Venezuela to spend oil income on social programmes

[Judi Lynn]

Source: IANS/Irish Sun

Venezuela to spend oil income on social programmes
Irish Sun
Saturday 23rd April, 2011
(IANS)



Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has announced that extra income from the country's oil exports will be used for social spending.

Venezuela, South America's biggest oil producer, has been receiving sharply higher income from its oil exports in recent months. Global prices on Venezuelan oil averaged $107 per barrel last week, while the 2011 state budget was balanced with the $40 per barrel benchmark, RIA Novosti reported.

'I have signed a decree that authorises spending additional revenues from oil sales on the implementation of various social programmes for the country's population,' Chavez, who will seek re-election next year, said on national television Friday.

The decree primarily hikes the so-called oil windfall tax, introduced by Chavez in 2008, from 60 percent to 95 percent on revenues from oil prices higher than $100 per barrel, giving Venezuela's socialist leader enough room to conduct populist policies.



Read more: http://story.irishsun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/773148/cs/1/

[bullimiami]

1. Damned Socialist.

[PonyJon]

142. PROFITS TO THE PEOPLE NOT CORPORATIONS, OH YEAH!

Hugo for president in 2012 !

[Judi Lynn]

172. Absolutely right. Welcome to D.U., PonyJon.

:hi:

[patrice]

2. Good! I'll just keep on tolerating the crappy pumps in the Shell station I use. nt

[JackRiddler]

90. Yeah, Shell is so kind to Nigerians and it isn't ruled by a socialist dictator!

[Judi Lynn]

177. You ahbor a President bringing change to a population which was loathed,

and shunned by the oligarchy for so many years, living in shacks, without electricity in many cases, many, many of them never even having been treated by a doctor, or ever having gone to school, or having learned to read, while the racist oligarchs ran the entire country specifically benefiting only themselves?

It's really enough to hack you off, is that right, when their President bends every effort to transform their lives?

Republicans are the ones who look at the poor that way, and there's every reason in the world to despise Republican anality, and deep-seated hostility toward, and complete lack of identity with humanity. They are capable only of living off the labor of the poor, and the profit they make from their patronage at their stores, etc. Complete vicious parasites.

[Forkboy]

3. What a scumbag.

[Zorra]

4. How un-American. nt

[watajob]

117. Really...

... this guy is gonna' give capitalism a bad name. Oh, wait...

[Judi Lynn]

178. Welcome to D.U., watajob. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

5. Venezuela to set up fund

Venezuela to set up fund
Posted on » Saturday, April 23, 2011

CARACAS: Venezuela will set up a fund to distribute windfall revenue from high global oil prices, President Hugo Chavez said, adding that he expected prices to continue rising due to the violence in Libya.

South America's biggest oil producer, which pumps almost three million barrels per day, has enjoyed sharply higher income recently.

It normally underestimates oil prices when making financial plans, and its 2011 budget was based on an assumption that crude would average $40 a barrel this year. US oil futures settled at $112.29 on Thursday, while Brent crude was $123.99.

~snip~
Venezuela's oil sector has been the driving force of Chavez's self-styled socialist "revolution," contributing funds for everything to education, health and sports programmes.

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=304554

[sabrina 1]

9. So the greedy speculators inadvertently

help the people of Venezuela! I'm sure that was never their intention!

Good for Chavez.

I wonder where all the profits being made here are going? :sarcasm:

[Judi Lynn]

10. They'd probably rather have taken poison than to have inadvertently helped the poor! n/t

[sabrina 1]

12. Yes, although the greed is so intense

I imagine they would even risk poison to get their hands on all that oil money.

However, it's a consolation to know that Chavez and Venezuela at least are benefitting from their greed. There is not much else to be happy about watching all of this.

So thanks for the good news, I will view the rising gas prices a little differently now, knowing at least some good is coming from them :-)

[dencol]

130. Profits are being leeched by the idle wealthy....

The wealthy shareholders and lazy oil execs are raiding the corporate coffers. If they weren't, there'd be plenty of money for investments in green energy and job growth.

[Judi Lynn]

179. They are known by their deeds in every country they infest, aren't they? Sheesh. n/t

[FLPanhandle]

6. He may be a totalitarian dictator

However, he has done some good too. I'll call him out on his dictatorial behaviors, but I'll also give him props when he deserves it.

[mysterysoup]

16. He was ELECTED and RE-ELECTED by a huge margin.

So get off the "totalitarian dictator" kick.

[FLPanhandle]

25. So was Castro

He was a dictator too.

[harmonicon]

26. You seem confused about what "dictator" means.

Check out a dictionary. I know that Castro was repeatedly elected, and he also was never a dictator. Just because you've been sold a pack of lies doesn't make it true. In this case, a little buyer's remorse would be justified.

[FLPanhandle]

30. LOL

Castro was never a dictator? Okay, if Castro doesn't meet your definition of a dictator, I can see why Chavez doesn't.

"sold a pack of lies" :rofl: That old gambit. Come on. I can think for myself and just because we disagree doesn't mean either of us is mindlessly believing news that we want to believe.

[harmonicon]

31. Do you have proof that Castro wasn't elected?

Was there ever a case where someone else got more votes but still wasn't seated as president of Cuba?

[tblue37]

43. You do realize, don't you, that HITLER was democratically elected?

A dictator is one who rules by decree (one who dictates), by fiat, rather than being subject to the control of law or other political power centers. It doesn't matter how one gets into power--or how one stays in power. What matters is how one exercises that power and whether other viable power centers are permitted--i.e., whether any controls are in place that can practically (as opposed to merely theoretically) limit the dictators power or remove him from office in a political rather than a violent way.

[KG]

53. hitler was never elected to anything.

common myth. he was appointed Chancellor of Germany by Pres Hindenberg in Jan 1933.

[totodeinhere]

84. But his appointment was constitutionally legal. He did not seize power in a coup. n/t

[KG]

110. never suggested otherwise. but i've heard many people make that claim.

it is rather ironic tho, because as far as i can tell, he never ran for, or was elected to anything.

[DissedByBush]

137. Parliamentary system of government

Hitler's party was elected.

Most of the time a vote for a party is de-facto a vote for a certain person as chancellor, since the voters almost always know who will be chancellor if that party wins.

And after Hitler siezed power they had another election, which his party won 100%.

Many totalitarian governments are technically democracies and regularly hold elections.

Somehow the person in power tends to win with about 100% of the vote with about 100% voter turnout.

Saddam Hussein even had an election before the invasion. Guess what, he won.

[harmonicon]

144. ... and the US military personnel were greeted as liberators... (nt)

[UnrepentantLiberal]

44. Leftists have far more in common with the far-right than they do with

liberal Democrats. Both see only what they want to see and don't much care about the truth.

[harmonicon]

59. this comment is supposed to mean what?

What is a "leftist" compared to a "liberal Democrat"?

[liberation]

64. It is not supposed to mean much

other than some people can make all sorts of false analogies given the freedom to re-define any term they need.

[TBF]

148. The poster means leftist as in socialist or communist -

typical red-baiting.

[harmonicon]

150. but what the hell then is "liberal Democrat" supposed to mean? nt

[TBF]

153. I think in terms of status quo and resistance.

The rest is just word play, and we haven't time for that.

[harmonicon]

156. I know that it was supposed to be some kind of insult or baiting...

but I still wanted it clarified, because it honestly means nothing as it was stated, and these are probably discussions worth having... but I guess that won't happen when the people who bring these things up abandon the discussion.

[TBF]

167. I simply answered from my perspective.

You'll have to find someone else to define "liberal democrat" because I wasn't the person who used the term, and I have no interest in that discussion. I'm not surprised, however, that the person who used it hasn't bothered to respond.

