Venezuela the most corrupt country in Latin America, TI says

[ChangoLoa]

Source: El Universal

Venezuela is one of the world's most corrupt countries and the worst in Latin America after being ranked 162nd. By contrast, Chile and Uruguay are considered role models, since both are ranked 25th, followed by Costa Rica (43rd) and Cuba (61st), according to the annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), released by Transparency International on Tuesday.

New Zealand, Denmark and Singapore top the list of the most transparent countries in the world according to the report, which measures the perceived level of public-sector corruption in 180 countries and is based on 13 different expert and business surveys conducted by 10 independent organizations.

Since 1955, the global civil society organization publishes annually an index of perception of corruption ranging from a score of "10," for a country perceived as "transparent," to "0" for one seen as "corrupt," AFP reported. Venezuela scored 1.9.

The NGO stressed the need to do more to fight corruption at a time when governments seek to revive the economy by injecting a huge volume of public sector capital on programs to boost economic growth.

Read more: http://english.eluniversal.com/2009/11/17/en_pol_esp_venezuela-the-most-c_17A3066931.shtml

---

162nd out of 180 countries. Sad.

[Taverner]

1. Who is TI?

This seems like the usual Anti-Chavez BS...

Don't get me wrong, he's not perfect, but 'the most corrupt'....what is their definition of corrupt, and how did they measure it.

[ChangoLoa]

2. Transparency International

It must be noted that Venezuela was already high on their index of corruption before Chavez... it's getting worse though.

[Taverner]

4. Who pays for them? Who is their board made up of?

That's the questions I would have...

[yurbud]

18. Sourcewatch says they are tied Venezuelan coup plotters:

TI Venezuela & Links to Venezeulan Coup

According to a report in the UK's Guardian newspaper, "TI's Venezuela bureau is staffed by opponents of the Venezuelan government. The directors include Robert Bottome, the publisher of Veneconomia, a strident opposition journal, and Aurelio Concheso of the Centre for the Dissemination of Economic Knowledge, a conservative think tank funded by the US government. Concheso was previously a director of the employers' organisation, Fedecamaras. The president of Fedecamaras, Pedro Carmo, led the failed 2002 coup and was briefly installed as Venezuela's dictator." <2>

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Transparency_International#TI_Venezuela_.26_Links_to_Venezeulan_Coup

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch">Sourcewatch.org is a good place to start whenever the name of an organization sounds reputable but their ''facts'' don't quite square with reality.

[clear eye]

42. Thank you.

I was wondering about that myself. I'm making Sourcewatch.org one of the "favorites" on my pc--in the same "references" folder where I keep Wikipedia home, dictionary, and thesaurus pages.

[Judi Lynn]

44. Sourcewatch is superb. I have to post more from yur link, yurbud:

~snip~
Transparency International (TI) describes itself as "the global civil society organisation leading the fight against corruption, brings people together in a powerful worldwide coalition to end the devastating impact of corruption on men, women and children around the world."<1>

TI is largely funded by Western governments, and has been accused of biased activities as a result. It has also been accused of lack of transparency in its own activities

~snip~
Controversy
In 2008, TI attracted controversy by claiming in a report entitled Promoting Revenue Transparency that Venezuela's state-owned oil firm PDVSA had failed to disclose basic financial information such as their revenues and how much royalties they paid, and had not produced properly audited accounts.<3> As a result, the report gave PDVSA the lowest possible ranking in assessing the oil companies in 42 different countries, and ranking them according to whether they were of high, medium or low transparency.<4>

In fact, the report was incorrect, and all the data was publicly available, leading to claims of a bias by TI against the Venezuelan government.

When questioned about the apparently biased report, TI initially claimed that information was not available at the time of publication – a claim which was also false - and then refused to answer further questions about the matter.<2>

The data in TI's report was gathered by Mercedes de Freitas, the head of their Caracas bureau and a longtime opponent of President Hugo Chávez. De Freitas' previous job was running a US government funded opposition "civil society" group, the Fundacion Momento de la Gente, which is subsidized by National Endowment for Democracy, a US government agency.<2>

There really is a pattern to these things. Dirty, dirty players.

Thanks for posting this real information.

[yurbud]

51. I added the sourcewatch article link the Wikipedia article:

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

That would be a good habit to get into for all these astroturf NGOs.

[anonymous171]

69. Jesus, what the fuck is going on down there?

The rich in Latin America are willing to do anything to get rid of leftists aren't they?

[ShortnFiery]

81. Our political rulers are helping the thuggish free-traders by propping up bases

on the border with Venezuela within Columbia. The USA supports Free Trade which equates to propping up right wing latino governments.

How dare Chavez keep that luscious oil NATIONALIZED and use revenues for "the people" when there's many corporations who are chomping at the bit for him to Privatize.

Shame on Chavez for helping his people - will somebody please consider the bloated latino ELITES?!? No worries, our DOD is pouring resources (armaments of death and destruction) to help the blessed Free Traders. :(

[ShortnFiery]

79. ROTFLMAO!

Now that makes perfect sense. We create our own news stories.

The Multi-National Corporate Elite have the best DAMN propaganda networks in the world. Hell, they even create their own Research Institutes and OWN the Press who "manufacture opinion."

Us "little people" of the Unwashed Masses are not even figured into any of their equations.

Now, who says MONEY can't buy you Every Damn Thing to include FACTS that suits your corporate interests? :evilgrin:

[New Dawn]

128. Thanks for posting. Another "watch" type group with ties to the US government's NED.

A component of the right-wing propaganda machine.

[ChangoLoa]

135. This gives no evidence that TI had links to the coup in Venezuela

I just says that one director of their office in Caracas worked previously for the employer's syndicate of Venezuela, FEDECAMARAS, which exists since the 1950's. It seems a hazardous allegation.

[ieoeja]

152. Here is an earlier article from their attack on Venezuela's oil company.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/22/seeingthroughtransparencyin


Synopsis: they claim the oil company doesn't post financial information. The UK Guardian author spends a few minutes finding that information posted on the oil company's website. Author calls TI who refuses to explain.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

158. Now don't get me wrong here, the author of that article might very well be correct

However, as I'm reading the TI report in question, it seems it's not that PDVSA is being accused of failing to posting any financial information at all. Instead, the issue is how much information is being provided in each of the categories that TI looks into. You see, there are four categories by which companies are judged - Payments, Operations, Anti-Corruption Programs, and Regulatory & Procurement Issues. On two of these, PDVSA gets a decent rating (Payments, Regulatory & Procurement Issues). On the other two, it's ranked poorly. It seems that the TI report is simply stating that PDVSA does a poor job reporting on its anti-corruption measures and on its overall operations.

Here, read it yourself (http://www.transparency.org/news_room/latest_news/press_releases/2008/2008_04_28_prt_report_launch). Unless I missed something huge in the report, it seems the author of the article you cited is a bit off base.

[Joe Chi Minh]

43. Isn't Transparency International another name for the School of the Americas? It

appears to have been suffering from a quasi-psychotic identity crisis, doesn't it?

[Vidar]

6. International "non- profit" funded by Boeing & never criticizes the US.

Originally founded in Germany in May 1993 as a not-for-profit organisation, TI is now an international non-governmental organisation, and claims to be moving towards a completely democratic organisational structure.
. . .

However the TI USA Chapter has never commented within its publications<2> on any corruption case within the USA, and has taken money from the Boeing Corporation,<3> whose executive Darleen A. Druyun was imprisoned for corrupt activities, leading to the resignation of Boeing CEO Phil Condit.

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

[fascisthunter]

8. busted again

[ChangoLoa]

9. "busted" by a link that doesn't work in wikipedia

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[kenfrequed]

68. It worked fine.

I am not sure why you are using wikipedia as a browser though. Maybe you should use a browser to enter the link in.

[EFerrari]

26. Nice work, Vida.

[Judi Lynn]

48. Wow! The article indicates Peter Eigen is the founder. He has been a long time World Bank official.

Almost triggers the gag reflex.

Here's the link from the Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Eigen

So damned predictable!

Thanks for the great information.

[laughingliberal]

74. I can only surmise: helping the poor=corrupt nt

[tblue]

3. I'm scared to find out how the US is ranked.

Afghanistan, I heard on the radio today, is 2nd only to Sudan (if this was the same study quoted in the op).

[iandhr]

13. US is 19

behind England

[unkachuck]

110. the US is 19th?

....behind England?....that fact alone tells me TI and their corruption list is bogus....

[Dr.Phool]

5. I suppose they never heard of Columbia.

Or Panama.

Mexico who?

[IndianaGreen]

23. President for Life Uribe is a model of leadership to the elites of Latin America

and to American neoliberals.

[ChangoLoa]

34. Uribe can go to hell

Funny how Uribe has become an argument about Venezuelan internal issues for some.

[EFerrari]

58. No, it's not funny, it's US strategery to deploy Colombia against Venezuela

and it has been going on for years. That's what lapdogs are for.

[ChangoLoa]

63. What does Uribe has to do with this particular subject?

... corruption in Venezuela.

[EFerrari]

71. Your topic is corruption in Latin America. Or, that's the Subj line.

Because you didn't mean to slam Venezuela.

[COLGATE4]

60. If you're going to bad-mouth Colombia

at least learn how to spell it.

[Judi Lynn]

62. Which country has the worst record in the world in assassinating union workers?

Which country has the 2nd worst displaced persons population, 2nd only to Sudan, the worst humanitarian crisis in the world?

Trying to ridicule someone for not remembering the "o" is a weak and silly thing to do. It says a lot about you, little about the DU'er.

[Dr.Phool]

65. Blame it on the hangover.

Which was caused by the Cleveland Browns.

[edwardian]

156. Colombia,

The word "Colombia" comes from Christopher Columbus (Spanish: Cristóbal Colón). It was conceived by the Venezuelan revolutionary Francisco de Miranda as a reference to all the New World, but especially to those territories and colonies under Spanish and Portuguese rule. The name was later adopted by the Republic of Colombia of 1819, formed out of the territories of the old Viceroyalty of New Granada (modern-day Colombia, Panama, Venezuela and Ecuador).<17>

English spelling would be Columbia, properly so. It is a Spanish word and if one wanted to be a nitpicker could say that the name should properly be "Colonbia". The reference to the New World is because America's poetic name is "Columbia", as in the movie studio.

