have the material to back it up! Thank you.

[bitchkitty]

75. I know, it makes me sick sometimes,

but most of the time it makes me so angry that I have to step away from the keyboard. Like right now! :(

You are appreciated, woman!

[Judi Lynn]

79. You know, that's a good idea. Makes a lot more sense than living with the disgust, irritation of

knowing someone is getting the answers which refute his lame, ridiculous, shabby, 2nd rate designed-for-halfwits propaganda orts shoveled out to his sub-world by the propagandists in the basement at the White House (it used to be called the "Office of Public Diplomacy when Otto Reich was there for Reagan's administration") and delivered by the faux-journalists of the corporate media.

Trolls gobble that stuff up, and never even bother to THINK about it. Easy to fool if you slur & villify progressives for them! Then the jackasses feel obligated to slime their way to speak with normal people, and try to tie up a message board for hours babbling witlessly.

Knowing your limit for looking at baloney is a sign of good mental health!

[Bushknew]

39. Thank you for this Judi. nt

[Judi Lynn]

53. Hi, Bushknew. Great to see you're keeping track of these events, too.

It's unbelievably gripping.

Sure hoping the best for the democratic majority of ALL of the people south of the United States. It's time they got some breathing room, wouldn't you say?

[Bushknew]

60. Absolutely, BTW, here's a great video of February 27 1989

but it's in Spanish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5poj-DBt40c&NR=1

Thanks for all the info you put up.

[Judi Lynn]

65. That's very hard hitting. I'm definitely saving this link for sharing. I'm not great at Spanish,

but I wrote down the things the narrator mentioned, which was helped by the showing of the specific economic reforms in Spanish, which I ran through the google translation tool, and got the following as a summary of the things Carlos Andres Perez did which precipitated this devastation!

Visiting the International Monetary Fund
Request loan of 4,500 million dollars

Lberacion of interest rates actively and passively

Currency unification with the elimination of preferential exchange rate

Liberacion in the prices of all products (removed all price controls?)

Increased rates of public utilities: electricity, natural gas, water, telephone

Increase averaged 100% in the price of petrol

This is hideous.

Thanks so much for bringing this video here: it should be a wonderful injection of reality into the minds of some people who have simply seen the Venezuelan people as, apparently, a bunch of "foreigners" and never really considered with any degree of seriousness or respect. That sounds right-wingerish, doesn't it?

It's a good treatment for Republican idiocy to see the impact of their greed on the real world. These people who were just barely hanging on suddenly were informed that they wouldn't even be able to afford the cost of traveling back and for TO WORK, for christ's sake. Who WOULDN'T go mad? Sheesh.

[northzax]

25. actually, the problem IS the production of food

at least that's the problem in Venezuela, which is a net importer of food.

if ExxonMobil told us that biofuels were useless and a waste, that we should buy oil instead, we'd call them evil pigs, but when the head of an even larger oil company (PDVSA) tells us, we smile and nod. odd, ain't it?

[ronnie624]

41. It isn't really so odd if you think about it.

Like the rest of us, Chavez is trapped in a system that he, in no way, created. He seeks to bring
about social justice for the Venezuelan people with the only tools at his disposal.

Can't See the Forest for the Biofuels

According to a new study, cutting down forests to grow crops for fuel causes more environmental damage than using biofuels can ever offset.

It's a sobering message at a time when energy crops, once a hippie dream, have gone mainstream green. Around the world, governments and industries have pledged to replace climate-fouling fossil fuels with fuel made from plants. But is it possible that we can't see the CO2 forest for the trees?

Writing in the journal Science, Renton Righelato of the World Land Trust, a British conservation group, and Dominick Spracklen, an environmental researcher at the University of Leeds, compared the carbon dioxide savings offered by using land for biofuel crops or forests.

The worst practice for the environment, they found, is making space for biofuel crops by clearing forests. Inevitably, forests absorb more CO2 than is saved by biofuel crops grown where they once stood.

"People feel they're saving the planet. They're not. The real issue we should be concerned with is reducing consumption and improving fuel efficiency," said Righelato. "Biofuels are essentially being used as a way of avoiding the real problem: reducing the use of fossil fuels."

Biofuel demand from places like Europe and North America has prompted deforestation in the developing world.