[harmonicon]

168. Oh, I wasn't asking you to define it.

Generally I think terms that deal with political parties (Democratic, etc.) are largely meaningless. Parties are made up of many people, and even their collective platforms can quickly change.

[Judi Lynn]

174. Please provide any honest links you have to substantiate your claim leftists

don' care anything about the truth.

You'd be doing all the leftists here a real favor in pointing out with substance how bogus we all are.

Will be waiting for that evidence you would want to post.

[FLPanhandle]

65. Fine, fine. Castro was fairly elected over and over and over and....

I see you are a "true believer". Think what you want because you obviously won't see the obvious.

[harmonicon]

73. The obvious is what? That facts mean nothing to you?

I ask you to show me evidence that Castro wasn't repeatedly elected, and you come back with this? I guess I'm a "true believer" in that I acknowledge the truth... I guess that makes me nuts? Just because people told you "Castro is a dictator!!" doesn't make it so. Sure, the Cubans have a very different system of government than the US, but a dictatorship it is not.

[reggie the dog]

39. castro became a dictator

when he outlawed the opposition party, castro did not face free open elections, chavez has faced free open elections and is in his last term. he was elected in elections that are more trusworthy (paper ballots, hand counts) than the elections in the usa, chavez just got bad press because he nationalized the oil interests.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

52. Chavez is headed toward becoming a dictator.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/may/12/hugo-chavez-critics-silence-venezuela

-snip-

Under a media law on "social responsibility in radio and television" passed in 2004, broadcasters face fines and even closure if strict rules pertaining to content are not adhered to. The law also requires all media networks to interrupt scheduled programmes if need be, and broadcast political campaigns and national announcements by the president. Last year, accused of breaking regulations, 34 radio stations were ordered off air. The association of radio broadcasters have protested, saying they were punished as they were seen to be critical of the government. Another 120 stations are being investigated and face the threat of being axed. Chávez has said the freed radio frequencies will be awarded "to the people" – perhaps for his new Suddenly Chávez broadcasts, where he appears on radio unannounced and unscheduled – day or night.

[reggie the dog]

56. so the legislature voted a law

which makes propaganda like fox news illegal in venezuela.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

88. So you're in favor of someone deciding for you

what is propaganda? Like I said about leftists...

[reggie the dog]

96. if the democrats had a large enough majority

to pass a law banning outright lies from the news media i would support it. i am all for blocking the message that corporations pass off as news but is really propaganda.

[Judi Lynn]

175. The article you have linked is OPINION, not a news story.

I've been looking for background on the author, can't locate any biographical material, but this response to another of his opinion pieces is very interesting:

An open letter to The Editor,The Guardian,UK by Ira de Silva London, Canada.

I just read the commentary by Nash Colundalur on Sri Lanka. The writers bias is evident in the very first sentence when he states that a bloody civil war followed an oppressive history of the Tamils. He has obviously read only the false propaganda of the LTTE. I will point a few of the falsehoods on which he bases his comments/arguments.

The oppression in Sri Lanka was by the British during their colonial rule where thousands of people, all Sinhalese, were murdered, driven from their homes, all male children killed just so they could subjugate the Sinhalese. This is documented in the British colonial records available to him in London. These records will also provide information that the Tamils were only in the northern Jaffna peninsular when the British arrived which makes the statement that “Sri Lankan Tamils have been living in the northern and eastern areas of the island state since 3 BC”, a figment of his imagination. The Tamils became the favoured people of the British in Sri Lanka, a true example of the world famous British policy of divide and rule. When the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka would not work for the British they imported cheap Tamil labour from South India. I refer him to a transcript by the British governor in his own handwriting which is available in the Public Records Office dated March 14,1880 – “my suggestion to your Excellency is to look to South Indian Labour. They come to us from a condition of poverty. They are often lowly in their caste system too. In a foreign land they will serve us well”. Please note – FOREIGN LAND. The British did not take these Tamil British citizens with them when they left in 1948. They remained in a “foreign land” namely Sri Lanka.

~snip~
He states” patriotism is riding high in the Sri Lankan diaspora in the UK with 99.33 % of them in favour of an independent state”. It is NOT the Sri Lankan diaspora in the U.K. that voted in these elections but the Tamil LTTE supporters in the U.K. If they are British citizens and want an independent state they can vote for it in Britain. They have no vote in Sri Lanka. The people of Sri Lanka have just voted in a general election and the Government of Sri Lanka I hope will listen to it’s people as the voters of Sri Lanka have rejected the LTTE and the political party that represented the LTTE. If it is argued that the Sri Lankan diaspora in the U.K. have ”rights” in Sri Lanka, then Sri Lankans should have the same right to vote on British policies. Do they? Please let the people of Sri Lanka know immediately so they can vote in your up-coming general election.

There are many other falsehoods and illustrations of the writers bias and ignorance of Sri Lanka but I believe that the above examples will suffice. If he wants to write on Sri Lanka, I suggest that he at least check British records for the period pre-1948 as well as post 1948 and not depend solely on LTTE propaganda.

http://sinhale.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/sri-lanka-%E2%80%93-must-listen-to-it%E2%80%99s-people/

Here's a YouTube video of him reading to a group of spellbound people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nyMZERygxw

[bloomington-lib]

87. "chavez just got bad press because he nationalized the oil interests"

I can't speak for anyone else but his bad press mainly came from acting like a paranoid idiot and buddying up to Ahmadinejad. At least for me.

[reggie the dog]

94. perhaps he is parinoid

because of the US led coup against him?

[classysassy]

127. Outlawing outlaws

It would be nice if we could outlaw the lawless republican party in this country.

[dotymed]

48. FLP, every time there is a Chavez post.

you go ape-shit trying to convince everyone he is a dictator. Bullshit, He is less of a dictator,and the verifiable elections in Venezuela prove it, than any president we have had any decades. rabid...

[FLPanhandle]

67. Really? "Ape-shit"?

Love to see an "apeshit" post example. I guess any dissenting view of the worshiper position is now "apeshit" :rofl:

[harmonicon]

74. try looking at these:

every single one of your posts in this thread where you make statements which you are not able to back up with any credible external evidence.

[FLPanhandle]

77. Ah yes.

Saying "good job Chavez" for funding Social programs is now "ape shit".

As for being a dictator, if George Bush had term limits abolished, shut down opposition news, had decree powers granted to him just before his party lost some seats in Congress, then you'd call him a dictator too. Chavez does it and you swoon.

[harmonicon]

79. many people on this thread have explained these things to you already...

I'm not going to repeat the facts again here.

[Forkboy]

83. You don't even listen to what people say.

:shrug:

[bitchkitty]

78. Dissenting view?

Exactly what is your view? You don't have one, at least not one that you can support with facts and sources - just more of the same old "he's a dictator' shit.

[dotymed]

86. Yep, Calling a President who has been elected by a verifiable

landslide (much higher percentage than any American President), and then kidnapped in an American backed coup and forced to go through another election (where he was again elected in a landslide) an "Authoritarian Dictator"... I think that is "apeshit."
And the "worshiping" part...apeshit. However, I do greatly admire the man and his accomplishments. I wish that America would elect such a leader. FDR was close and he wanted to enact a "second bill of rights" which would have been great for America and a lot closer to a Chavez "for the people" government. I don't care if you call it Socialism as long as it is for the majority not the minority of elites. That IS what America is SUPPOSED to be about. At least Latin America got it right.

[Judi Lynn]

208. It's an amusing, commonly used word, recognized and honored by U.S. citizens, normally.

No doubt you have amusing words on your planet, too.