[fascisthunter]

7. you are still here with the anti-Venezuelan Propaganda

[ChangoLoa]

10. So now you're an expert on corruption

What do you know about corruption in Venezuela?

Let me give you a clue: Venezuela has always been in the last places on this reports, so thinking this has anything to do with Chavez is nothing but dumb paranoia.

[fascisthunter]

12. and you know nothing at all

you just cut and paste what you feel helps your argument against a leftist.

[ChangoLoa]

16. You just say personal stuff, that's BS

Concerning Venezuela, I think I know a little more than you do because I'm Venezuelan and I speak spanish, which means I'm able to read a little more than the english press you read, usually very superficial about Latin American countries.

You could say Venezuela isn't that corrupted, because.....
or
Transparency International has no credibility, because....

What you're doing here is just personal... pointless, fascist hunter.

[fascisthunter]

17. because you have posted garbage here so often you have NO credibility

so save the preaching...

[kenfrequed]

72. Well

'because...' would actually be giving support to an argument. Whereas you have merely posted a statement by a compromised and paid for source that is working for the Elites that Chavez pissed on. Chavez isn't perfect, but he cares more about the majority of the people of his country than the wealthy that previously ran the place.

Neither you nor TI has a concrete definition for 'corrupt' that makes any sense.

[ChangoLoa]

82. This post was actually pretty useful for people who wanted to show that TI had no credibility

whatsoever. I didn't know they were funded by Boeing, oil companies, British Govt, etc... Maybe I was the only one on earth not to know that.

So actually, I learned something, thanks to someone who pointed out that "TI has no credibility because....".

[AlphaCentauri]

125. I bet this article was posted for it's anti chavez content n/t

[ChangoLoa]

126. trial by speculation is a fascist method n/t

[AlphaCentauri]

129. well said, TI is an organization of fascist speculators

no wonder they did supported the coup.

[ChangoLoa]

130. How did this German NGO supported itself the coup?

I read everything here and found nothing more than one of their Caracas branch's directors who worked for the syndicate of entrepreneurs of Venezuela, which exists since the 1950's.

[AlphaCentauri]

134. see post #122

tell me where is TI?

don't have to go over in circles for something that many other posters have already post in this thread

[ChangoLoa]

137. Your post #122 is about Equatorial Guinea (?!)

Tell me where was Lang's M made?

[wuushew]

14. Who voted for yet another anti-Chavez operative on DU?

I didn't.

[Peace Patriot]

15. "Seeing through Transparency International"

Seeing through Transparency International

by Calvin Tucker / May 23rd, 2008

The credibility of Transparency International, a global “non-partisan” organisation which “promotes transparency in elections, in public administration, in procurement and in business”, is on the line. Their latest report on Venezuela, which was produced after months of research, is factually inaccurate in almost every respect. TI say that they “stand by their report” and stand by the person who compiled the data, an anti-Chávez activist who backed the 2002 military coup against democracy.

The full report, dated April 28 2008 and titled Promoting Revenue Transparency examined the published accounts of oil companies in 42 different countries, and ranked them according to whether they were of high, medium or low transparency. Venezuela’s state-owned oil firm PDVSA was given the lowest possible ranking. Transparency International say that “comprehensive corporate reporting diminishes the opportunities for corrupt officials to extort funds”.

PDVSA was directly accused of failing to disclose basic financial information such as their revenues and how much royalties they paid, and of not producing properly audited accounts. The international corporate media considers TI to be a reliable source, despite the fact that almost all their funding comes from western governments and big business. The British government is one of the major donors, contributing £1 million in 2007. Other donors include the US government, Shell and Exxon Mobil. Unsurprisingly, TI’s damning report was seized upon by rightwing newspapers and websites and used as another stick with which to beat Venezuela’s socialist president, Hugo Chávez.

When Dan Burnett, a New York-based blogger who runs the popular Oil Wars website, read the TI report, he almost choked on his cornflakes. Burnett had been analysing PDVSA’s accounts for several years, and regularly writes about the financial information that TI claims does not exist.

I checked the PDVSA website. Burnett was right to be astonished. On page 127 of their financial statement it says that revenue for 2007 was $96.242bn, and that they paid $21.9bn in royalties. On page 148, PDVSA’s auditors state that the accounts were prepared in accordance with international accounting standards. Further research showed that PDVSA’s financial statements are also published in hard copy, and are widely reported in the domestic media, both in newspapers and on television.

I was perplexed. How could Transparency International, which claims that its report was subject to a rigorous “quality control regime” and had been checked for accuracy by “industry experts”, have got it so wrong? I called them and asked.

A spokesperson explained that their report was published two weeks before PDVSA submitted their 2007 accounts on May 12 2008. This explanation implied that TI are unfamiliar with basic financial reporting procedures. Before company accounts can be submitted, the data has to be collated, analysed and audited. It is normal for this process to take several weeks or months. For example, Transparency International’s own audited financial report for 2007 is not yet publicly available on their website.

However, TI’s explanation for their inaccurate report on PDVSA contained a much more serious problem. It was wrong. The March 29 edition of El Universal, a major opposition newspaper, featured a report on PDVSA’s financial statement, together with a photograph of PDVSA’s president, Rafael Ramirez, holding up a copy of the 2007 report and accounts. The information that TI claimed was being withheld by PDVSA, was published four weeks before they made their allegations. Armed with this additional information, I attempted to contact TI’s press spokesperson again for a comment. My calls were not returned.

Despite Transparency International’s less than transparent behaviour, was it still possible that there was an innocent explanation for the errors in their report? I began to wonder whether their spokesperson had got the dates confused and was actually talking about a previous set of accounts.

I checked the historical records which are freely available on the PDVSA website. Their audited 2006 accounts were published on September 8 2007, a full seven months before TI published its report accusing PDVSA of non-disclosure. The 2006 accounts also contained the information that TI claimed was not disclosed. The 2005 accounts were also available, as were all the annual accounts going back to 2000.

In the past, there have been problems with PDVSA’s accounts, and in particular with late submission. In late 2002, just months after the failed coup attempt, PDVSA oil executives went on strike in an attempt to bring down the Chávez government. It became clear that the strike would not succeed, but PDVSA’s operational equipment was sabotaged, causing millions of dollars of damage. A massive amount of data was destroyed, including the files containing PDVSA’s financial information and accounts. PDVSA was forced to rebuild its financial infrastructure from scratch, and for several years this caused delays in producing accounts. However, TI’s accusation is that PDVSA does not disclose information, not that previous accounts were submitted late. This accusation, which forms the basis of TI’s report, is demonstrably wrong.

Transparency International denies that they pursue an anti-Chavez agenda. “We are not a political organisation”, their spokesperson told me. Despite this denial, TI’s Venezuela bureau is staffed by opponents of the Venezuelan government. The directors include Robert Bottome, the publisher of Veneconomia, a strident opposition journal, and Aurelio Concheso of the Centre for the Dissemination of Economic Knowledge, a conservative thinktank funded by the US government. Concheso was previously a director of the employers’ organisation, Fedecamaras. The president of Fedecamaras, Pedro Carmona, led the failed 2002 coup and was briefly installed as Venezuela’s dictator.

The data in TI’s report was gathered by Mercedes de Freitas, the head of their Caracas bureau and a longtime opponent of President Chávez. De Freitas’ previous job was running a US government funded opposition “civil society” group. The Nation reported on her response to the 2002 military coup: “… on the night of April 12 — after Carmona suspended the assembly — Mercedes de Freitas, a director of the Fundacion Momento de la Gente, a legislative monitoring project subsidized by NED (National Endowment for Democracy, a US government agency), emailed the endowment defending the military and Carmona, claiming the takeover was not a military coup.”

In July 2006, Freitas issued a press release on behalf of Transparency International, which argued against the passing of a draft bill that proposed making it illegal for Venezuelan “civil society” organisations to receive funding from foreign governments, including from the US government. “If it becomes law, civil society would be subject to considerable restrictions, with government allowed to interfere in their objectives, activities and funding sources” the press release asserted.

Documents released under the US freedom of information act show that the Bush administration gives $5m a year to organisations opposed to the Chávez government.

Transparency International has a choice. They can continue to defend their indefensible report and refuse to answer legitimate questions about their activities in Venezuela. Or they can come clean and provide full disclosure. As TI’s own report diplomatically puts it: “Disclosure improves a company’s image, making it less vulnerable to unsubstantiated attacks on its reputation.”

----

Calvin Tucker is co-editor of 21stcenturysocialism.com and a freelance writer. He has a strong interest in Latin American politics, and was one of the first commentators to correctly predict the 2002 coup against the elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. Calvin’s work has been published in Zmag, Green Left Weekly, Venezuelanalysis, Trinicentre, Underground Voices Magazine and various Latin American websites. He is a member of the British based Venezuela Information Centre and a former student organiser of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign. The opposition publication Venezuela Today describes him as a “sycophant and a shill” of the Venezuelan Revolution. Read other articles by Calvin, or visit Calvin's website.

-----

Posted by Joanne98 (5/24/08)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x361437
Original (with embedded links)
http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/05/seeing-through-transparency-international/

[yurbud]

19. funded by the oil companies

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

136. While I think that's an important thing to know when reading their index

it doesn't necessarily invalidate their findings, now does it?

[yurbud]

143. if a tobacco company funded a study saying second hand smoke wasn't dangerous, how trustworthy would

that be?

[gmpierce]

144. and...

Suppose the National Cancer Institute published such a study? They did.

[yurbud]

153. When? 1952? Their current position is that it DOES cause cancer LINK

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS#r2

[yurbud]

154. Sourcewatch seems to indicate that NCI was captive to the tobacco industry in the 70s

They used a lab that was funded by Phillip Morris to do the study you are probably referring to:

Tobacco studies

Under its former name of Hazleton Laboratories, Covance Laboratories was associated with the Council for Tobacco Research and conducted animal testing for tobacco companies. In September of 1972, Carl Baker, the former chairman of the NCI, became the president of Hazleton Laboratories. Hazleton was a "major research contractor" for NCI and had been conducting chemosol treated cigarettes for "tar" tumorigenicity for nine U.S. cigarette manufacturers since 1970. <8>

Smoking beagles

In an NCI sponsored study, Hazleton provided animal data favorable to the tobacco industry that contributed to the continued marketing of cigarettes. Between February of 1978 and March of 1980, Hazleton conducted a two-year study of for NCI on the the cardiovascular effects of mainstream cigarette smoke and carbon monoxide on "204 permanently tracheostomized male beagle" dogs. The dogs were forced to inhale all of the mainstream smoke generated by six cigarettes a day while being fed diets of varying levels of cholesterol. A number of dogs died during the study. The study concluded that smoking may have "a possible protective effect" and "lent no support to the suggestion that cigarette smoking increases the rate of development of atherosclerosis." <9>


http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Cancer_Institute#Tobacco_studies

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

159. Right, and that's a fair point

One should compare the results of studies conducted by organizations they find questionable to the results of other studies from other organizations. That's part of the reason I've repeatedly asked which corruption indexes people find more useful - or at least less sketchy - in this thread. No one's bothered to answer though.