The European Union has pledged to replace 20 percent of transport fuels with biofuels by 2020. By that time, the United States plans on using biofuels for about 15 percent of transportation power.

To meet those goals with today's technologies, half of US and EU food crop land would be devoted to energy crops, estimates the International Energy Authority. That's not about to happen, so the demand is being displaced onto the developing world -- with potentially disastrous results.

<http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/cant-see-the-fo.html>

[pnutbutr]

28. An Empty Revolution

Chavez shouldn't be blaming anyone but his own government for the economic problems in Venezuela.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080301faessay87205/francisco-rodriguez/an-empty-revolution.html

[Caradoc]

37. Far from empty...

...Chavez' Bolivarian revolution is neither easy to categorize or easy to assess. It's still early, and it's way too simple to look at it only from a north american perspective. What he does do that is refreshing, if nothing else, is instead of just responding to the moment, as so many politicians do, he actually takes the time to frame what he's saying in the context of why a situation is what it is. That's what makes him so dangerous to so-called 'developed' nations...he's got a an advanced grasp of South American history and isn't afraid to talk about the 'why' instead of what he's going to do about the moment. As for South America, most politicians from the northern hemisphere wouldn't know Bolivar from boulibase, therefore it's much easier to simply label Chavez as just another reactionary strongman, something he appears to be anything but. Chavez is proof that free market capitalists are perhaps the worst students of history; he exists and enjoys both power and popularity because of the unchecked greed of multinational corporations. If they had a brain, they'd understand that keeping 'developing' nations in a constant state of development (always owing to 'the company store' aka the IMF-International Monetary Fund- is ultimately very bad for business.

[ronnie624]

42. Poverty Rates in Venezuela: Getting the Numbers Right

Table 1 shows the number of Venezuelan households and people living in poverty from 1997 to 2005, at half-year intervals. The household poverty rate declined sharply from 55.6 percent in the beginning of 1997, as a result of the relatively strong growth (6.4 percent) of that year. It continued to decline, as the economy slowed to a standstill in 1998, and reached 42.8 percent in the first half of 1999, when President Chavez took office. There was some further decline in the poverty rate to 39 percent in 2001. But in 2002 poverty began to rise, surging to a peak of 55.1 percent for the second half of 2003. This was driven overwhelmingly by the oil strike (December 2002 – February 2003), which crippled the economy and caused a sharp downturn. Capital flight and political instability prior to the oil strike, including an unsuccessful military coup in April of 2002, also contributed to a severe recession that saw GDP decline by 28.1 percent from the fourth quarter of 2001 to the first quarter of 2003. 5

The economy then began to recover and grew very rapidly– 17.9 percent in 2004, and 9.3 percent in 2005. As a result of this recovery, the poverty rate dropped to 37.9 percent for the second half of 2005, the latest data available.

Thus if we compare the latest available data to the start of the present government, the household poverty rate fell nearly 5 percentage points – from 42.8 percent in the beginning of 1999 to 37.9 percent in the second half of 2005. The household poverty rate was thus reduced by 12.9 percent. Measuring individuals instead of households, the poverty rate decreased by 6.3 percentage points –from 50 percent of the population to 43.7 percent. That was a 14.4 percent reduction in poverty. Since the economy has continued to grow rapidly this year (first quarter growth came in at 9.4 percent), the poverty rate is almost certainly significantly lower today.

How then have so many people reached a different conclusion? The most common mistake has been to use the data from the first half of 2004, which was gathered in the first quarter of that year. The household poverty rate at that time was 53.1 percent, which is of course up enormously from 1999. There are several things wrong with using this measure. Most importantly, this poverty rate is measuring the impact of the oil strike and recession of 2002-2003.

<http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/ceprpov.htm>

Whaddya know and whaddya think you know? Venezuela poverty edition

When it comes to Venezuela, with it's hyper-charged polarization, sorting out the facts on the ground from the overheated rhetoric can be difficult.

And you can't look to the supposedly "liberal" media to help: when it comes to covering the Latin American left, the Washington Post's coverage is indistinguishable from that of the Washington Times, and the New York Times might as well be Murdoch's New York Post. I've caught the WaPo egregiously misinforming their readers in the past (second letter).