[reggie the dog]

38. except that the united nations election monitors

say that elections in cuba are one party whereas elections in venezeula actually involve a true opposition party.

[harmonicon]

60. and the number of parties matters how?

The US only effectively has two parties. Right now, Britain sort of has three. Do we have only 2/3 the democracy of Britain because we have one less party?

[reggie the dog]

97. are you making the argument that a one party system

can be representive of the people?

[harmonicon]

101. I'm saying that it can be as much as a two party system can.

The people of Cuba still get many chances to vote for who will represent them in government. I think that a one party system can be as representative of the people if those in that party actually work for the people. How many in our two parties actually represent those who vote for them? I think what matters far more than the number of parties - or even if there are parties - is how a government is set up, the amount of transparency a government has, and the extent to which citizens can change that government. Of course I don't think Cuba is doing everything correctly, but I can't say that I think any democracy is.

[joshcryer]

118. The people of Cuba have no say over who will represent them.

The Candidate Commissions chose who they vote for, so in effect they are voting for ... people already picked.

[harmonicon]

120. that's a bit of an exaggeration

If there people didn't have a voice, voter turn out wouldn't be so high. There is direct involvement at the municipal level, and a huge number of people from many parts of the population form those candidate commissions. If effect, anyone can run for office, and none have to be members of the Communist Party. One could say that the people of the US don't get to vote for president, because the president is voted in by the electoral college, which is comprised of people picked by the major political parties.

[joshcryer]

123. No one can run for office that is not vetted by a Candidate Commission.

And in Bush vs. Gore you are exactly correct, and it is a shame that the United States did not have a constitutional convention over that matter (Gore could've done it, but decided not to run a second government and effectively start a second civil war). Fortunately it tends not to work out that way, as iffy as the electoral college is.

In any event, you have to understand the Candidate Commissions, they're Trotskist-Party-Symbols, and the people doing the vetting are highly entrenched in the system. I assure you that no public joe can run for office in Cuba. The Valera Project proposed to allow citizens to select their candidates by vote, everyone is eligible. 75 "dissidents" were put in to jail for advocating it too loudly.

In Venezuela, Chavez' government, the electoral commission, denied 700+ candidates for running for office. It's a similar thing there, only it's more corrupt in that it's not enshrined in law that one can just arbitrarily deny someone a candidacy. They just ... did it.

Now, when Katherine Harris denies voter rolls, I'm supposed to be outraged (and by fucking god I am), but when Chavez or Castro does similarly undemocratic things, I am supposed to roll over and suck it up and accept it as "their way of life." :puke:

[tiny elvis]

129. did not just do it

2011
http://democraciaenjuego.org/en/?p=1441

Leopoldo López, former mayor of the Chacao district in Caracas, presented his case this week against the Venezuelan government, which has declared him ineligible for public office until 2014. López is one of 800 public functionaries who have lost the right to run for public office due to allegations of misuse of public funds. Candidates’ ineligibility is decided administratively, rather than by the courts. Spanish daily El País reports that 89 percent of the candidates who have lost the right to run for office belong to the political opposition.

2008
http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/3570?quicktabs_2=2

Leopoldo López, the opposition Mayor of Chacao, who has been prohibited from standing as a candidate for Mayor of the Capital District due to a series of presumed administrative irregularities during his term as mayor as well as earlier charges relating to when he was a state employee, argued that the ban constituted a “political blockade.”
...
While he recognized that the Comptroller General’s Office can implement administrative sanctions for acts of corruption, López argued that the right to be elected could only be withdrawn as a result of a civil or criminal trial.

López, a signatory to the infamous “Carmona Decree” which dissolved all public powers, including the Supreme Court and the National Assembly during the short-lived April 2002 military coup against the Chavez government, is also being investigated for misuse of municipal resources in support of a group of rebel military officers who camped out in Altamira Plaza (in Chacao municipality) for more than a year after the coup, from November 2002, and who were linked to a string of bomb attacks and apparently politically motivated murders in Venezuela during 2003.

cartoonishly simple, 'they just did it' is a high caliber accusation of lawless dictat
complicated political situations in venezuela would indicate that its system cannot be such
http://www.news957.com/news/world/article/153119--opposition-candidate-wins-mayor-s-race-in-venezuela-s-second-largest-city-maracaibo

[joshcryer]

157. Yes, they did "just do it." It was never tested in court, IACHR deemed it illegal and blacklisted...

...Venezuela. They did "just do it" because they decided they had the administrative right to ban people from the voter rolls. Just as Katherine Harris thought she had the administrative right to ban people from voting. Ironic how Florida and Venezuela politics are so similar. Corruption to the core.

[harmonicon]

143. I'm not saying that you or I should agree with the Cuban system,

but to make it out as being undemocratic seems to be a stretch. Many Democracies have different ways of selecting who is eligible to run for office, and how the voting is carried out. As you rightly point out, the US has done some seriously fucked up shit within our democracy. This doesn't make it ok for other countries to do the same, but I think it should serve as an illustration of the fact that there can be different types of democracy flawed in different ways.

[joshcryer]

158. Yes, but when the US does undemocratic things, there are people like you or me...

...who announce loudly that they did undemocratic things. And we tend to go unscathed.

In Cuba you wind up in jail for doing that same thing.

For 15+ years.

[harmonicon]

160. Care to cite some sources for that?

I mean, others than right-wing propaganda. In any case, the knife cuts both ways. They take very seriously people acting against their constitution and trying to undermine their form of government, where as here we have Glenn Beck and the like inciting people to attempt terrorism and assassination with no consequences.

[joshcryer]

162. Read about the Black Spring.

It went unreported because the Cuban government timed it with the Iraq War. 75 "dissidents" were arrested for being "too vocal" about a project to allow citizens to chose their candidates.

Wikipedia may be good enough for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Spring_(Cuba)

Many members of the Valera Project were arrested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varela_Project

They make up "people acting against their constitution and trying to undermine their form of government." Indeed, this "call" is nothing more than an act of apologists for authoritarianism.

In the United States I can be a socialist, communist, even an anarchist (otherwise known as a libertarian socialist) as long as I don't call for violent overthrow. None of the protesters in the Black Spring were violent nor did they ever call for violence.

[harmonicon]

164. The Varela Project I knew about

It seems to fall into a painfully grey area. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it was largely funded by American sources, and if that's the case, their government was right to shut it down. I'd heard of the Ladies in White, but didn't know the arrests they were protesting had all gone down in one sweep. Yeah... seems like they were political prisoners, and they have all since been released.

The line between steadfastly enforcing law and authoritarianism is also unfortunately grey. I don't know what to say about that... regardless, I don't think any of this refutes the main case I've been trying to make, which is that Cuba is a democracy, as much as the US is. It is also a flawed democracy, and it's not that I think their system is better or worse than ours, but I think it's more constructive to deal with it as it is than to label it "totalitarianism" or a "dictatorship", because neither does that shed light on how it operates nor does it give room for debating real paths to reform.

As for being a socialist, etc., yeah, I'm with you there. I'm happy to call myself an anarchist (though I reject the idea of that meaning "libertarian socialist"), and I certainly wouldn't call for the violent overthrow of any government. There are people like this in Cuba as well.

fuck... I don't know where to go with this. I don't think Cuba is perfect by any means, and I don't think them keeping political prisoners is ok. However, they've also suspended their death penalty, where as the US government is still killing prisoners. Both countries are totally fucked up, just in different ways. Despite this, I think we'd be a lot better off trying to respect one another than throwing stones. Around here (and from many in the US), I see a lot more people eager to throw stones than to even try to understand the other and give them respect for what they are.