[Peace Patriot]

21. In sum: "Transparency International" has LIED THROUGH THEIR TEETH about the Chavez government,

is funded by Exxon Mobil and other interested parties, and their Venezuelan offices are staffed by the rightwing opposition!

This OP was posted by a virulent anti-Chavez poster who claims to be Venezuelan. Well, all I can say, after reading this analysis of "Transparency International"'s blatant lies about the Chavez government's running of the national oil company, is that being Venezuelan doesn't immunize you against being untrustworthy and promulgating false, twisted, Exxon Mobil-funded, NED-funded lies and disinformation.

Changoloa, you are busted. Why don't you try to fix your own country, if it's so bad, instead of trying to pollute discussions of U.S. Democratic Party activists with this kind of crapaloa.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

37. Mendacity on skates. nt

[Judi Lynn]

56. That would make so much more sense! n/t

[ChangoLoa]

25. "He is a member of the British based Venezuela Information Centre"

Do you know about VIC?

If you say Transparency International is BS, that's OK with me, I don't defend them. I wasn't aware of that, since it is always used as the "main independent reference" in cross-country corruption analysis. But be aware that VIC is an appendix of Venezuelan Govt. working in permanent coordination with the Embassy of Venezuela in the UK.

Secondly, I don't agree that THIS index is anti-Chavez propaganda, because Venezuela has always ranked +/- as badly than in this report, since the early 90s, BEFORE Chavez.

In the press article I posted, Chavez is not even mentioned.

[LiberalLovinLug]

39. Give it up

On one hand you say::

"If you say Transparency International is BS, that's OK with me"

and on the other

"I don't agree that THIS index is anti-Chavez propaganda"

Clearly TI is not an unbiased organization. In fact all indications are that one if its purposes is to take down Chavez.

Even if Venezuela was ranked lowest in previous editions (still have no links to that) what does that have to do with Chavez? He came in not as a continuation of the previous two parties who were both corrupt ( sounds familiar) but on a promise of cleaning that up. Among other things he instituted a system where judged are promoted based on performance, instead of favoritism. Did he do enough? Is he a perfectly untainted politician? probably not. But you can't tie him to previous governments just because he is of the same nationality.

And then you throw in a red herring. Unsubstantiated gossip about VIC being lead by Chavez. Even if THAT were true, the facts in that report are also true. Nice attempt at deflection.
You are pissing in the wind amigo.

[ChangoLoa]

47. I don't think corruption has improved under his administration

That's the point. Bringing him in this discussion automatically is counter-productive, since corruption in Venezuela is deeply rooted, as an institution. This index is not confined to POLITICAL corruption. It's about GENERAL corruption in a society. Concerning political corruption, I can tie this administration with the previous ones, because many of its ministers and deputies (congressmen) used to be part of one of the parties you're mentioning.

Where did you notice such a change concerning corruption in Venezuela?

[Peace Patriot]

28. I want to thank Joanne98 publicly for her magnificent work at DU

keeping us well-armed against disinformationists especially regarding Latin America. It is an uphill battle to struggle against the BILLIONS of dollars that have been poured into lying to, confusing and brainwashing the American people on any number of important issues, with the anti-Chavez campaign, in particular, being so intense that it is looking very like the WMD lies about Iraq--a preliminary to war, in which a million innocent people were slaughtered to steal their oil.

I knew that I had read an analysis of "Transparency International"'s very non-transparent, and egregiously false, report on the Venezuelan oil industry, somewhere, but couldn't remember the details, so I went looking for it. And, sure enough, there it was, posted over a year ago, by one of our own most knowledgeable and astute researchers at DU, Joanne98.

Thank God for Joanne98 and others like her! Thank God for independent citizen journalists! Thank God for U.S. citizens and voters who think and read and analyze! Thank God for those who resist the non-stop and often devious brainwashing that we are subjected to!

And thanks especially to Calvin Tucker who did the hardest work on this subject, and who put it all together and whose information was available on the internet when we needed it. I will see if I can email him. And I will certainly email Joanne98.

For Joanne and Calvin...

:bounce: :applause: :patriot: :applause: :patriot:

[Peace Patriot]

36. Here's another excellent work by Calvin Tucker...

Why the Barrios Still Love Hugo
by Calvin Tucker / February 19th, 2008
http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/why-the-barrios-still-love-hugo/

[BREMPRO]

41. thanks for the background info on TI- I thought this sounded suspicious.

I'm not a big fan of Chavez of late, he's been too far off the reservation with his ruler for life campaignes and irrational rants, but this is clearly a report tainted by the elite right wing opposition to Chavez. Ironic title for their organization.


"Transparency International denies that they pursue an anti-Chavez agenda. “We are not a political organisation”, their spokesperson told me. Despite this denial, TI’s Venezuela bureau is staffed by opponents of the Venezuelan government. The directors include Robert Bottome, the publisher of Veneconomia, a strident opposition journal, and Aurelio Concheso of the Centre for the Dissemination of Economic Knowledge, a conservative thinktank funded by the US government. Concheso was previously a director of the employers’ organisation, Fedecamaras. The president of Fedecamaras, Pedro Carmona, led the failed 2002 coup and was briefly installed as Venezuela’s dictator.

The data in TI’s report was gathered by Mercedes de Freitas, the head of their Caracas bureau and a longtime opponent of President Chávez."

[Peace Patriot]

67. Well, you know, "the elite right wing opposition to Chavez" doesn't stop at the Venezuelan border.

In fact, much of the opposition, psyops and disinformation about Chavez is generated here, by our corpo-fascist 'news' monopolies, as well as Washington DC lobbyists and rightwing 'think tanks,' the USAID-NED, the CIA and the State Department. So, when you find yourself with opinions like "he's been too far off the reservation with his ruler for life campaignes and irrational rants," ask yourself where you got those impressions, and what are they based on? Is it true that he sought to be "ruler for life," a phrase that implies undemocratic tyrant? How does that work, in Venezuela, a country with one of the most transparent, honest and aboveboard election systems in the western hemisphere? Was he somehow trying to bypass elections? Did he try a military junta? Did he bribe legislators to secretly pass a law lifting the term limit on the president?

Please look into the facts about this, bearing in mind that our own FDR ran for and won four terms in office, and died in his fourth term. He was "president for life" because people voted for him. You should also look into Thomas Jefferson's and other Founders' view of term limits on the president, and why they didn't put one into the US Constitution, and why we didn't have one until the 1950s, and who and why it was pushed through at that point (hint: post-FDR and the "New Deal"). Also, look up some of today's countries that don't have term limits on the president or prime minister.

As for Chavez's "irrational rants," please be more specific. I have followed Chavez's career closely and I have never read or heard anything from him that struck me as "irrational," nor have the frequent misquotes, mistranslations, out of context quotations, highly selective quotations, or ill-intentioned "summaries" of what he has said, as seen in the corpo-fascist 'news' monopolies, indicated "irrationality." Even his enemies don't make that accusation (that I know of). The man is highly intelligent, a reader, promotes reading and literacy, values education, funds it--and speaks very well, if rather bluntly and colorfully at times. His approval ratings have consistently been in the 55% to 60% range. He talks on TV, on a weekly show, at length and in detail about his programs and ideas. Some think he is long-winded, others view this as openness. He's not hiding anything. Whatever he and his government are doing, everybody knows about it right away. He speaks conversationally, which takes time, and the public can call in and ask questions. And those who get bored, or don't like what he is saying, can turn the TV off if they want to. Can you imagine Bush holding an intelligent conversation with the public for more than a minute (or for any length of time at all), or subjecting himself to such scrutiny? Even Obama is sparse with public inter-changes.

So Venezuelans know perfectly well whether Chavez is "rational" or not. And they approve of him in great numbers. You need to give some examples of "irrational ranting." I don't see it.

[BREMPRO]

77. Wow horsey! I know all about the opposition here in the US by corporate/oil interests

, the media, the cia supported coup attempts etc... and i was a big supporter of his up until about 2 years ago- of his efforts to help the poor and actually use Venezuela's oil wealth for public programs, education, health care, creating orchestras from the slums, reducing corruption, improving the economy, sending cheap heating oil to the US etc.... and i was even supportive of him shutting down some opposition news stations that were clearly just fronts for his RW opposition. There were several things that shifted my opinion of him. One was his campaign for elimination of term limits to basically allow him to be leader for life- It failed public vote the first time through and his reaction bothered me- he was clearly losing touch with popular opinion- and then I believe he won the referendum second time. I just don't believe that it's a good idea for a democracy to have no term limits and he used his power and state oil wealth to buy the popular vote to assure him victory. Another red flag was as series of speeches he gave and in particular a public meeting where he pointed out and scolded members of his staff for not doing their jobs well- treating them like children- and went off on a rant about them and the opposition. I'll try to find a link, but it really turned me off about him. Also, his new "war on golf" calling it a "lazy sport of the bourgeois" is over the top and not embraced in any other Latin American leader- even Cuba is building more courses while Chavez took state control of 9 courses and plans to shut more. He seems to believe he can do no wrong and using a cult of personality is slipping into a pattern of demagoguery that i find disturbing.

[Judi Lynn]

86. Why didn't you bother to learn the facts on any of these items you threw up

as if they were show-stoppers?

We've discussed them all endlessly, with so many attacks entertained from passing trolls, and information supplied to answer stupid claims. You should have had time by now to know the truth, and not parade these same tired old whoppers.

RCTV:

Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs
Distorting the Venezuelan media story

5/25/07

~snip~
In keeping with the media script that has bad guy Chávez brutishly silencing good guys in the democratic opposition, all these articles skimmed lightly over RCTV's history, the Venezuelan government's explanation for the license denial and the process that led to it.