Which is why there's no reason to believe that a commenter in another post, below, wasn't honest in asserting: "As for delivering on the well being of the people--unemployment is up since 2000 from 13.9% to 20.0% and poverty is up since 1999 from 54% to 60%." He or she might have gotten that from rany number of recent articles in the corporate media.

Whatever the case, poverty statistics in Venezuela are very tough to analyze. According to the official numbers from the Venezuelan government, the reader's assertion is simply not true: the National Statistics Institute (INE) says that poverty is at 38.5 percent, 4.5 percent lower than when Chavez took office. What's more, in the past year, poverty has fallen by a whopping twelve percent. The official unemployment figure stood at 11.5 percent in September, a drop from the previous year's 12.1 poercent.

But wait, say Chavez' opponents, the government's fudging the numbers. Ana Julia Jatar, an economist with the Institute of Higher Administration Studies (IESA), told the Miami Herald that some of the figures in INE reports that reflected badly on the government have mysteriously disappeared from the INE website. "Venezuelan statistics are no longer credible," Jatar said. "They have become an instrument of government propaganda."

INE's president, Elias Eljuri, says otherwise. He says that the big drop in poverty isn't about cooking the books, it's a result of a dramatic increase in Venezuela's gross domestic product during the past two years as oil prices have taken off.

"Poverty levels had soared in 2002 and 2003 because of a drop in the GDP caused by the coup d'etat and the oil workers' strike," Eljuri told the Herald. "But since then, the economy has grown by 18 percent in 2004, and will grow by near 10 percent in 2005. A recovery of such magnitude brings about a big drop in poverty rates."

<http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/30591/>

[Judi Lynn]

54. The links you've posted are excellent. The strike reminds one of nothing more than something

Richard Nixon said to Richard Helms, who recorded it as is revealed in declassified documents, that it was his plan, in destroying Chilean socialist President Salvador Allende to "make the economy scream." Well, he accomplished that, by god! In spades.

It's so clear that was also the plan with this strike, and those numbers Weisbrot shows surely pound that idea home. It was a horrendous disaster for the country, and NOT something patriotic, well-balanced people would do. It's important to note that this was a work lock-out, from the top down, not a conventional worker's strike.

How completely unsurprising to see the two men who were the principal actors show up as the guests of the violent reactionary right-wing faction of the Miami "exiles" at their joint demonstration with the Venezuelan expatriots on the same day the rest of the world had poured into the streets to protest the impending disaster _Bush had planned for Iraq.



Calos Fernandez, of Fedecamaras, in the middle,
with the red hat, and Carlos Ortega, to his left.



Carlos Fernandez



Carlos Ortega
Thank you for these links.

[Hannah Bell]

55. It's called a "capital strike". n/t

[Peace Patriot]

43. Foreign Affairs mag is a tool of the Council on Foreign Relations, whose

advisers and board are packed with corporate CEO's and war profiteers. The Carlyle Group, for godssakes. Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, Carla Hills, David Rockefeller, Bill Gates (a rep), and numerous other SUPER-RICH people and their government lapdogs. These are GLOBAL CORPORATE PREDATORS who steal from the poor and give to the rich.

Foreign Affairs mag has never been otherwise. It is an apologist for the U.S. corporate empire. And we are supposed to respect this rag when it makes the ridiculous assertion that Chavez's policies "HURT THE POOR MORE THAN ANYBODY"?!

That is total bullshit. These corporatists greatly fear the poor majority gaining power, as they are in Venezuela, and throughout South America. They want to steal their oil, gas, water, forests, minerals, and give nothing back. Nothing! They want to squeeze and enslave the poor. And they want NO MODELS of democracy and social justice to gain word-of-mouth currency among the huddled masses of the United States of America, cuz we, too, might demand that the rich and the corporate pay their fair share of society's costs.

When you start referencing The Nation, then maybe we should pay attention to who you believe is responsible for the "economic problems in Venezuela." Your referencing Foreign Affairs mag is a dead giveaway. We are now alerted to your "Blue Dog" Democrat (or is it Freeper/Bushite?) views.