[Judi Lynn]

165. IF you haven't seen this yet, written by a former CIA guy, it may help, if you take the time:

Former CIA agent tells: How US infiltrates "civil society" to overthrow governments

BY PHILIP AGEE

08/03/03: Condemnation of Cuba was immediate, strong and practically global following the imprisonment of 75 political “dissidents” and the execution of three ferry hijackers. Prominent among the critics were past friends of Cuba of recognised international stature. As I read the hundreds of denunciations that came through my mail, it was easy to see how enemies of the revolution had seized on those issues to condemn Cuba for violations of human rights. They had a field day.

Deliberate or careless confusion between the political dissidents and the hijackers, two entirely unrelated matters, was also easy because the events happened at the same time. A Vatican publication went so far as to describe the hijackers as dissidents when in fact they were terrorists. But others of good faith toward Cuba also jumped on the bandwagon of condemnation treating the two issues as one.

With respect to the imprisonment of 75 “civil society activists”, the main victim has been history, for these people were central to US government efforts to overthrow the Cuban government and destroy the work of the revolution.

Indeed, “regime change”, as overthrowing governments has come to be known, has been the continuing US goal in Cuba since the earliest days of the revolutionary government. Programs to achieve this goal have included propaganda to denigrate the revolution, diplomatic and commercial isolation, trade embargo, terrorism and military support to counter-revolutionaries, the Bay of Pigs invasion, assassination plots against Fidel Castro and other Cuban leaders, biological and chemical warfare, and, more recently, efforts to foment an internal political opposition masquerading as an independent civil society.

More:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4332.htm

~~~~~
Baffling, isn't it, how a thread concerning Venezuela ended up with a non-stop yammerfest focusing on Cuba, working from a base in complete disinformation?

[harmonicon]

166. It's not baffling.

It's the result of a semi-successful troll. The right wing trolling successfully derailed any discussion of the Venezuelan budgeting and taxes which would have made for an interesting discussion, but turned it into this. I could just put some people on ignore, but I think - at least in this case - it's far better to make a case based on facts that others can read, and in some ways it's led to some interesting discussions, and I imagine people have enjoyed it.

[Judi Lynn]

171. It's true providing some checkable facts gives the ones whose character demands answers

a foundation for searches which will lead them to even more material they need to see until they are well on their way to seeing through the veil of pure crappola which has been spun to delude citizens whose tax dollars are used to wage war against democracy througout the Americas.

[joshcryer]

190. Everything I said is factual, and checkable.

It is true that Venezuela arbitrarily took 700+ people out of the running. Venezuela's democracy index rates it 96. Cuba is ranked an appalling 121: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

[harmonicon]

194. I don't think an "index" put together by a for profit company...

should really be trusted in this regard. The Economist doesn't approve of Communism? NO WAY!

[joshcryer]

195. I'm fully open to other indexes...

...but strangely, the left leaning NGOs rarely compile that data, and when they do... they're denounced for being shills for the US government. :shrug:

[harmonicon]

196. Still, with no real way to substantiate...

this idea that Cuba is not a democracy - despite what their populace and government would claim - you must hold onto this claim? I don't know you personally, and have no interest in personal attacks, but what is it that you find so reprehensible about the fact that they have their own kind of democracy supported by their people? I just don't understand this position.

[joshcryer]

197. By saying it is a democracy, you are watering down the term.

Democracy implies choice, at least on some level in the process. In some parliamentary systems you at the bare minimum can pick who picks the higher heads of state (Prime Ministers are selected by directly elected officials, etc). Now I only, truly, advocate direct democracy, one vote, one choice (this is said to be impossible, but this thread isn't for that discussion). The Cubans as a whole do not have a choice anywhere in the process, it is the elected officials at the top who have that choice.

Let's assume you're right, Cuba is a democracy.

Is Soviet Russia a democracy?

[harmonicon]

198. The USSR doesn't exist anymore, and we're not discussing that.

There's plenty of information available online about the make up of the Cuban government. The Cubans most certainly do vote for who represents them in their government. If you want to entertain some conspiracy theory about their votes being ignored, be my guest. This doesn't change the fact that they do vote for their government. Why does their voting not matter to you? Yes, they have a different system than the US, which is different from the UK, which is different from France, etc. Which one of these is the metric? Since they're all different, is any one of them more or less a democracy than another, or are they simply different examples of democracy?

[joshcryer]

200. The USSR is completely relevant, today, and forever. It shows how not to do socialism.

Cuban Ballot:
Politician for position 1: Yes / No
Politician for position 2: Yes / No
Politician for position 3: Yes / No
Politician for position 4: Yes / No
Politician for position 5: Yes / No

A democratic ballot in Australia:
Politician 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for position 1: Order of preference 1-5
Politician 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 for position 2: Order of preference 1-5
Politician 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 for position 3: Order of preference 1-5
Politician 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 for position 4: Order of preference 1-5
Politician 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 for position 5: Order of preference 1-5

A democratic ballot in the United States:
Politician 1, 2, (3) for position 1: Majority vote wins, but sometimes there are runoffs.
Politician 4, 5, (6) for position 2: Majority vote wins, but sometimes there are runoffs.
Politician 7, 8, (9) for position 3: Majority vote wins, but sometimes there are runoffs.
Politician 10, 11, (12) for position 4: Majority vote wins, but sometimes there are runoffs.
Politician 13, 14, (15) for position 5: Majority vote wins, but sometimes there are runoffs.

Given these examples we can see how Cuba gives us 5 choices whereas AU gives us 25 and the US gives us as many as 15, possibly more (assuming you can get on the ballot, unfortunately "independent" and "Libertarian" are apparently the only ones who have a shot at it). This is completely ignoring, of course, the running aspect of the vote, because in Cuba you simply cannot run for a position without Candidacy Commission vetting, which is nearly impossible for the vast majority. That's half of the political process in all credible democracies.

The USSR is important because Cuba has implemented USSR-like policies. Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. In this vein you are ignoring that before Perestroika Russia's voting was exactly like that of Cuba. Candidates were chosen, and they always got 80%+ of the vote. Why? Why the heck not? If you voted no for all of the candidates picked, they'd just ... pick someone else to replace them who was just as "revolutionary" and, effectively, a pawn. With Perestroika (in Russia, remember, history), when the people were allowed to pick their candidates the results were stunning, shocking even to the ruling communist party at the time. And which ultimately led to the Soviet Union being dissolved. Pow. Bam.

Hilariously, Cuba is finally implementing Perestroika-like policies, with their new position on "private property." Once they allow some form of democracy that doesn't put the power in so few hands, they will have come full circle to being just like ... Russia. Only difference being is that Castro, unlike Stalin, prefers exile to execution (nearly a tenth of the entire population of Cuba has become exiled during his reign).

[harmonicon]

201. Do you not realize how massively different these things are in scale?

Cuba is one small-ish island with a population of about 11 million with a largely uniform culture (despite the people coming from numerous historical backgrounds), where as the USSR was a massive multi-continent empire made up of many different regions and countries brought together over decades (sometimes through illegal occupation, as in the case of the Baltic states). Far more than a representation of the failure of socialism, the failure of the USSR is one of many historical examples of the failure of empire, and in that sense, is far more relevant to the US than it is to Cuba (hint: it's not Cuba which is now trying to occupy and pacify Afghanistan for economic and political/strategic reasons). ... but this is beside the point, and off topic.

You are cherry picking your example ballots. You mention that in some (really very few) ballots in the US, there are sometimes runoffs, but you choose to present the ballot one level down from that to compare to a Cuban ballot which has also been narrowed to a final version by means of earlier votes and selection procedures (and, yes, the US and many other countries have numerous rules, laws, and hurdles before someone can be on a ballot).

If your contention really is that more choices at a single point in time = more freedom/democracy, why do you not then argue that Australia is a democracy and the US is not, if you are willing to use that reasoning to say that the US is but Cuba is not? Furthermore, Cuba has a lower voting age. Does this mean they have more democracy? Is democracy being denied in the US and Australia because of the difference in the eligible voting age, or is it simply yet another example of different countries having different cultures, customs, and laws?

To say that a certain percentage of the Cuban population is "exiled" is purposefully loaded speech. Sure, a hell of a lot of the upper crust got the fuck out when they learned that their free criminal ride was over. In the US we simply let them move their assets to tax havens and continue to swindle the rest of the populace. More importantly, with Cuba you are dealing with a small island nation. Do you know what the percentage of the populations of New Zealand and Ireland living overseas is? It's high, and neither of those countries have had to suffer the misfortune of the most powerful empire on earth persecuting them for the original sin of being born somewhere run by a government which kicked that empire out and told it to fuck itself.

However, thinking about this, I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you, despite all of the facts that can be presented. By bringing up what you imagine to be the "failure" of socialism, I'm guessing that what really bothers you is that Cuba is a communist country, and you simply can't deal with the fact that there is a prosperous, free, democratic country which has chosen communism as their best path forward in life. If you want to argue about socialism and communism, do it somewhere else. It is entirely unrelated to the case that I've been trying to make.

[joshcryer]

203. That's what's even more apalling about it.

Cuba is a small state that by all accounts could've transitioned into a Third Revolution phase decades ago, and could've been laughing at the rest of the world while it implemented truly liberating policies, instead it held on to autocratic Marxist policies, and is beginning to embrace private property after banning it for so many years.

That said, the Cuban ballot I presented has not been "narrowed down by means of earlier votes and selection procedures." It was "narrowed down" by selection committees, candidate commissions, which vet candidates for the purpose of election. The population has little say in such matters. In the United States and Australia, the candidates are narrowed down by the people at large, and you have some power over the selection of candidates, even if it's party-based.

Many Cuban's who are exiled are indeed upper class, because they can afford to get out (and in some cases have the connections to get a visa to leave), but there have been mass exoduses before, see the "Mariel boatlift" and the "Wet feet, dry feet policy." The reason that I include these people is because once they leave without permission they may never return to Cuba. Anyone who leaves is instantaneously exiled. Period. So while, perhaps, 200k exiles were rich Batista lover or other elites in the Cuban society, the other 800k+ are mere workers or people trying to acquire freedom for themselves.

Almost 125,000 people bailed on their wonderful Cuba during the Mariel boatlift. And around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States">16k Cubans come to the United States each year. Cuba ranks 6th on the top 10 countries which migrate their people to the US.