RCTV and other commercial TV stations were key players in the April 2002 coup that briefly ousted Chávez's democratically elected government. During the short-lived insurrection, coup leaders took to commercial TV airwaves to thank the networks. "I must thank Venevisión and RCTV," one grateful leader remarked in an appearance captured in the Irish film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The film documents the networks’ participation in the short-lived coup, in which stations put themselves to service as bulletin boards for the coup—hosting coup leaders, silencing government voices and rallying the opposition to a march on the Presidential Palace that was part of the coup plotters strategy.

On April 11, 2002, the day of the coup, when military and civilian opposition leaders held press conferences calling for Chávez's ouster, RCTV hosted top coup plotter Carlos Ortega, who rallied demonstrators to the march on the presidential palace. On the same day, after the anti-democratic overthrow appeared to have succeeded, another coup leader, Vice-Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez, told a Venevisión reporter (4/11/02): "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you."

That commercial TV outlets including RCTV participated in the coup is not at question; even mainstream outlets have acknowledged as much. As reporter Juan Forero, Jackson Diehl's colleague at the Washington Post, explained (1/18/07), "RCTV, like three other major private television stations, encouraged the protests," resulting in the coup, "and, once Chávez was ousted, cheered his removal." The conservative British newspaper the Financial Times reported (5/21/07), " officials argue with some justification that RCTV actively supported the 2002 coup attempt against Mr. Chávez."

As FAIR's magazine Extra! argued last November, "Were a similar event to happen in the U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup plotters, it’s doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela."

When Chávez returned to power the commercial stations refused to cover the news, airing instead entertainment programs—in RCTV's case, the American film Pretty Woman. By refusing to cover such a newsworthy story, the stations abandoned the public interest and violated the public trust that is seen in Venezuela (and in the U.S.) as a requirement for operating on the public airwaves. Regarding RCTV's refusal to cover the return of Chávez to power, Columbia University professor and former NPR editor John Dinges told Marketplace (5/8/07):

What RCTV did simply can't be justified under any stretch of journalistic principles…. When a television channel simply fails to report, simply goes off the air during a period of national crisis, not because they're forced to, but simply because they don't agree with what's happening, you've lost your ability to defend what you do on journalistic principles.

The Venezuelan government is basing its denial of license on RCTV's involvement in the 2002 coup, not on the station's criticisms of or political opposition to the government. Many American pundits and some human rights spokespersons have confused the issue by claiming the action is based merely on political differences, failing to note that Venezuela's media, including its commercial broadcasters, are still among the most vigorously dissident on the planet.

More:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107

~~~~~~~~~~~
As you would have learned, if you were conscientious enough to take the time to find out, the time to which you refer in saying Chavez was refused a chance at re-election, the article on re-election was ONE OF 69 INDIVIDUAL ARTICLES which were divided into two blocks and both blocks were voted down in an extremely close referendum. There were issues in each block people didn't have enough time to understand.

Hugo Chavez had originally suggested only 33 should be voted upon in one referendum, and the national assembly added the others.

The US President FDR served FOUR terms admirably, and it took conniving slimy Republicans to finally change our consitution itself to favor them in keep more beloved, effective Democrats from serving several terms. It's a right-wing thing. Originally the Founding Fathers believed a democracy would allow people to vote for their choice, regardless, and included NO TERM LIMITS.

~~~~~~~~~~~
"Buying the popular vote?" Don't you think we've all heard that crap a million times, spewed by right-wingers to attempt to slash and hack progressive leaders? It's pure filth.
If they know it's so effective, why don't RIGHT WING politicians copy it, themselves? BECAUSE they want the poor locked out, and available as cheap labor, and unable to develope political power enough to compete on equal terms with them.

If you're crabbing about the golf course issue, why didn't you take the time to find out more about it? There's no excuse for that. If that's your final rock to hurl at the elected President of Venezuela, you are scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Unbelievable!

Please do take time away from sharing your opinion and do some homework. Your opinion can't be valid if it's not connected to the truth.

[BREMPRO]

123. WTF!! you win the prize for the most obnoxiously arrogant response to a post I've EVER read on DU

"We've discussed them endlessly"? I've never had an exchange with you on Chavez or any other topic and your wildly presumptuous response and seeming worship of Chavez nearly impossible to have a rational discussion. Did you even read my post? I WROTE THAT I SUPPORTED CHAVEZ for YEARS and said i agreed with him shutting down the station, with all his efforts to help the poor and reform venezuela- so WTF is with the attitude and trotting out the history of the station shutdown?!!. It's as if i didn't say any thing in his support and you jump all over me because I question Chavez now. Why are you so sensitive about any criticism of Chavez? Maybe you should question your own assumptions from 2007 info instead of accusing members who voice valid opinions based on experience of ignorance. It's a perfectly legitimate concern to keep power from being entrenched by use of term limits. Sure FDR was a great president, but would you have wanted Reagan or Bush to have the option to run for another term? It's convenient that you mention that the founding fathers didn't put term limits in the constitution, and yet ignore that the writings that they had disdain for professional politicians. I'm sure many here agree term limits are a good thing and not just some "right wing thing". Why would you again ASSUME i don't know anything about the purposes Chavez wants the land currently used as golf courses? I just disagree with him and don't believe he should have the right to take the private land to create public housing. We have laws here protecting private ownership of land and that doesn't make me some kind of radical right wing conservative because i believe in the rights of private ownership o land. It also ignores the benefits golf has to the economy, tourism, exercise (particularly for the elderly), open space preservation etc. Chavez thinks its a good idea so he does it- whatever Chavez does is good. THAT is demagoguery. Why not take over baseball field? Because he likes baseball. Climb off your high horse and take a hard look at what Chavez has become. He's not as popular among his people as he once was and many liberal Latin American Leaders are embarrassed by him and don't hold him in high regard either. His alliance with Ahmeninajad, saying the two countries should "join together to defeat imperialism", should give you some pause. The tape I was referring too where he treated his staff as children, embarrassing them in front of their peers was an eye opener. If you saw it you too might question your unflinching high regard for him.

[Peace Patriot]

88. Well, was FDR running for and winning four terms in office a good thing or not?

Would we have even the last remaining remnants of the "New Deal" if he had not been permitted to run four times? Would we have won WW II?

The rich have entrenched power and money, and the poor have time. It takes time to make inroads into entrenched power. That's how the "New Deal" got as solidified as it did--because the people voted for FDR four times, to do just that--the ensure that government would protect and serve all of the people. The rightwing called FDR a "dictator," too. Was he?

The reason that lifting the term limit on the president in Venezuela lost its first popular vote test--very narrowly--by one percentage point (50.7 % to 49.3%)--is that it was part of a package of 69 amendments to the Constitution, one of which was equal rights for women and gays. The Church politicked against it (in this Catholic country). The rightwing ran ads saying that, if the amendments passed, the government would take children from their mothers. The Chavez government deserves credit for trying to pass an equal rights amendment, but it very likely sank the rest of their package of changes--mostly economic measures and including lifting the term limit.

A year later, they put the term limit issue to a stand-alone vote, and the Chavez side won, hands down. This was a national popular vote of all Venezuelans. Clearly, the great majority of Venezuelans want Chavez to run for office again. (That vote also lifted the term limit on governors and mayors--some of them rightwingers.) Considered in the 69 amendments package, they almost passed it. By itself, they passed it overwhelmingly.

What is wrong with this? If the people want to vote for him--and they want him to run again--why shouldn't the peoples' will prevail?

Compare and contrast to how the Pukes in Congress in the mid-1950s rammed the term limit amendment through Congress, specifically to prevent a "New Deal" from ever happening here again, and to begin dismantling the one we had (which they have very nearly accomplished). Thomas Jefferson believed that a term limit on the president is anti-democratic. I agree with him. The critical issue is transparent elections, not term limits. We never had a better democracy than under FDR, and there was no term limit. If the voting system is fair--and Venezuela's system is one of the best--term limits are not needed to control the power of political leaders. The peoples' will should prevail in this matter--both as to who holds office and for how long. Venezuela in addition has a recall provision for the president. And they have an opposition press that is virulently anti-Chavez, so if Chavez does anything out of line, they are going to hear about it.

"It failed public vote the first time through and his reaction bothered me- he was clearly losing touch with popular opinion- and then I believe he won the referendum second time."

What about his reaction bothered you? He accepted the results gracefully, in an extremely close vote--a vote he would have been within his rights to challenge--and his government tried again a year later, on the term limit issue alone. It was then a clear up and down vote on that issue. Before, it was not clear. There were 68 other issues involved, some of them quite complex, and one of them a "hot button" social issue. Why not have a clear vote on the matter?

"...he used his power and state oil wealth to buy the popular vote to assure him victory."

Yeah, that's kind of a hazard of being a good president. If you use the country's resources the way they should be used--to help all of the people, to fund schools and community medical clinics, and loans and grants to small business, and land reform, and so on--and if you are strong enough leader to get these things done, you are going to be accused by the rightwing of "buying votes."

FDR was also a strong leader. Did he "buy votes" with the CCC? Did he bribe people with Social Security? Did he back down when the rightwing Supreme Court declared Social Security "unconstitutional"? No, he fought back. He threatened to "pack the Supreme Court"! That's what saved Social Security--that threat. He showed strength in the defense of critically needed social programs. Is that misuse of power? Or is that being a good, strong, clever, unflappable leader?

And did FDR do all this to "buy votes"? YES!!! That's what leaders DO. They serve the people and get rewarded with approval and votes. How can you criticize Chavez for being a leader--for doing the right thing and getting voters' approval because of it? Your objection doesn't make sense to me.

"The other red flag was as series of speeches he gave and in particular a public meeting where he pointed out and scolded members of his staff for not doing their jobs well- treating them like children- and went off on a rant about them and the opposition. I'll try to find a link, but it really turned me off about him."

I have never heard of this before, so I can't comment on it. Please find the link. All I can say is this: Venezuela has an excellent election system, and a vibrant democracy. If they don't like Chavez, they can throw him out. They've had numerous opportunities to do so in the past, and have instead overwhelmingly endorsed him and his government. And every leader has flaws, and bad days, and makes mistakes, sometimes big ones--and every elected leader has to have ego and a desire for power or he or she wouldn't be a leader. If ego and desire for power get out of control, Venezuela has remedies--far better remedies than our own. Hell, we have a secret government that we have no control over whatsoever--a lethal secret government, dragging us into wars and other horrors. And can any population be more helpless than ours, in the face of our vastly corrupt "military-industrial complex," and "prison-industrial complex," and "medical-industrial complex," and "bankster looting machine"?