Chavez's government is the first government in Venezuela's history to start turning poverty around, by the very sensible policy--never before tried--of demanding a 60/40 split of the oil profits for Venezuela, and using those profits to bootstrap the poor with education, medical care, small business loans, low cost housing, and maximum citizen participation in the governing of these funds, as well as for infrastructure and manufacturing development, and the first-ever well-thought land reform policy. Prior to Chavez, the rightwing governments were giving away 90% of Venezuela's oil revenues to multinationals while the local rich oil elite completely neglected their own country and the great majority of their own people.

To say that these policies "hurt the poor more than anybody" is a LIE. And it is the kind of lie that the Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs magazine, and the global corporate predators that they represent, are infamous for. These powermongers are no doubt hurting, in their portfolios, as the result of Chavez's greatest idea yet--the Bank of the South, which is evicting the World Bank/IMF and its first world loan sharks from South America. The purpose of the Bank of the South is to keep development loans in local, regional control, and aimed at benefiting South America. It is a hit. Even Paraguay, under their prior righwing government (they just elected a leftist this Sunday) joined the Bank of the South, because it has been so beneficial to countries that have been ravaged by the World Bank/IMF and its CFR "think tanks."

They FEAR Chavez and his many supporters and allies, and lie about their accomplishments at every turn, because they don't want you to realize just how bankrupt the U.S. is--in ideas, in democratic institutions and in our pocketbooks. Our political establishment is full of liars and corporate shills, many of whom write for Foreign Affairs magazine. It is putrid with corruption. We can only hope, and work for, the political awakening of the citizens of the U.S., to how thoroughly we have been fucked over by this political establishment, just like the people of Venezuela were fucked over by theirs, prior to the Chavez government.

For a leftist analysis of the Chavez government's achievements, I recommend:

Venezuela: Democracy, Socialism and Imperialism
April 18th 2008, by James Petras - Globalresearch.ca
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3367

[Judi Lynn]

56. Surely appreciate this post. It would probably be impossible to cover the subject

better, and with more "style!"

You are an unflinching reminder to people to THINK about what they are reading.

[Judi Lynn]

49. Not everyone will find your source the absolute authority, unfortunately for those who would use him

at a progressive message board, intending to overwhelm progressives.

~snip~
"We had a deadly weapon: the media."

--Vice-Admiral Hector Ramirez Perez, on the coup of April 11, 2002

As Hugo Chavez's mandate widens, and his Bolivarian Revolution deepens, we're bound to see more rubbish about him in the English-language media. There's even a predictable twist to the latest: an attempt to appeal to leftist egalitarianism, as espoused by most readers of the UK Guardian. But it relies on "facts" from sources which are notably removed not only from the Left, but from reality altogether. The piece's author, Francisco Rodriguez, uncritically repeats the wildest accusations of rightists with all the usual axes to grind. He tosses out a shamelessly self-referential nugget of dummy data, which he published at Foreign Policy, a rightist Washington propaganda website:

There is a broad gap, however, between what the government says it is doing for the poor and what is actually going on. Did you know that the percentage of underweight and underheight babies has actually increased in Venezuela during Chávez's administration? That, once you take out social security - which, in Venezuela, benefits mostly the middle and upper classes who work in the formal sector - the fraction of social spending in the government budget has actually decreased? That, despite the government's claim of having eradicated illiteracy, its own Household Surveys revealed more than one million illiterates in Venezuela at the close of 2005, barely down from pre-Chávez levels?

Ugh. If you're going to cite bad analysis, at least cite someone else's bad analysis, Professor!

Then Rodriguez goes a step further: likening Chavez to two other leaders who could not be more different from him in all ways except maybe one.

Yes, Chávez just won reelection by a wide margin. So did Alberto Fujimori in Peru in 1995 and Carlos Menem in Argentina that same year. They won not because their policies were pro-poor, but because they produced very high rates of economic growth. In the case of Menem and Fujimori, the growth came from huge capital inflows generated by the support that the World Bank, IMF, and financial markets gave to their economic reforms. In the case of Chávez, it has come from a five-fold expansion of oil revenues, which has allowed his government to enjoy double-digit growth for the last three years.

So...if Chavez's growth rates came not from foreign lenders such as the IMF, the World Bank, and other assorted multinational jackals, but from endogenous sources--the sale and taxation of Venezuelan oil--why make such an absurd comparison, Professor Rodriguez? Is it to suggest, ever so subtly, that Chavez, like Menem and Fujimori, is nothing but a self-glorifying authoritarian brute whose re-election is a sinister augury of crackdowns to come?