There's a reason Cuba made having a boat illegal. A boat means freedom.

[harmonicon]

204. Ok, we're way off topic, and/or just spinning wheels now, so I'll make this my last post on this.

You're right, Cuba "could've" done a lot of things, but they didn't. Why? Because it has been there choice to make their own path in the world. It's clear that you don't like communism and are all for private property, but that has nothing to do with democracy. For the record, I do disagree with you. I think private property is inherently an impossibility (feelings, thoughts, etc. are private; not objects) and nothing but a ruse to play power politics. As I've said, I'm an anarchist - I know that most people won't agree with me, and that's fine, but it's also not what were were discussing here.

You act as if candidate commissions were some sort of deus ex machina and not actually made up of a huge number of Cuban citizens. At this same time, you'll accept that other countries are free to make their own laws about who can run for office, and make rules about how people are put on ballots, but it's only the communist Cuba that you have a problem with doing this.

Of course more Cubans than people from many other countries come to the US. They're given instant residency and then live without working off of the US tax payer. Maybe they're just lazy selfish pricks who didn't want to work for a living. In that case, they belong in America which is largely made up of their kind. People from other countries don't get such benefits. I live legally in the UK as a foreigner, but one of the conditions of my current visa is that I can't collect government benefits. If you can tell me of some country that has a "wet feet, dry feet" policy for Americans and will give me instant well fare for turning up, I'll head off tomorrow.

You know that this is a lie: "Anyone who leaves is instantaneously exiled". Ok, if you don't know it's a lie, you should, and if you do know, do you think I'm that stupid? Many Cubans live and work in other countries legally. Do you understand that Cubans working for Doctors Without Borders operate in the US, giving medical care to US citizens our government has abandoned?

Yep. Cuba made having a boat illegal. They do no fishing, have no harbors apart from navy harbors, etc. Sure thing. Did you also know that Castro has horns and that Communism is the equivalent of Satanism?! True!!

It's more and more clear to me that you simply resent Cuba (who, by the way, do laugh at the US. Why wouldn't they? They have universal healthcare and education.) for being a successful communist country, and have no interest at all in discussing democracy. I don't know what it is about your world view that keeps you from thinking that free people could ever choose to live in a communist country, but that's for you to sort out.

The next time we have a discussion on here, I'd rather you just be honest from the start and lay your cards on the table. I'm happy to do the same.

[joshcryer]

205. It appears that you love to make things personal with people.

I will avoid doing so any further with you, of course, since that is hardly a tactic I think is reasonable or even coherent. I am against private property, and I am an anti-capitalist. I consider Cuba capitalist and I consider the moves they're making to be corporate friendly. They are going to become the epitome of capitalism, like China and Russia.

Candidate Commissions cannot be represented by the Cuban people since the party politics make up less than 10% of the population. Basically it is one group controlling the entirety of Cuban politics with no hope whatsoever of ever being part of it.

With regards to the exile comment, your selective quoting is really disturbing. The actual quote is "leave without permission." It remains factual that this is the case, if they leave without permission, they are banned for life.

As far as having a boat, yes, it is absolutely true. In the United States I can go right now and build a boat without any license, or anything of that sort. Now, to ride that boat in public waters, I do need things like licenses and certifications, but those are granted to me if I simply past a knowledge test (not a "revolutionary reliability" test). In Cuba the very act of building a boat, even for personal use, is completely illegal, only boat builders may build a boat, I cannot even do it for a hobby. If I do I will be jailed for breaking the decree.

It is clear to me that you don't represent anarchist ideas, because I know of few modern anarchists who would actually agree with Castro's policies, on any level. It is lamentable that in the end Cuba, a state which could've been great (and yes I drank the koolaid once upon a time), is nothing more than a reflection of other Stalinist practices. Ahh, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin, why did you fuck it up so much?

[harmonicon]

206. I haven't once said I agree with Castro's policies.

All I've wanted to discuss is whether or not their is some litmus test for what makes a country a "democracy", and it's turned into this unrelated tangent. I think there are great things about Cuba, and Switzerland, and the US, and on and on and on, but I didn't want that to be the point of the discussion. We're clearly not going to come to an agreement on this, though it's opened up a lot of other things for us to discuss (whether or not there are, can/should be modern anarchist ideas, for one) in another forum. I think we should do that when it comes up, but not here. Clearly, neither of us is going to sway the other's opinion on the issue at hand.

[Judi Lynn]

207. I had something to add after seeing your post, didn't read anything by the other poster,

but could see from the context someone attempted to imply dire things befall those Cubans who dare return to Cuba. Nothing could be sillier. I was very glad to see your response, wanted to add a few things I had discovered, as well.

If you do any research on Elian Gonzalez, the child who was the victim of that slimy stupid throng of violent jerks in Miami, kept from returning to his only close living relatives, his father, brother, step-mother, four grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, neighbors, schoolmates, you'll learn the drunken looser great-granduncle, Lazaro Gonzalez had met the child earlier in Cuba, when he had made trips there to crash at his house while he fished during the days, spent the nights in the bars, and crashed in Juan Miguel Gonzalez' (the father) bedroom while the father slept graciously in his own car!

Once you start hearing about the people who move back and forth between the two countries you are awakened with amazement to the fact you've been fed a steady diet of lies for a very long time to prompt you to believe Cubans will be harmed or imprisoned if they ever show up in Cuba again. So damned stupid!

Here's a small passage from a book by former New York Times reporter and author, Ann Louise Bardach, on the subject:

In Cuba, one used to be either a In Cuba, one used to be either a revolucionario or a contrarevolucionario, while those who decided to leave were gusanos (worms) or escoria (scum). In Miami, the rhetoric has also been harsh. Exiles who do not endorse a confrontational policy with Cuba, seeking instead a negotiated settlement, have often been excoriated as traidores (traitors) and sometimes espías (spies). Cubans, notably cultural stars, who visit Miami but choose to return to their homeland have been routinely denounced. One either defects or is repudiated.

But there has been a slow but steady shift in the last decade-a nod to the clear majority of Cubans en exilio and on the island who crave family reunification. Since 1978, more than one million airline tickets have been sold for flights from Miami to Havana. Faced with the brisk and continuous traffic between Miami and Havana, hard-liners on both sides have opted to deny the new reality. Anomalies such as the phenomenon of reverse balseros, Cubans who, unable to adapt to the pressures and bustle of entrepreneurial Miami, return to the island, or gusañeros, expatriots who send a portion of their earnings home in exchange for unfettered travel back and forth to Cuba (the term is a curious Cuban hybrid of gusano and compañero, or comrade), are unacknowledged by both sides, as are those who live in semi-exilio, returning home to Cuba for long holidays.

Page XVIII
Preface
Cuba Confidential
Love and Vengeance
In Miami and Havana

Copyright© 2002 by
Ann Louise Bardach

As an afterthought, wanted to mention I've participated in three message boards which were visited obsessively by Miami right-wing reactionary "exiles" or their progeny. They appeared to believe they had the upper hand on those boards, were well known because of their unusually belligerant, confrontational positions toward other posters.

One of them who still posts at the Miami Herald message board, if she hasn't keeled over yet, user-name Marianao, related to her younger friend that her own sister from Cuba was just completing a stay with her, a vacation, and was returning to Cuba.

I have heard from non-Cuban people who live in Miami that it's common knowledge among a lot of citizens that they get visits from their relatives, etc. They just don't care to publicize it, apparently, as it contradicts their bogus public stance on Cuba and the way Cubans there are living.

Didn't read too much of the thread, time being a problem, but certainly appreciated the comments you made.

[joshcryer]

209. Your post does not invalidate what I have said.

See the case of Amir Valle or Fernando Delgado Duran. The exceptions are clearly those with vast amounts of money to spend in Cuba, who have connections. Your post is not representative of the tens of thousands of Cuban's who escape yearly.

Yes, some Cubans can get exit permits to visit the United States. Yes some Cubans can return to Cuba without fear of their exit permit being revoked.

And some Americans can afford multi-million dollar houses.

[harmonicon]

210. It's certainly an odd situation.

I'm always really weirded out when there is news about special regulations being passed for Cuban-Americans and contact with the country. It makes it clear that our government has a very odd double standard when it comes to dealing with that country. Eventually the travel and monetary restrictions will be lifted for everyone, and I hope it doesn't completely destroy things in Cuba that are good right now - I mean, all of the American money that will pour in from tourism. When eastern Europe opened up, a lot of things changed. Mostly for the better, but a lot was lost as well

I have friends and family who have been to Cuba, but have never been myself. Have you? It's a place I'd like to visit, but I don't ever really have the money to take a vacation somewhere like that.

[Judi Lynn]

211. Haven't been there, know people in my area who have. There are also quite a few DU'ers

who've been, some of them multiple travellers, some with intimate contact with the island and the people from one end to the other, in cars, on foot, on bicycles, etc.

A Canadian DU'er once told us that in talking with European and other Canadians in Cuba, they agreed they all dread the day the US Americans storm the place, as they LOVE going to Cuba exactly as it is, and they do fear what will happen to it if unlimited travel from the US descends upon a wonderful place and completely ruins it.