Venezuelans actually have control over who rules them. In our case, we don't even know who they are.

If the worst that can be said about Chavez is that he does his job and thereby gets votes, and that he has an ego and talks a lot, and was rude to his staff on one occasion, those are rather flimsy reasons to turn against him, and it's really not up to us--although a whole lot of bad guys here think it should be; it's up to Venezuelan voters to make those judgements. I have thoroughly researched their election system, and I know that it is fair and aboveboard, and I can recite the facts, if you want me to. They truly have a choice. Can we say the same? We have a decade of hard civic work to do before we can verify even a single election in this country. It is all corporate-run now (by hair-raisingly far rightwing corporations) with 'TRADE SECRET' code. Who are we to criticize the choice of a people who have already done that work? They know who and what they are voting for. Do we?

[ChangoLoa]

89. demagoguery

like our previous politicians in Venezuela. Nothing is planned for a long term.

[AlphaCentauri]

132. for 40 years Venezuelan governments a had long term plan

to not touch the wealthy and the corrupt union leaders.

[EFerrari]

99. LOL. His "reaction" was to graciously concede a very close vote.

[ChangoLoa]

111. Graciously? He said "Es una victoria de mierda", literally. Didn't you see that?

It was surreal

[EFerrari]

114. After a full month of bullshit all over the media, I would have said much worse.

It's a good thing I'm not your president, Chango.

lol

But the point is, he easily could have challenged the results and he didn't. He said his side would have to work harder next time. And they did.

[Judi Lynn]

53. What a report by Calvin Tucker. He deals with verifiable FACTS, not insinuations, and attacks.

He's got the goods on these clowns. The article you and Joanne98 posted is something to save for later reference.

He also refers to another article published in Oil Wars:Tuesday, May 13, 2008
A little transparency sure doesn't flatter Transparency International
Various "non-governmental organizations" and think tanks have over the years set up surveys to rank various countries on things such as "economic freedom", "political freedom", "human rights", "competativeness" and in one instance at least "failed states". These surveys are generally carried out by very conservative organizations and rather predictably point to the U.S., western Europe, and the Asian Tigers as good and most everyone else as bad.

Given that these surveys are highly subjective and don't fully reveal how they arrive at their rankings they are of dubious reliability and are probably best ignored. Yet the media often trumpets their findings as though they were some sort of objective truth and certain governments are praised while others are attacked. Most likely that is their express purpose.

One organization that releases a famous ranking is Transparency International and their ranking is on corruption. They list most all countries from what they consider to be the most transparent all the way down to what they consider to be the most corrupt. Predictably, being low on this ranking is taken as concrete evidence of out of control corruption so countries such as Venezuela, which have a very low ranking, are taken as being in fact very corrupt, never mind that no actual evidence is ever presented.

Of course, it impossible to rebut the ranking of Tranparency International because they don't say how exactly the ranking is arrived at nor do they give any of their actual field work or raw data. In other words, T.I.'s assertions can't be be critiqued because Transparency International itself isn't very, well, transparent.

~snip~
PDVSA appears on the bottom of these tables where you should be able to easily note that according to Transparency Internationl PDVSA does not make public any of the information that I detailed above!! Look in the boxes for the above listed numbers and you will see all zeros indicating that according to T.I. that information was not in the public domain.

That is right - according to Transparency International PDVSA does not say how much it pays in royalties, taxes, what its revenues are, what its production costs are, does not have audited financial statements, etc., etc.

It is simply stunning that Transparency International would have that as its finding for PDVSA because in point of fact PDVSA makes all that information and more public.More:
http://oilwars.blogspot.com/2008/05/little-transparency-sure-doesnt-flatter.html

Thank you for looking for this material.

[and-justice-for-all]

20. Color me skeptical...nt

[IndianaGreen]

22. El Universal is Venezuela's version of NY Post and Washington Times

Nothing like having another oligarch funded organization issuing ruling class propaganda.

[EFerrari]

24. And that being said, there is a corruption problem in Venezuela

but calling it more corrupt than Colombia or Peru or any number of places is over the top.

[ChangoLoa]

27. There has always been this problem and you know enough about Latin America to understand that

Now, we've ALWAYS been in the worst 3 places of Latin America. It was the same before Chavez. So why would people consider this to be "anti-Chavez"? IT's position hasn't changed a bit since he was elected.

As a counter-example, they give a much better ranking to Bolivia since Morales was elected.

[EFerrari]

38. Now I know enough about Latin America?

Not this port in a storm.

[ChangoLoa]

40. ... to understand there's a corruption problem in Venezuela.

[LiberalLovinLug]

46. You answered your own question

There was huge corruption before Chavez. It couldn't be ignored.
It really couldn't get any worse.

The fact that Chavez has not ranked higher after the reforms he brought in indicates something fishy going on with IT's bias if "their position hasn't changed a bit"

[EFerrari]

I'll always be grateful to CaliforniaPeggy for showing me how to do good searches here.

Venezuela the most corrupt country in Latin America, TI says
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Nov-17-09 10:12 AM (48 replies)
Last modified by Judi Lynn on Nov-17-09 01:01 PM

Chávez refuses joint monitoring system on the border with Colombia
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Nov-13-09 04:36 PM (73 replies)
Last modified by treestar on Nov-16-09 05:14 AM

El País newspaper: Chávez "has crossed the line" with war call
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Nov-12-09 01:11 PM (0 replies)

Chavez to troops: Prepare for war with Colombia
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Nov-08-09 03:23 PM (0 replies)

Polls: Chavez's popularity slips in Venezuela
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Oct-22-09 07:19 AM (0 replies)

Michael Moore says he advised President Chávez on his speech at the UN
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Oct-20-09 02:07 PM (44 replies)
Last modified by No Elephants on Oct-22-09 06:01 AM

RSF: Venezuela among the worst press freedom offenders in the region
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Oct-20-09 10:40 PM (0 replies)

Venezuela's ombudswoman: Nobel Prize to Obama is a mockery of human rights
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Oct-10-09 07:01 AM (39 replies)
Last modified by Sultana on Oct-10-09 08:01 PM

Oops, forgot the other forum:

Venezuela the most corrupt country in Latin America, TI says
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Nov-17-09 10:14 AM (4 replies)
Last modified by ChangoLoa on Nov-17-09 12:21 PM
¿Estará llegando la Revolución Bolivariana a su etapa terminal?
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Nov-15-09 12:55 PM (4 replies)
Last modified by Braulio on Nov-17-09 12:10 PM
Aligned with Chavez (Morales, Bolivia) not aligned with Chavez (Lula, Brazil)
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Nov-12-09 03:09 PM (43 replies)
Last modified by Braulio on Nov-17-09 03:32 AM
President Chávez backs a candidate in Brazil's upcoming elections
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Nov-13-09 04:33 PM (1 replies)
Last modified by Braulio on Nov-14-09 12:00 PM
Chavez rejects Brazil's proposition of joint monitoring on the border
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Nov-13-09 04:31 PM (1 replies)
Last modified by Braulio on Nov-14-09 11:44 AM
President Chávez rejects being portrayed as a "warmonger"
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Nov-13-09 04:39 PM (1 replies)
Last modified by Braulio on Nov-14-09 11:41 AM
Chávez awards replica of Bolívar sword to inventor of Kalashnikov assault rifle
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Nov-12-09 12:50 PM (1 replies)
Last modified by spanza on Nov-12-09 05:24 PM
Venezuelan government-Brazilian industrials: Works flying high
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Nov-07-09 08:45 AM (1 replies)
Last modified by Braulio on Nov-07-09 11:36 AM
Venezuela: Pdvsa intends to issue more bonds by the end of the year
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Nov-07-09 09:01 AM (1 replies)
Last modified by Braulio on Nov-07-09 10:59 AM
Venezuelan police told to shape up
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Oct-25-09 06:44 PM (15 replies)
Last modified by Braulio on Oct-30-09 12:01 PM
FAI: The Bolivarian Government Against Union Autonomy
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Oct-27-09 04:16 PM (0 replies)
Chavez urges 3-minute showers to conserve water
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Oct-22-09 06:43 AM (15 replies)
Last modified by Mika on Oct-24-09 06:03 AM
Polls: Chavez's popularity slips in Venezuela
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Oct-22-09 06:38 AM (10 replies)
Last modified by Braulio on Oct-22-09 03:58 PM
"Chávez's case would be much stronger if he went after corruption within his own government."
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Oct-22-09 07:02 AM (1 replies)
Last modified by spanza on Oct-22-09 01:20 PM
Chavez Says U.S. Nuclear Probe Part of Anti-Venezuela Campaign
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Oct-22-09 07:16 AM (0 replies)
Colombian cocaine kingpin gets 45 years in US jail
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Oct-22-09 06:45 AM (0 replies)
RSF: Venezuela among the worst press freedom offenders in the region
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Oct-20-09 02:16 PM (61 replies)
Last modified by Mika on Oct-22-09 06:13 AM
Michael Moore and Hugo Chavez meeting in Venice
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Oct-20-09 12:08 PM (4 replies)
Last modified by spanza on Oct-21-09 07:00 AM
Venezuela Behind the Smokescreen
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Oct-09-09 10:17 AM (11 replies)
Last modified by ChangoLoa on Oct-12-09 10:43 AM
Opposition to denounce Venezuelan government for denying justice
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Oct-08-09 01:27 PM (11 replies)
Last modified by spanza on Oct-09-09 05:57 PM
Venezuela: The murderers can not make justice. On the exhumations of the Caracazo
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Oct-09-09 09:35 AM (4 replies)
Last modified by ChangoLoa on Oct-09-09 11:27 AM
The critical point of view from the Radical Party (Left, Causa R)
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Oct-09-09 11:03 AM (0 replies)
Chávez terms "ridiculous" recommendations of the US Department of State
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Oct-08-09 01:29 PM (1 replies)
Last modified by Braulio on Oct-08-09 03:17 PM
Low-income Venezuelans hit harder by inflation rebound
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Oct-08-09 01:34 PM (0 replies)
Uruguayan circus about Chavez (es)... funny!
Topic started by ChangoLoa on Oct-06-09 06:15 AM (2 replies)
Last modified by Braulio on Oct-07-09 05:00 PM

[Judi Lynn]

61. Whoa! Looks like a run on anti-Chavez articles!That Hugo is one real ####-up,according to these gems

You have to wonder why the people have re-elected him by huge majorities, and stormed the Presidential Palace where the elites sat within, on their fat fannies after having the military take him away at gun point, and how it is there were so many people protesting the elite dirtbag coupsters were forced to give up.