It must be. Get a load of the next paragraph:

But there is a dark side to chavismo which should not be discounted. If you believe the government's claim that it has respected freedom of speech and other political liberties, I suggest you take a minute to look up the case of Angel Pedreañez, a 20 year old soldier who was burned alive in a Maracaibo fort prison. According to his family's attorney, this was in retaliation for having signed the petition to hold the recall referendum against Chávez. Francisco Usón, a former Chávez finance minister, is currently under 5 years imprisonment for insulting the Armed Forces when he said that the soldier's death could not have come about, as the government claimed, from smoking in his cell.

Well, Professor, I took your advice--up to a point. I looked up this case, but not on the blog you linked. Caracas Chronicles is not what I'd consider a reliable source for news from Venezuela; it might be more accurate (and for me, charitable) to call it a tar pit. That is, if you stumble into it unaware of its true nature, you get stuck in a slew of noxious goo.

I went to Aporrea.org instead. There, I did a search, inputting only the name of the deceased soldier. A great deal of interesting stuff came up, most of it sourced to the independent, privately owned Maracaibo daily, Panorama. None of it is as sensational, or as indicative of governmental repression, as the professor would have us believe. But the story of a tragic accident, as this death was finally ruled, certainly got bent out of shape by a media eager to lay blame where none belonged. The very first page I clicked has this preface, which Aporrea's editors felt some need to append to the sad story:

Regarding the events at Fort Mara, we consider it to be in the highest national interest that the respective investigations come to their conclusions. On this page we wish to express our sadness to the family and friends of the soldier Pedreáñez. We hope that his suffering will not be exploited by the yellow journalists who abound in our country.

More:
http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/2007/01/comment_is_free_and_so_is_bull.html

[Selatius]

57. The Council on Foreign Relations and its surrogate Foreign Affairs isn't a source I find trustworthy

The CFR does not exist to help alleviate poverty in the developing world. It never has, and it likely never will. It was established to influence and shape American foreign policy at the behest of powerful interests such as the Rockefellers and the Morgans.

[Virginia Dare]

34. With Global Warming looming, the world cannot sustain it's current population..

gee, do you think somebody has figured this out?

[killbotfactory]

44. I think it would be more accurate to say the world cannot sustain the western lifestyle

Especially if everyone in the world tries to adopt it. Our way of life is extremely, extremely wasteful.

Of course, what happens when people choose to stop buying, or simply cannot afford to buy, frivolous crap on credit to keep up their current "way of life"? Our economy goes straight down the shitter.

[Peace Patriot]

46. Excellent article on land reform and food self-sufficiency in Venezuela

Venezuela's Agrarian Land Reform: More like Lincoln than Lenin

February 25th 2005, by Seth DeLong - COHA

• Land Reform is the traditional third rail of left-of-center governments and social reform movements.

• President Hugo Chavez’s plan is fundamentally different from other Latin American attempts at land reform. The proper historical parallel is President Lincoln’s Homestead Act.

• Chavez’s opponents, who see him as “another Castro,” wrongly view his agrarian reform program as a total assault on private property.

• Land Reform is one of the most progressive aspects of Chavez’s “Bolivarian Revolution” as it seeks to alter the fundamental power structure of the landed versus the landless, reduce Venezuela’s dependence on foodstuff imports, and redress the country’s disastrous experience with the “Dutch Disease.”

• The government should concentrate more on shoring up the agricultural base of the public lands it already has distributed to peasant cooperatives, rather than draw a premature bead on private lands.

(MORE)

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/963

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

This is one of the best articles on Venezuela that I've read, on any topic. The general South American context is that millions of small peasant farmers--the best food producers--have been driven from the land, into urban shantytowns where there are few or no jobs, and where they cannot grow food for their families and communities. This has occurred for a variety of reasons--including the rich grabbing all the land and brutally evicting the small peasant (often indigenous) farmers, and pesticide spraying for corporate agriculture, and by the murderous, corrupt, failed U.S. "war on drugs," which poisons people, animals and food crops. The purpose of the latter is not to control illicit drugs; the purpose is the clear the land for the big drug lords and corporations like Monsanto and Chiquita. Corporate biofuel production is the latest evil as to both pesticides and evicting small farmers.