Around 2000, after Hurricane Michelle wiped out Cuba's stored food supplies, and the US Congress arranged a very narrow window through which very limited food trade could be arranged with Cuba so they could get food to the people, many people started envisioning increasing contact with Cuba, since the door had been opened slightly.

I read in a paper from Florida at the time that Tampa was reworking its capacity to handle more sea traffic from Cuba, and there was talk that eventually they intended to get a ferry service going from Tampa to Cuba. I have heard that plan being discussed again recently on the internetS.

Also started hearing Corpus Christi and other towns on the Gulf in Texas were keeping a close eye on the time they could start shipping to Cuba. This all started in 2000, but had to go on hold when _{George W Bush} seized control for 8 years, and severely cut back all contact with Cuba immediately.

You might enjoy going to "images" in a search engine, looking for a map of Cuba, picking a city, like Santiago de Cuba, etc., then doing a search for images from the town. Very interesting photos to be discovered, some from the personal collections of tourists from all over the world who've visited Cuba.

As soon as an adult President starts pushing Congress to move on Cuba, and Democrats get a good majority again, it seems inevitable that day will come for US citizens to finally see Cuba. For those who've been circulating crap about the place all these years, there's going to be a vast amount of embarrassment, as they never expected they would be caught in their filthy lies by the U.S. public.

[harmonicon]

212. The photos I've seen are great.

My brother is a lawyer and did a summer course on international all at the University of Havana. They lived in the dorms and had a guide who was a student from there. They got to travel to several places around the island and met a lot of locals.... must have been a great time. I think that was about 10 years ago, so I'm sure many things have already changed since then. My friends from the UK who go there are musicians and go to work with other musicians from the island, and they love it there. However, I don't really know anyone who's been just as a tourist. While I imagine that's nice, I'm sure those areas are quite different from the places where people actually live. In any case, you're right. Once people see the truth, they'll either be blown away, or they'll simply live in denial. I really do think that the travel restrictions to Cuba aren't so much to punish the Cubans by denying them US funds, but to keep Americans from seeing that it's a real country populated by real people.

[joshcryer]

213. LOL, sounds about right, yuppies dreading the embargo lift...

...legalized prostitution will be a huge draw for some Americans, for example. Oh yeah, they might even build a few fucking Casinos.

[Judi Lynn]

214. Cuba doesn't have legalized prostitution. They will also never build casinos there.

The Cuban people tore down the casinos and burned the machines, furniture in the street.

Didn't you know? They HATED what had happened there.

[joshcryer]

191. I don't know if the original detraction was a troll, but I was merely responding to your...

...misinformed position.

Sorry, but Cuba is not a democracy by any sane definition of the word.

Recently there was a post here about Cuba allowing the "younger generation" to run things.

If it was a democracy you'd expect the "younger generation" to already be running things.

There was apologetics for Cuba not having younger people running things.

[harmonicon]

193. I wasn't accusing you of trolling at all.

However, are you saying that the majority of Cuban people are not sane?! They live in a democracy and regularly participate in that democracy in a far greater percentage than people in the US do (and they have a lower voting age).

Fidel Castro wasn't so old when he led a people's revolution against a corrupt regime. If the citizens which he played no small role in securing the liberation of care to continue to trust him, his associates, and their policies which have led them out of poverty into a world with zero illiteracy, universal higher education, and fantastic healthcare, that's their choice.

[joshcryer]

188. Are you accusing people discussing Cuba here of being infiltrators?

You did not address anything I said, you just threw out the innuendo.

[joshcryer]

189. Oswaldo Payá started it, and he is extremely clean, he takes no money from outside sources...

...and stays away from even the appearance of being "connected" to outside sources. He is the cleanest of all Cuban dissidents. So please don't believe the dishonest insinuations that somehow magically the project was started by outside sources.

I think if you do not have a mechanism for a peoples democracy, you do not have democracy. In Soviet Russia Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin all made waves to suppress democracy, because democracy is too volatile, it allows for way too much change in too short a period of time. We went from African Americans not being able to vote (pre-Voting Rights Act, 1965) to being able to be President in less than 50 years. In Russia we saw workers consciously, purposefully, wanting to have democratic institutions, but the "Party" would not allow it, because the Dictatorship was more important. And when they tried to implement it? Why, Trotsky and Lenin blamed outside "imperialist forces" and squashed anyone who wanted it. See the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_uprisings_against_the_Bolsheviks">Third Russian Revolution.

The current implementation of pure socialism or communism today is fascist and no different from capitalism.

[harmonicon]

192. again, I think this is apples and oranges.

I'm trying to have a discussion here, but in your last sentence, you're just not making any sense. You know full well that communism, socialism, fascism, and capitalism are totally different things. As for any of these being "pure" in any instance, I don't think we've ever seen it. ... further, this discussion has nothing to do with Russian/Soviet history.

It's curious that you bring up the voting rights act, because it does highlight the fact that Cubans of all races had equal rights before Americans did. At what point then would you say that the US was a democracy? Not before 1965? These countries have different types of democracy. The Cuban government considers itself to be a democracy, and the vast majority of Cubans approve of their system of government and also consider it to be a democracy. So, who is it who can determine when a democracy is a democracy?

I've lived in enough different places and met enough people from all over the world to think that it's best to deal with these things on their terms than to refuse to do that and measure everything against one completely arbitrary metric.

[eridani]

124. If it has more than one faction that has real political power, yes n/t

[reggie the dog]

126. you hit the nail on the head when you say "real political power"

[Ken Burch]

93. Chavez has been elected in MULTI-PARTY elections

That's different from Fidel.

And you can't entirely blame Fidel for distrusting "democracy"-given that, for most of his era, elections in Latin America were almost always won by the party the U.S. backed(or nullified through military coups if someone else won).

[harmonicon]

104. see my responses above.

It's not that I think any country should only have only one party, but I also don't think it's logical that more parties actually mean more fairness or freedom (and in some cases, even choice) for the electorate.

[roody]

147. Castro was elected president by the assembly, not by popular vote.

[harmonicon]

151. Most leaders aren't elected by popular vote.

In the US, it's the electoral college. In the UK, it's a parliamentary system where the leader of the majority party becomes the prime minister. It doesn't mean that these things aren't democracy. Did the assembly ever vote for someone else? Did the people who vote for the people in the assembly want different people in there? There are many different forms of democracy.

[Judi Lynn]

173. The subject is Venezuela and oil profits. Try to concentrate. n/t

[dotymed]

46. No Crap.

Many Americans show their pure envy when a different system PROVES itself so much better than capitalism. Capitalism is the most evil system in the world. We have tried so many unsuccessful coups against Chavez because it totally pisses off the greedy PTB. We forced election after election upon Venezuela, and guess what? Hugo Chavez won by landslides, again and again. And Venezuela's un-computerized election system is one of the most verifiable elections in the world. OUR own poll watchers said that their elections were extremely accurate and they have high voter participation.
My God, just imagine if America kicked the money changers out of politics and became a Socialist country dedicated to improving the plight of the disenfranchised? We could slash the "Defense"..lol right...budget by about 75% which would probably still make us the #1 spenders on destruction.
We could be the best, most equal society on the planet.
Instead, we watch while an ex (pre Chavez and post American hegemony) third world country puts America to shame. Their citizens own the means of production. It has pissed off a lot of the wealthy folks, that is why America has caused so much trouble for Chavez, to ensure that the wealthy could maintain their wealth and control over Venezuela. It did not work out too well. The majority of Venezuela's citizens had lived as serfs forever, before Chavez, and they were not about to allow America to put them back in that situation.
Now, Venezuela actually donates heating oil to poor Americans and has a standard of living that was unimaginable before Chavez led his peoples revolution.
What a great role model for America. We have some posters here who point out how Chavez closed the press and took over the media for a short while. Yep, he (they) did. Because the wealthy class along with our CIA was using it as a tool to sow dissent. Calling for a revolution and an end to the Chavez "Regime." Just because the wealthy American capitalists did not want Americans to see how a government for and by the people should treat their citizens.

[Kurovski]

69. Thanks for that.

I'm tired of those who just parrot the media-corporatist crap on this topic.

Just fucking sick of it. The USA is moving closer to a goddam dictatorship than Venezuela is. And maybe that's why we have the media pile-on with Chavez.

[sabrina 1]

114. Excellent post, thank you! n/t

[RedRoses323]

133. Kudos...

:kick:

[WVRICK13]

132. W was Elected and Re-elected

If you believe that I will sell you a bridge.

[L. Coyote]

17. Actually, he is NOT either a totalitarian NOR a dictator. He is an elected, democratic President

But, you could get a job at Fox News with these kinds of lies :rofl:

[cprise]

18. In today's climate that's war talk

So I suggest you back up that claim with something factual.

[FLPanhandle]

24. The fact that he now rules by decree is a fact

It's okay if you worship him. For some folks he can do no wrong, for some folks he can do no right.

For me, he's suppresses opposition and when that fails he rules by decree. Shades of a dictator. I suspect you are in the first group though "He can do no wrong".

[sabrina 1]

28. The decree power you are talking about was granted to him

in a democratic process. And he has used it to benefit his people which is why it was granted to him. Any examples of where it was used to, say, order the assassination of a Venezuelan citizen eg?