And THAT was after they had conspired with the owners of the newspapers, tv and radio stations to completely stonewall the public about the coup, lie to them that Chavez had resigned, after feeding them images on tv and newspaper showing a photo and lying about what was taking place in it, as in claiming the protesters were shooting down from a bridge at anti-Chavistas, whereas the protesters hiding and trying to shoot back were looking for who was shooting at THEM, and there WERE NO ANTI-CHAVISTAS IN THE STREET BELOW. Small ommission, designed to inflame people who were on the fence politically.

They were exposed, of course.

Apologies? Of course not.

These people are trash.

And, as we have noticed, the "elites" cleaned out the safe before waddling away from the place.

http://wendyusuallywanders.files.wordpress.com.nyud.net:8090/2008/01/burglar.gif

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

http://www.voanews.com.nyud.net:8090/english/Archive/images/rtv_12apr02_venez_military_150.jpg http://venciclopedia.com.nyud.net:8090/images/thumb/b/b6/Pedro_Carmona_Estanga.jpg/250px-Pedro_Carmona_Estanga.jpg

http://www.analitica.com.nyud.net:8090/BITBLIO/roberto/librosrhm/velasco_firma.jpg

The oligarch's President for a day, Coup Master Pedro Carmona.

[ShadesOfGrey]

147. Wow! Something (someone) is transparent alright.

Thanks for exposing it's agenda.
:thumbsup:

[ChangoLoa]

54. Reforms not always translate into reality

We should find a neutral source (since TI appears to be biased) of measuring the index of corruption and then discuss...

[pattmarty]

73. Go back and hide in your propaganda hole.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

105. With all due respect

what corruption index do you find to be more accurate?

[slackmaster]

29. An oil-rich nation that is chronically short of electrical power and fresh water

There is certainly something wrong with Venezuela.

[EFerrari]

31. You could say the same thing about California.

And you probably do. :)

[slackmaster]

35. Yes I do - Our state legislature is so incompetent it's hard to see their corruption

But corrupt they are.

[Downwinder]

30. Where do they the USA, so we have a comparison. n/t

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[winyanstaz]

45. an all tied up neat and tidy piece of propaganda...

sheesh....have these people no shame?

[yurbud]

49. Greg Palast has a good article on the basics of why Chavez is on our shit list:

http://www.gregpalast.com/pat-and-hugo-the-real-story-part-1rnrev-robertsons-call-to-assassinate-hugo-chavez/#more-1312

[Peace Patriot]

80. Thanks! That's a beaut from Greg Palast!

Just after Chavez won the 2004 recall election, which had been funded by guess who?

------

WHY DICK CHENEY WON'T PLAY IN HUGO CHAVEZ' BAND

There's so much BS and baloney thrown around about Venezuela that I may be violating some rule of US journalism by providing some facts. Let's begin with this: 77% of Venezuela's farmland is owned by 3% of the population, the 'hacendados.'

I met one of these farmlords in Caracas at an anti-Chavez protest march. Oddest demonstration I've ever seen: frosted blondes in high heels clutching designer bags, screeching, "Chavez - dic-ta-dor!" The plantation owner griped about the "socialismo" of Chavez, then jumped into his Jaguar convertible.

That week, Chavez himself handed me a copy of the "socialist" manifesto that so rattled the man in the Jag. It was a new law passed by Venezuela's Congress which gave land to the landless. The Chavez law transferred only fields from the giant haciendas which had been left unused and abandoned.

This land reform, by the way, was promoted to Venezuela in the 1960s by that Lefty radical, John F. Kennedy. Venezuela's dictator of the time agreed to hand out land, but forgot to give peasants title to their property.

(MORE) (...much more)

http://www.gregpalast.com/pat-and-hugo-the-real-story-part-1rnrev-robertsons-call-to-assassinate-hugo-chavez/#more-1312

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

How 'bout that? Chavez is as radical as JFK!

Land reform, in Venezuela, has gone slowly, by the way, because the Venezuelan Constitution protects private property, and Chavez has always been a 'strict constructionist'--as the phrase goes--of the Venezuelan Constitution. No private property can be taken without compensation of the owners (--the same way our state and federal governments declare "imminent domain" to build that new highway or baseball stadium--although those projects often take poor peoples' houses, even if compensated, whereas Venezuelan land reform takes rich peoples' unused farm land, with compensation, and the purpose is recreating Venezuela's agricultural industry and insuring food self-sufficiency, after decades of neglect by rightwing governments).

If JFK had lived, would Latin America have suffered through all these decades of rightwing tyranny and misrule--including the heinous murders of thousands of leftists and brutal oppression and theft against the poor? Maybe he couldn't have stopped it, any more than he could stop the Vietnam War; on the other hand, maybe that is another reason why he died.*

----

*(See James Douglass' book, "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died And Why It Matters," published by the Maryknoll Fathers last year. Very important book.)

[ChangoLoa]

87. Come on!

"This land reform, by the way, was promoted to Venezuela in the 1960s by that Lefty radical, John F. Kennedy. Venezuela's dictator of the time agreed to hand out land"

This is pure bullshit man! Palast is spreading lies that would be obvious for anyone in Venezuela, chavista or not.

In the 60's, there was no dictator in Venezuela and the land reform had nothing to do with Kennedy. How can he say such an absurd thing... the land reform was definitely decided in 58-59, after the last dictatorship fell. It had been planned by the same people that managed to overthrow the military in 1945 but couldn't be applied, since they were themselves overthrown by the military in 1948.


"frosted blondes in high heels clutching designer bags, screeching, "Chavez - dic-ta-dor!" The plantation owner griped about the "socialismo" of Chavez, then jumped into his Jaguar convertible."

A Jaguar convertible in a Caracas demonstration... LOL. He really goes beyond imagination there. Have you ever been to a demonstration in Caracas? The ones concerning the recall referendum were about gas and rubber bullets.


And Kennedy the lefty radical...! What Americans call lefty radical, the rest of the world calls "centrist kiiiiind of center-left". The same goes for your adulated FDR, the father of the American Empire...

[Judi Lynn]

90. Trying to take a kick at FDR? Where did you derive your mocking tone toward FDR?

That's exactly a vicious right-wing attitude.

Referendum demonstrations were about gas and rubber bullets? Really?

http://www.commondreams.org.nyud.net:8090/headlines04/images/0302-02.jpg

This is a right-wing pig, one of many who brought industrial strength slingshots, and used them to fire marbles, killing one Chavez supporter when he got nailed by a marble which tore through his skull and lodged in his brain.

What about your filthy "guarimbas?" Why be violent if all you're trying to do is show your honest dissent?

http://www.thecornerreport.com.nyud.net:8090/media/blogs/links/slingshot.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com.nyud.net:8090/_9Bx0L3n3uAo/R04q0nTPgzI/AAAAAAAABHA/4yESGGuKpiw/s320/slingshot.jpg

[ChangoLoa]

93. Your 3 pics are meaningless, we were talking about 2004 demonstrations, this slingshot

fashion started recently.

And for me, non American, the "vicious right wing attitude" is to adulate FDR like you do. He is the father of your Imperialism, military complex and World Institutions that try to rule us in the rest of the world.

By the way, if you took time to investigate about the violent minority on both sides of the political spectrum, you would see the same pics... with guns.

So, if you prefer, let's talk with pictures:

These fascist "pigs" killed two demonstrators and ran away with their bike



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BMRQO8xuenw/SYRznNq6krI/AAAAAAAABPQ/enwjD8238-o/s400/b6+tiros12chavista4uy.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_m7dDvVYKO2c/RtCv25FJFnI/AAAAAAAAAPo/0G0nBAZ2JrI/S220/CHAVISTA+CON+REVOLVER.JPG

At the biggest state University

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Qzxi0Y2oYgA/Soz18v2qFPI/AAAAAAAAMro/vFEsVptszMg/s400/UCV.VIOLENCIA+CHAVISTA.jpg



The urban militias showing their weapons (Colectivo la Piedrita)



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Qzxi0Y2oYgA/Snu_H9xO2oI/AAAAAAAAMlY/lQQE2UzRl4A/s400/terroristas+chavistas.12.jpg

[Peace Patriot]

97. Photo no. 6 (orange t-shirt pushing the door) was a staged rightwing riot.

The Chavistas had run inside for refuge and were under serious threat. They were a student political committee organizing for an election. They were violently attacked. I remember this picture from an analysis of that situation here at DU.

How many other of your pictures are bullshit?

And to make matters really nasty for us US taxpayers, our money--millions of dollars funneled through the USAID/NED and other budgets--'trained' and paid these rightwing thugs to terrorize other Venezuelans exercising their civil rights. Utterly disgusting.

[ChangoLoa]

107. Well, the chavista is the guy with the gun

And you're giving the exact version of our government, which I know is completely made up, because I was there.

Strange rioter who doesn't even have a knife and terrorizes the gunman he's facing, eh? Tis guy was trying to talk to them as you can see in the picture. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been such a fool to go up there with his empty hands to "fight".

The chavistas felt threatened when the march was coming back to the UCV, people started insulting them and telling them to leave. The violent armed ones took hostages and their militants into the building, started shooting in the air, and then the violent oppositionists started lighting fire at the door of the building. The militias entered the university shooting on their motorbikes and freed them.

The whole version of the raw footage is on youtube.

But, even if you think there was a justification for this, what about the other pictures?

[Peace Patriot]

94. Well, I happen to have been alive and almost a voter during JFK's shortened term of office,

and I remember his "Alliance For Progress" (land reform) program for Latin America.