In Venezuela, oil further exacerbated this phenomenon, by drawing people away from farming into an inflated oil economy in the urban areas, where they became addicted to imported consumer goods. Governments prior to Chavez did no planning for food self-sufficiency--none! This critical national security issue was totally neglected, as the country developed a rich elite, dependent on oil. Vast food production land lay fallow, much of it in private, often absentee landlord, hands. In the end, almost no food was being produced in Venezuela. They import more food than any other South American country. Of all the problems facing a country with a large poor population, this is the probably the most difficult to solve, and takes lots of time. You can't teach people farming overnight, or expect good crops next year. Food self-sufficiency is a long range development goal. The Chavez government is the first government ever to seriously address it, with far-thinking policies (discussed in this article). Meanwhile, this leftist government remains vulnerable to artificial food shortages, by the rightwing owners of grocery chains, for instance (no doubt in cahoots with other rightwing forces and the Bushite/corporate axis of evil, including a food black market--food stolen from Venezuelan government stores for the poorest people--and smuggled into Bush client state, Colombia).

[otherlander]

48. How do we break up the monopoly

that the current global trade system has over food production? How do we defend the ability of people and communities to sustain themselves by their own means?

[AdHocSolver]

67. Easily. Get rid of the WTO, the IMF, NAFTA, and every other corporate cartel sponsored organization

and treaty. These are not "free trade" agreements. They are license-to-steal agreements and organizations. They harm the populations of Third World countries as well as us.

On the home front:

Don't forget to reorganize the federal Reserve as well.

Reauthorize the Glass-Steagall Act.

Mandate fuel efficiency standards for all vehicles. Include heavy fines for noncompliance and enforce them. Eliminate the use of food plants to produce ethanol, the dumbest policy of them all.

Support electric vehicle technology, which is the fastest way to reduce oil consumption and reduce pollution, at the least cost to the consumer.

Support mass transit, especially rail transportation, the most efficient, fuel saving transport available. Rebuild rail for both freight hauling and passenger travel.

Reregulate the utilities, airlines, and the media. Institute affordable universal health care for all. Corporate greed and corruption are at the root of the world's problems.

Enforce antitrust laws. Put dedicated competent, honest, public-spirited, dedicated managers in charge of the regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, the FAA, the SEC, the FCC, the EPA, etc.

These are the solutions that will help turn this country around and help Third World countries as well. This is what will work, and is a necessary requirement for any solutions to be implemented. There is no magic formula. This is it. Period!

[ohio2007]

51. Hugo should lower the price of all food .......problem solved

viva amigo Hugo !

[Bacchus39]

91. hahaha....yeah, how those price controls working out Hugo?

n/t

[Judi Lynn]

92. Look at Bushknew's video on El Caracazo, post #60. It says removing price controls was one of the

filthy mistakes made by Carlos Andres Perez during the time he screwed over the massive poor population to the point they had no option but to rush into the streets to make their opinion heard, only to be mowed down by Carlos Andres Perez's military, after the police went on strike and wouldn't help kill them.

Go ahead, look up Bushknew's video, post #60, and look for the details of filthy scum monsterous a-hole, the impeached for corruption idiot who, although he remains so popular with the Venezuelan oligarchy, is dispised around the world for what he did to those who had the least protection from his evil.

You attempted to make a flippant remark, but it has no value.

[Pavulon]

61. Lets make a deal..

fat loud guy in red shirt can sell us oil at 22 a bbl or we will divert and destroy another 25% of our grain output to e85.

I've got a dollar extra for milk, beer (sad but we have to do our part) and beef.

Kill the petro states, swing it all to nuclear powered electric plug ins and hydro fuel cell. I'd rather ADM and farmers get my money.

Sounds like the crisis is down there since Hannafords is stocked.

[Peace Patriot]

70. Nice that you can afford a dollar extra for milk. Many children going hungry here

in the land of the free, home of the brave, cuz their parents cannot afford food.

"Kill the petro states." Nice language. We're talking about PEOPLE.