"The charter of the alliance, formulated at an inter-American conference at Punta del Este, Uruguay, in Aug., 1961, called for an annual increase of 2.5% in per capita income, the establishment of democratic governments, more equitable income distribution, land reform, and economic and social planning. Latin American countries (excluding Cuba) pledged a capital investment of $80 billion over 10 years. The United States agreed to supply or guarantee $20 billion. By the late 1960s, however, the United States had become preoccupied with the Vietnam War, and commitments to Latin America were reduced. Moreover, most Latin American nations were unwilling to implement needed reforms. The Organization of American States disbanded the permanent committee created to implement the alliance in 1973."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1698278
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/A/AlliancP1ro.asp

Looking back over the Reagan horrors, US "free trade for the rich"(Clinton) and the Bushwhacks' filthy dirty games, the "Alliance for Progress" is one of the few bright lights of US foreign policy in Latin America over the last half century. FDR's policies are the other one.

I remembered land reform as the main focus of the "Alliance For Progress." Although not yet 21, I worked in JFK's 1960 campaign, and became familiar with his policies and programs. I also remember his brother RFK championing land reform and social justice in Latin America during his 1968 campaign.

Bang, bang, shoot, shoot.

I wonder what would have happened, had they lived. I think our country would have taken a much better direction, and both Southeast Asia and Latin America might have been spared some of the horrors the US government inflicted on them. Both men had a conscience, as James Douglass convincingly details--and both had that creative spark of being able to re-think policies--even very big ones, like nuclear warfare and militant anti-communism. Tragically, infuriatingly, we were denied that leadership--something the Honduran people just experienced as well, and that Venezuelans came close to suffering: denial of their choice of leaders.

[ChangoLoa]

98. Fair enough

"Looking back over the Reagan horrors, US "free trade for the rich"(Clinton) and the Bushwhacks' filthy dirty games, the "Alliance for Progress" is one of the few bright lights of US foreign policy in Latin America over the last half century. FDR's policies are the other one."

"Tragically, infuriatingly, we were denied that leadership--something the Honduran people just experienced as well, and that Venezuelans came close to suffering: denial of their choice of leaders."

I completely agree with you there (not so much on the fact that I pretend to be Venezuelan and that I should stop writing on a Democratic site for Americans).

But Venezuelan elections were in december 1958, when the land reform was decided for the country. 2+ years before Kennedy's Alliance for Progress. Our land reform was not decided by the Americans.

[EFerrari]

100. The Gucci protesters! Yes, we know them welll from their film career.

[Robb]

50. It all began with Matilda. Downhill from there. nt

[beyond cynical]

52. Latin America corrupt...?

No way :)

[EFerrari]

55. Yeah, North Americans love to sneer at Latin America. It's a hobby, isn't it?

As if we are somehow floating above it all with our S&Ls, our IranContras, our filthy elections, our Blackwater and our Wall Street bailouts to jump start credit that never meant to jump start credit.

Oh, those wacky people in Latin America, with their corrupt leaders funded by the State Department and propped up by the Marines. What will they do next. :)

[beyond cynical]

57. Are you saying that there is corruption in North America...?

No way :)

[EFerrari]

59. Don't turn me into the Thought Police!

:)

[nikto]

64. THIS SMELLS ROTTEN FROM MILES AWAY!

Who REALLY put out the report----The Heritage Foundation?
:puke: :puke: :puke:

[kenfrequed]

66. who owns El Universal?

I suspect the owners are a similar group of media monopolists that seek to control everything themselves (which could not possibly be corrupt)

[ChangoLoa]

75. No, they only own El Universal

The director is called Andrés Mata Osorio. He went to see Carmona when the 2002 coup happened, but didn't sign Carmona's decree.

[EFerrari]

76. So he's just a little pregnant. n/t

[kenfrequed]

78. uh huh

Riiight... totally unbias. Next.

[ChangoLoa]

83. Wait a minute there

you asked a question and I gave you the answer, that's it. Sorry if you were expecting juicier revelations.

[RedCloud]

70. So when the ADECOS and COPEYANOS robbed billions each term, WTF was that?

The corruption that preceded Chávez is precisely what led to his popularity in throwing those crooks out of power.

This is the same fucking Universal that in the early 1980's had an article like this:

"99,7% de los productos que consumimos son de baja calidad" Got that? Poor quality. So as not to embarrass the corrupt parties largely responsible for their blind eye to this it was stuck way in the back. I believe in section D, more than 100 pages from the front. Don't you think THAT article deserved a major public airing since it affected EVERYBODY?

[rabs]

84. You nailed it

Was wondering which administration was the most corrupt.

Carlos Andres Perez (ADECO)
Luis Herrera Campins (COPEI)
Hugo Chavez (PSUV)

I would give the nod to Perez, with Herrera Campins right behind or even maybe a nose ahead. Don't know how successful Chavez has been in erradicating any of the deeply rooted corruption that I saw, but it can't be any worse than under Perez and Herrera Campins.

[ChangoLoa]

85. You're talking about an article written 25 years ago there about the low quality of domestic prods?

The same medias you're mentioning were a big factor in the destruction of AD and COPEI. Actually, the whole impeachment of Carlos Andrés Pérez started from the press' revelations (El Nacional and El Universal, among others).

What's your point?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

92. Right, but the index wasn't published by Universal

It was published by Transparency International. If you have a beef with Universal, that's fine and dandy, but they didn't invent this story out of thin air. You can currently read about it on most news sites.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

91. A Preferable Source For This Information?

While I can understand many peoples' concerns about the objectivity of Transparency International's findings, I've got to ask, is there a corruption index that posters' feel is more accurate?

Also, could it be possible that many of you are throwing the baby out with the bath water on this one? Because, as I'm looking at TI's past rankings, it seems pretty clear that Venezuela was never exactly getting high scores in TI's corruption indexes - even before Chavez took office. In 1998, for instance, Venezuela scored a measely 2.3 (http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/previous_cpi/1998). When one keeps that in mind, the evidence that Venezuela's poor ranking is due to an anti-Chavez bias seems a bit weak.

[ChangoLoa]

95. I've tried to explained that point

But some seem to think that TI was right before but is wrong now, because Chavez applied a "reform" that "ended favoritism".

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

96. I guess some folks just need to see an anti-Chavez conspiracy in everything?

To be honest, it was your post that prompted me to take a look at TI's past corruption indexes and you were right, for as long as TI has been publishing these things, Venezuela has scored poorly.

[EFerrari]

101. Maybe you can find it for us -- along with a better source of Obama's Kenyan birth certificate.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

102. Why it is

you're unwilling to discuss the fact that Venezuela has always ranked poorly on TI's corruption indexes?

Secondly, I was legitimately asking you if you had a corruption index you found preferable. However, I'll take your snide comment as evidence that you haven't stumbled across one that's better than TI's.

[EFerrari]

103. You haven't read this thread, have you? n/t

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

104. I have, actually.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

106. You're not even going to attempt to explain this, are you?

Read TI's corruption indexes from before Chavez took office. You'll see for yourself that Venezuela has always scored poorly. With that in mind, how can you sit here and with a straight face insist the '09 scores as fueled by anti-Chavez bias?

[EFerrari]

108. I'm so sorry. There aren't enough hours in the day to refute all the straw men

you pull out. I said no such thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4150008&mesg_id=4150182

Have a good night.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

109. What does the post you linked imply if not an anti-Chavez bias at TI?

Because it seems pretty clear what you were getting at to me, even if you didn't explicitly spell it out. If I'm misinterpretting your post, than I apologize but seriously...take a look at it and tell me what conclusion a normal person would draw.

And again, I've got to say, if you have a corruption index you find preferable, I'd be more than happy to take a look at it. Until then, your overall conclusions regarding who is more corrupt than who seem based more on guesswork than any methodology.

[EFerrari]

115. My post doesn't IMPLY anything. It SAYS that TI's assessment

is over the top.

A "normal person" would be able to read that without resort to a manual of any kind.

And given the gigantic cesspool that is Colombia where the government backs paras who kill citizens and dress the corpses up in FARC uniforms and yet manage to get increases in US funding, I think my guess that VENEZUELA is not the most corrupt country in Latin America is a pretty darn good one, you betcha.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

118. Is paramilitary violence the only form of corruption by which a country can or should be judged?

[EFerrari]

120. No but given that Colombia's is dependent on US funding

it argues a much wider, international layer of corruption than that found in Venezuela. Not to mention all the dead people.

The reason, btw, why so many posters here keep bringing up the paras in Colombia is that they are utility players that facilitate everything from domestic terrorism and murder to international smuggling to political interference in neighboring countries.

As I said up thread, Venezuela certainly has a problem with corruption. But to say that it is the worst in Latin America is wrong.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

133. Some Agreement

I guess I'm not sure why you feel that receiving U.S. aid makes a country more vulnerable to corruption than say, having vast amounts of oil wealth, though that's something we may have to agree to disagree on.

Generally speaking, I agree with your assessment of the Colombian paramilitaries. I also think it might be fair to say that political violence should be factored in when judging how corrupt a nation is - which is something TI doesn't do, not directly anyway.

I don't think TI's corruption index is perfect, by any means, and it could definitely be more thorough. However, with that said, given the available data and the limited number of people actually calculating such things, TI's index is still very much worthwhile. It's sources are public, it's methodology is clearly spelled out, and it provides a generally accurate picture of corruption in the countries in question. It doesn't tell the entire story, though no such index really could.

[ChangoLoa]

121. Your guess would perfectly fit into another method of calculation

If you say TI's method doesn't correspond to the real concept of corruption as you define it because it doesn't include state violence and torture, I can understand.

It's true that this is based on bribery, budget accountability, financial legal framework, etc...

[EFerrari]

124. State violence and torture can't exist without profound corruption.

As we here in the US know, too well.

[ChangoLoa]

127. The state violence is way higher in Colombia than in Venezuela ergo

the money corruption in Venezuela can't possibly be higher than in Colombia... Is that your proposition?

[EFerrari]

131. What is it with you people feeding lines to others?

Maybe time for an eye exam.

And the fact of the matter is, they go together. Impunity.

[LiberalLovinLug]

155. Illogical

You say that because previous corruption indexes for Venezuela were poor, and the present day one is poor, that proves that TI is telling the truth.

That's like me saying that W Bush was corrupt and so that means that Obama is just as corrupt.

The previous Venezuelan administrations were so corrupt it could not be ignored, it does not mean that TI is a completely unbiased organization or that they could not be a different organization than when they started. Sounds like they have been infiltrated by right wingers in an attempt to cherry pick and demonize a socialist threat to their influence.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

157. No, what I said was...

since previous corruption indexes gave Venezuela a poor score, the idea that the most current index gives Venezuela a poor score because of the anti-Chavez bias of those involved in creating the index seems a bit ridiculous - especially since the charge is being made with no real counter evidence being presented to show that Chavez has been successful in rooting out corruption in his country.