"Swing it all to nuclear powered electric plug ins...". Right, and risk some more 3-Mile Islands and Chernobyls. No thanks.

Anyway, our predatory capitalists are not done with oil. In fact, they very much want to get their bloody vampire claws on Venezuela's and Ecuador's and Iran's and Mexico's. So the poor of the world have them by the balls. Ha-ha. I only wish that MORE petro-states were democratic and into social justice, like Venezuela and Ecuador, and have time to bootstrap their poor and diversify their economies, while their oil is worth something. Can't think of any better use for the oil profits than this. Why do you want to kill their countries? Why not cooperate with them in the democratic enterprise of giving everyone a decent life?

[Pavulon]

73. we are talking about parasites

the petro states are non contributors. They are single thread economies.

I am interested in the economic state of the US. If the petro states have not done what they need to do at 100+ a bbl they will never do it.

I am happy with the risk considering the number of reactors operated by the navy and doe have operated. TMI killed no one. Oil driven death is real and it drives war.

We should keep our money. Their countries are their concern.

[Peace Patriot]

77. Oh, right! "Their countries are their concern." Where have you been for the last

five decades? On the moon? Fuck the hell out of Gaul, massacre them, cut their leaders' heads off and display them beneath the Eagle, steal everything in sight, take slaves back to Rome, then say, "The barbarians' problems are their own concern. Nothing to do with us."

[Pavulon]

94. Blah blah blah

oil pimps are complaining about their house of cards..

Pray for the day the Westinghouse reactor and plug in hybrid make the middle east irrelevant. That would apply to our fat che jesus too.

[jr7]

62. Chavez

The problem in Venezuela is Chavez.

[Judi Lynn]

66. You should include some kind of information, as your assertion doesn't matter much without it.

If you took the time to develope an actual understanding of the situation, you'll probably want to share your FACTS, if you hope to be taken seriously.

[Peace Patriot]

69. Who would you prefer? An Exxon Mobil puppet?

Want to see leftists dropped out of airplanes, do you? Union leaders chainsawed and their body parts thrown into mass graves, like they do in Colombia? Want to see the magnificent Venezuelan Children's Orchestra NOT get funding? Want to see those 300,000 streets urchins now playing violins and conducting orchestras back on the street, selling chiclets and their bodies to fatcat touristas? You prefer that the Colombian/Bush drug cartel run South American countries? You want the indians to remember their place and stay out of government--and stay off the sidewalks (in Bolivia) and out petropolitics (in Venezuela and Ecuador)?

What's the alternative, hm? The rightwing thugs who suspended the Constitution, the National Assembly, the courts and all civil rights, when they and their news station, RCTV, tried to topple the ELECTED president of Venezuela? You think THEY would be better for Venezuela?

63% of Venezuelans voted for Chavez in the last presidential election--in an election system that puts own to shame for its transparency. The Venezuelans have the constitutional right to recall their president. In fact, the Bush USAID-NED tried that one out, back in 2004 (after their coup failed), and Chavez won it with 60% of the vote. Chavez now enjoys a 65%-70% approval rating. Venezuelans rate their satisfaction with their country and their government higher than any other people in South America. You want to explain how these large majorities are wrong, and you are right that "The problem in Venezuela is Chavez"?

The problem in Venezuela is the greed and ill intentions of the rich, there and here--decades and centuries of treasonous policy, selling off their resources to multinationals and failing to develop their country. The Chavez government is the first decent government the Venezuela people have ever had. It is a tribute to people of Venezuela that they were able to achieve the democratic strength to elect a president and other office holders who CARE about Venezuela, and who act in their interest. As the president of Brazil, Lula da Silva, recently said, "You can fault Chavez on a lot of things, but not on democracy."

Chavez and his government are responding to the will of the people. They owe all of their power--and Chavez owes his life--to the people they serve. Can we say the same? Do our leaders care about us? Are they using our wealth to bootstrap our poor? Are they concerned about benefits--medical care, retirement--for maids, for taxi drivers, for street vendors? Have they proposed an equal rights amendment for women and gays--as the Chavez government has? Are they securing our future with education for the poor, infrastructure development, local manufacturing, local/regional financing of development, promoting family farms and worker co-ops, and maximum citizen participation through community councils? It's laughable to think of our political establishment doing any of this. They're padding their pockets, big time--through war profiteering, and by squeezing the poor and the middle class in every way possible.

But you think you know better. So tell us. How is Chavez "the problem" in Venezuela?

[Andrushka]

71. Always about The Chavez, innit?

Even bother to read the article? He is not only referring to Venezuela. This is a real crisis facing a huge number of fellow human beings, yet people like you choose to bring it back to feeble attacks on the messenger.

Oh - welcome to DU. :sarcasm:

[AlphaCentauri]

83. The problem in Venezuela is the people who leave outside Venezuela

[roamer65]

74. Hugo hitting the nail on the head again.

[happydreams]

89. Now tell me that DU isn't infiltrated with Right-Wing assholes.

Just look at this topic. It's the same old tired and totally refuted idiocy of the Right being spewed by numbskull newbie nitwits as they have for the last 6 years or so. :eyes:

[Judi Lynn]

90. Sad, isn't it? It's possible it's the same clowns, back with new names, maybe,

but unfortunately, it's all too likely there ARE that many of them.

Why shouldn't they just crowd in here and give us the benefit of their opinion, when they imagine they already know everything, because Fox and, for their more complex reading needs, Newsmax, already told them?

[happydreams]

93. On edit: newbie should have been put in quotes.

[Judi Lynn]

97. Important information you may want to see posted by DU'er "magbana" in the Latin America forum today

Latin America: the attack on democracy
John Pilger

Published 24 April 2008

John Pilger argues that an unreported war is being waged by the US to restore power to the privileged classes at the expense of the poor

~snip~

Under "Plan Colombia", more than $6bn in arms, planes, special forces, mercenaries and logistics have been showered on some of the most murderous people on earth: the inheritors of Pinochet's Chile and the other juntas that terrorised Latin America for a generation, their various gestapos trained at the School of the Americas in Georgia. "We not only taught them how to torture," a former American trainer told me, "we taught them how to kill, murder, eliminate." That remains true of Colombia, where government-inspired mass terror has been documented by Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and many others. In a study of 31,656 extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances between 1996 and 2006, the Colombian Commission of Jurists found that 46 per cent had been murdered by right-wing death squads and 14 per cent by Farc guerrillas. The para militaries were responsible for most of the three million victims of internal displacement. This misery is a product of Plan Colombia's pseudo "war on drugs", whose real purpose has been to eliminate the Farc. To that goal has now been added a war of attrition on the new popular democracies, especially Venezuela.

US special forces "advise" the Colombian military to cross the border into Venezuela and murder and kidnap its citizens and infiltrate paramilitaries, and so test the loyalty of the Venezuelan armed forces. The model is the CIA-run Contra campaign in Honduras in the 1980s that brought down the reformist government in Nicaragua. The defeat of the Farc is now seen as a prelude to an all-out attack on Venezuela if the Vene zuelan elite - reinvigorated by its narrow referendum victory last year - broadens its base in state and local government elections in November.

America's man and Colombia's Pinochet is President Álvaro Uribe. In 1991, a declassified report by the US Defence Intelligence Agency revealed the then Senator Uribe as having "worked for the Medellín Cartel" as a "close personal friend" of the cartel's drugs baron, Pablo Escobar. To date, 62 of his political allies have been investigated for close collaboration with paramilitaries. A feature of his rule has been the fate of journalists who have illuminated his shadows. Last year, four leading journalists received death threats after criticising Uribe. Since 2002, at least 31 journalists have been assassinated in Colombia. Uribe's other habit is smearing trade unions and human rights workers as "collaborators with the Farc". This marks them. Colombia's death squads, wrote Jenny Pearce, author of the acclaimed Under the Eagle: US Intervention in Central America and the Caribbean (1982), "are increasingly active, confident that the president has been so successful in rallying the country against the Farc that little attention will shift to their atrocities".

Also to be found at this link: http://www.newstatesman.com/200804240026

[sofa king]

98. Tap tap tap. Is this translator on?

Any Spanish-speakers out there? Care to take a crack at offering your own translation of the offending phrase?

I suspect that in his own language the word he used is closer in connotation to the modern English use of the word "decimate."

Thanks in advance for your help--and I know you multi-lingual folks are not actually machines.