[Joanne98]

112. Do any leftist's care that Venezuela ia the only country that has met the millennium goals?

Venezuela fully surpassed the development millennium goals

Venezuela fully surpassed the development millennium goals, ratified the vice president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Ramon Carrizales Rengifo, on Wednesday 16th.

During his speech to welcome the 18 new ambassadors to Venezuela, who rendered their letters of accreditation in that occasion, Carrizales commented that the issue of human rights has been a permanent policy for Venezuela's government.

'Human rights of every Venezuelan and Latin American. The truth of all these is on the street,' he said to the diplomats, to whom he confirmed that 'Venezuelan people are proud of their presence, so we expect to strengthen bonds in that seek for a multipolar world.'

Along with the welcoming speech to the 18 ambassadors, Carrizales made a brief assessment about the achievements of the bolivarian revolution, which is in a moment of 'euphoria, in the midst of process of change, in the midst of a revolution,' he said.

He also recalled the political, economic and social progresses of the bolivarian government during its 10 years, and he stressed that Venezuela's Constitution has faculties as the guaranty to freedom.

Likewise, Carrizales remarked the policy of relation among all the countries of the world, no matter the ideology of each nation.

He cleared that, according to that, 'regarding international relations, our country does not use oil as an economic arm, but as an instrument of cooperation, because Venezuela is inside a new scheme of relations with the world.'

The vice president also listed progresses of the revolution as issues like sustainable growth, oil production and the macroeconomic rates.

In 1998, he said, 'there were four outpatient clinics to attend directly the population. Today, that number exceeds 11 thousand.'

Furthermore, he referred to the reduction on the infant and maternal death rate, while school registration 'increased in 320%, as well as people going to college.'

Vice president Carrizales stated that 94% of Venezuelans have access to potable water and electricity.


http://www.export.by/en/?act=news&mode=view&id=2457

It's really a shame that the NGO's are now so corrupt their are helping the rich smear people who help the poor and pay off third world country's debts.

SHAME!

[EFerrari]

113. The actual lefties do. And as we know, meddling by NGO

is an old, old game.

[ChangoLoa]

146. SHAME on our Vice-President for telling lies about the real situation in our education system

The Venezuelan State official statistics institute (INE) tells a very different story about school registration.

Vice-President Carrizales: "...while school registration 'increased in 320%"

This number sounded strange to my ears because I work in that field, so I went to check the INE

http://www.ine.gov.ve/condiciones/educacion.asp

And found that school registration had indeed increased... in 21.4% (public schools) or in 22,3% (all schools)

Preschool registration: public (total)
1998: 613,765 (759,372)
2007: 837,448 (1,047,811)
http://www.ine.gov.ve/condiciones/cuadro_educacion.asp?Tt=227-06&cuadro=Educacion_227_06&xls=22706

1st to 9th year
1998: 3,597,282 (4,367,857)
2007: 4,069,867 (4,984,453)
http://www.ine.gov.ve/condiciones/cuadro_educacion.asp?Tt=227-11&cuadro=Educacion_227_11&xls=22711

Mid, diversified and professional
1998: 251,938 (388,956)
2007: 510,721 (711,305)
http://www.ine.gov.ve/condiciones/cuadro_educacion.asp?Tt=227-19&cuadro=Educacion_227_19&xls=22719

Total
1998: 4,462,985 (5,516,185)
2007: 5,418,036 (6,743,569)


By the way, did you notice that registration increased faster in private schools? This is usually not a good signal concerning the quality and the efficiency of public education policies.

I wonder about the validity of the other numbers he gave...

[bvar22]

116. I always like a good Chavez thread.

It brings out the handful of Ultra Right Wing Propagandists and Colonial Aristocrats that hide out on DU.

The BEST news NOT reported in the USA is the Populist Reforms sweeping across Central and South America. What is happening in Latin America gives me some hope for The World.
The Right Wing Mexican Oligarchs barley managed to steal the last election. They will FAIL in the next one.

The Obama Administration and the US Government is making a HUGE mistake in taking a hostile position against these emerging democratic governments. We should be embracing them with open arms and ALL the positive support possible. Our hostile attitude is closing these markets and chasing them straight to China and Russia.

I pray these Populist Bolivarian reforms migrate to El Norte.....SOON.
WE could use some real democracy here.

[EFerrari]

117. Western civilization -- still a good idea!

:rofl:

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

119. Ah yes, because anyone who disagrees with your assessment is automatically "ultra-Right"

[Dreamer Tatum]

138. It's best to just let the Hugonauts have their way

Since none of them actually live down there, or plan to live down there, or ever mention visiting there, Venezuela is effectively an imaginary place to them. And why shouldn't imaginary places be shining, perfect wonderlands of socialist ideals? Venezuela is the Happy Place for a lot of people who will never see it in person (psst...myself, I've been to Caracas twice)...I say, let 'em. No more anti-Hugo talk from me. It would be like badmouthing Big Bird on Sesame Street.

[Judi Lynn]

139. There's an American lawyer/educator living in Merida right now who posts here,

and she most clearly supports the people's elected President.

[Dreamer Tatum]

140. That's wonderful and credible. nt

[EFerrari]

141. That doesn't speak well of our major universities

none of which are situated in Greece or Rome or England and many of them not in the original thirteen.

Higher education, Big Bird of the mind. :)

[JackRiddler]

150. Those of us who live in the United States bear responsibility for US policy...

including the relentless attack on Venezuela waged in words, policies, and by covert, illegal means. That's our tax money (including the part funneled through NGO fronts via the Boeing corporation, a military contractor) and we are entitled and quasi required to speak up against its abuse in financing every manner of attack on Venezuela.

In a long series of elections the people of VZ have spoken out in support of their present government and its policy of Bolivarian Revolution. These strong majorities live there, don't they? I don't need to live there to know what the election results have been, or how the people reacted to the 2002 Bush-backed coup d'etat attempt, do I? So your argument proceeds from a misrepresentation about what most of the people who "live there" actually think.

[AlphaCentauri]

122. Attention TI-U.S.A.

check this out

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/11/hbc-90006102

[Mudoria]

142. Not surprising

[edwardian]

145. Patently false.

Consider the source and consider the coup in Honduras. For my money, Honduras is the most corrupt country in Latin America and it is a US puppet. Venezuela is virtually transparent in comparison.

[Liberation Angel]

148. kicked to bookmark

[JonQ]

149. Leave Chavez alone!

He's a human being, just leave him alone!

[Bo]

151. Venezuela has become very expensive under Chavez

That is what I know and have seen. And I love the Lenin like billboards of him everywhere you go.
He is everywhere! lolololol What I do not like about the Chavez economic plan is that you cannot get a decent meal anymore in Caracas for under $20 and the drinks are thru the roof.

[Judi Lynn]

160. "Transparency" group debunked over right-wing ties

Tuesday, November 17, 2009
"Transparency" group debunked over right-wing ties

If you come across any report put out by Transparency International, it's as good as a paper airplane or toilet tissue.

TI claims to be an organization to fight government corruption around the world. Ironically, the group's own lack of transparency and attempts to manipulate coverage of itself discredit its claim.

When someone noticed that the Wikipedia entry about TI was virtually identical to the group's own description of itself on its website, a red flag went up. When others attempted to correct this, however, suspicious commenters accused these updates of "smearing" TI.

Although Transparency International claims to oppose corruption, the group was funded by Enron, an energy giant that was the focus of a major accounting scandal in the early 2000s. It was also funded by Boeing while one of Boeing's top execs was imprisoned for corrupt activities.

TI also threatened to sue a German blogger in 2006 unless she removed a blog entry that criticized the group.

TI's Venezuelan bureau is staffed by operatives tied to organizers of a failed right-wing coup against democratically elected President Hugo Chavez. One of these staffers worked for a right-wing think tank that was funded by the Bush regime using American taxpayer dollars. Several personnel from TI's Bosnian branch have been accused of racketeering.

Meanwhile, TI refused to expose corruption in the U.S. government under Bush. TI's laughable Corruption Perceptions Index gave high marks to the Bush regime and has given a very high ranking to the totalitarian dictatorship in Singapore, despite widespread public corruption there.

Even though TI's idiotic blubberings don't square with the facts, the media machine still doesn't seem to have caught on.

http://onlinelunchpail.blogspot.com/2009/11/transparency-group-debunked-over-right.html

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

161. To be fair, TI has publicly talked about this issue

and the case that they're somehow skewing their research to fit the needs of some of the groups who have donated to their cause seems a weak one, more of a case where people think it's best to throw the baby out with the bathwater than a case of concrete evidence of the group being corrupted. Anyway, here's their statement on this very issue from their FAQ:

"TI is partly funded by private sector companies, some of which have in the past even been implicated in high-profile corruption cases. Doesn't this compromise TI's independence?

First, TI alone determines its programmes and activities: no donor has any input into TI's policies. Of course, if donors don't like what TI is doing, donors can withdraw their funding. We publish all the donors' names in our annual report, which is available on our website.TI has a very diverse income structure, and donations from all private sector companies currently account for about two percent of our total budget. There are several companies among those contributing to our budget that have in the past been involved in high-profile corruption cases. TI works within the private sector in an attempt to reduce supply side bribery and it is not TI's aim to condemn companies with a questionable past. The stronger their commitment to a no-bribes future, the better for everyone - but it is their responsibility, and theirs alone, to match their words with appropriate action in every country where their company is doing business.Yet TI works on the understanding that these companies have broken with the practices of the past and that they are working towards a business environment in which bribery is no longer accepted. For a company that has built up a network of "overseas agents", that has come to rely on "good connections", it is difficult to break from these practices overnight. If any corporate donor is accused of having been involved in corruption, they can expect no protection from TI. We would not hesitate in publicly calling on them to come clean. It is their responsibility to live up to their words. This notwithstanding, it is still perfectly legitimate to raise the issue of TI's independence vis-à-vis its contributors. This is why the following question is so crucial. "

http://www.transparency.org/news_room/faq/faq_ti#faqti5

[UTUSN]

162. NO!1 *CAN'T* be!1 n/t

[EFerrari]

163. You're late! ! 1

[UTUSN]

164. *Who* took that pic of us?!1 n/t