And do you think that our presidents don't often rule by decree? How about us bombing Libya? Sending Drones there? Who ordered those military actions? Congress?

I only wish that he powers our president has to issue edicts such as these, would be used the way Chavez is using his, to provide housing for the homeless, eg.

If he is a dictator, I want one of those! Fyi, most of the world now views our government as totalitarian, what with our torture policies, our detentions without charge or access to the judicial system, our brutal and illegal occupations of other sovereign nations. Our refusal to indict war criminals and Wall St. criminals.

Venezuela is only viewed in this way HERE in the US thanks to the money and effort spent on anti-Chevez propaganda. Read the South American Wikileaks cables for verification that when you repeat the 'Chavez is a dictator' nonsense, you are repeating paid-for propaganda against a leader who refuses to sell his country's natural resources to the highest bidders.

[FLPanhandle]

33. Not he's not only viewed that way because of media

Some of us can read multiple sources and make up our own minds. I wouldn't accuse a worshiper of only reading his state media either. :eyes:

[sabrina 1]

35. If you are reading multiple sources, why are posting

western propaganda? No thoughtful student of Venezuelan politics would call Chavez a 'dictator' eg, even if they disagreed with him politically. Nor would they repeat the propaganda that 'he is ruling by decree'. You may be reading many sources, but your use of those two pieces of propaganda, so incorrect that anyone seriously interested in facts, could easily have verified, demonstrates that you are being influenced by that propaganda.

Another tactic of Western Propagandists is to accuse anyone who prefers to think for themselves regarding countries that have resources the Mutli National Corps want to control, of being 'in love' with (insert name of leader). This is a common tactic, easily recognizable now to anyone familiar with propaganda. It is meant to, although it is so well known now that it rarely does, undermine those who are not willing to accept propaganda as fact.

Your posts are filled with the usual anti-Chavez talking points. If you do not agree with his politics, then present your own arguments, but when you repeat the same, tired old talking points, people don't take that seriously.

[FLPanhandle]

68. So he is not ruling by decree?

Who's swallowing propaganda now? :rofl:

[reggie the dog]

103. decree power given to him by the legislature

and that is permissable in the constitution of venezuela, so how is he being a dictator? he is using the powers given to him by the legislature in a contitutional manner.

[spanza]

106. Decree powers from Dec 2010 to July 2012 (18 months) by a legislature ending its term in Jan 2011 nt

[ChangoLoa]

136. Clear, verifiable facts. Thanks!

That's called a good cheat

[bitchkitty]

80. Yet you won't post your "sources". Why? n/t

[desertrat777]

37. Depends on which "news" network you watch

Before I watched the documentary South of the Border, I wondered about Hugo Chavez, and about Evo Morales, as well. After all, we Americans had been consistently told year after year that Hugo Chavez is a dictator. The CIA orchestrated attempted coup against Hugo Chavez was, of course, meddling in another sovereign nation's affairs. This is nothing new for the United States, considering Guatemala in the mid 1950s, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the assassination of Salvador Allende of Chile and the installation of Pinochet (who was indeed a dictator!), the installation of the Shah of Iran (who was indeed a dictator!), helping the Saudis take over Saudi Arabia (dictators), and so on.

Get the picture?

What I am suggesting is that we need to be careful about the truthfulness of the so-called "news" that we are being fed. This is most important in areas that are against the "national interest." Wow - what framing that is! In most cases, what is broadcast as being in our "national interest" is neither in our best interests, nor is it even national, since the matter of concern is usually for the multinational corporations, who clearly do not have our best interests as a nation at heart. Oh, I forgot, corporations don't have hearts, in spite of the Supreme Court ruling that they are "persons." Unless you claim that a corporation's "heart" is its corporate charter, with the bottom line of above all maximizing profits being its heartbeat.

Why did the United States (or the multinationals, to be more accurate) want Hugo Chavez out? I am suggesting that it had nothing to do with him being a dictator, but more along the lines of our activities in the above-named Latin American countries. Now, Hugo Chavez is working to reduce the disparity of wealth in Venezuela, an activity that the previous ruling elite hate, because the Venezuelan government is apparently no longer being used to funnel money into the pockets of the uber-rich. Hugo Chavez as president of Venezuela is using the windfall oil profits to improve the lives of the people of Venezuela. What a concept. Instead of the the oil money going into the pockets of the uber-rich and their multinational corporations, it is actually going to improve the lives of the people.

Unlike the oil windfall profits here in the United States. Oops.

No wonder we have been told repeatedly that he is a dictator.

[dotymed]

92. Remember when America had

"windfall profit" taxes? We actually taxed the wealthy creating revenue and jobs (infrastructure) also we had low income housing, free medical care for those unable to afford it. Remember when it was illegal for a hospital or a doctor to turn away a sick person based on their inability to pay? Hell, can most Americans even remember that Bush II and a paid off Congress rewrote the bankruptcy laws to heavily favor the financial industry just months before the "Great Recession?" Well it was and is a Depression and THEY set us up so that now our bankruptcy laws bear a closer resemblance to indentured servitude. Poor Trump would have never made his "BillionS" under these kind of "laws." Remember when Trump went bankrupt at every opportunity and impoverished millions of Americans gullible enough to invest in his house of cards? It hasn't been THAT long ago.

[dotymed]

76. Thank you Sabrina

How about "The Patriot Act? Can you imagine if another (especially Socialist Venezuela) country declared the "right" to suspend habeas corpus, illegally wiretap all of its citizens, etc...? If they were not capitalists and a part of TPTB (sociopathic bastards) we would invade them to bring them western style democracy... Damn it is way past time we stood up to these bastards and took our country back!
Lets start by sharing a Koch with the world....that was nice little diddy in its day. We could easily make it a reality.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. limit to specific areas, time limited, and entirely normal and

constitutional within Venezuela's republic. You do know that our totalitarian dictators (by your terms) also frequently rule by decree?

[reggie the dog]

40. the legislature of venezuela voted to give him that power

out of their own free will, they were not threatened, the party he is in happens to have a large enough majority, sort of like fdr did back in the day. he can only rule by decree for a fixed ammount of time.

[Peace Patriot]

49. It's clear that FLPanhandle is flaming, but just to the set the record straight...

The FACT is that Chavez rules by decree ONLY when the democratically elected National Assembly VOTES to give him specified powers for specified periods of time.

It is also a FACT that this is a common practice in Latin America. Lula da Silva, for instance, "ruled by decree" to preserve a wide swath of the Amazon for an uncontacted tribe, and by his decree set up institutions, funding and time-frames and appointed heads of projects, all without specific legislative approval but within the broad powers granted. "Rule by decree" in Latin America is different from our practice just like their frequent re-writes of their constitutions is different, but it is no less democratic.

But the recent decree powers granted to Chavez by the National Assembly in fact are very like the "declaration of emergency" powers that U.S. governors enact BY FIAT, with broad powers given them by state legislators, to act in a natural disaster. Venezuela had been hit with catastrophic storms and floods, right after a catastrophic drought, and a whole city was wiped out, farms were wiped out, roads and bridges were destroyed, and tens of thousand people were homeless. Both immediate and long term action were needed, to house, feed, school and employ the homeless flood victims, arrange funding and loans for reconstruction, move government money from one agency to another to facilitate reconstruction, appoint people to head the emergency shelter and reconstruction projects and everything else that needs to be done in such an emergency.

The rightwing in Venezuela is very like our rightwing here. They are obstructionists. They hate government (except when they are on the take) and they hate Chavez for bringing a "New Deal" to Venezuelans. They gained enough seats in the recent National Assembly elections, just after the flood disaster hit, to be able to obstruct the government in its disaster relief efforts, and were looking forward to hampering the Chavez government in every way they could. Like our rightwing here, they couldn't give a fuck for how ordinary people fair in an emergency or at any other time, as long as they can serve corporate interests and fill their own and their cronies' pockets. Think: Bush, Katrina. The outgoing National Assembly--comprised of all Chavistas, because the rightwing boycotted the last National Assembly elections (one of their dumber moves)--granted Chavez decree powers for the flood disaster for 18 months--time enough to get reconstruction off the ground--because they knew very well what the wingers would do once the new National Assembly was seated.

And you should have heard the howls from the right! They were outfoxed!

Was this a bit of power play? Yes, it was, and thank God the Chavistas caught this in time and LEGALLY prevented the coming obstructionism. The Chavez government, which has shown itself to be good to excellent in countless ways--from cutting poverty in half, and extreme poverty by over 70% and providing health care for all and vastly improved educational opportunities, to running a high growth economy for five straight years, and rebuilding the economy after the Bushwhacks whacked everybody with their induced Wall Street "meltdown--should rightfully be in charge of the reconstruction, will do it fairly, and should be given whatever support they need from the legislature to do so. But that isn't what was going to happen.

Chavez is a politician. The legislators are politicians. They did a smart move. So what? FDR did such a move when he threatened to "pack the Supreme Court" (rightwing verbiage) back when they were declaring every "New Deal" program "unconstitutional." Millions of people were starving, millions homeless, millions unemployed. But the rightwing Supreme Court from the previous regimes--the ones that caused the Great Depression--couldn't stand the government actually helping people. They called FDR a "dictator." What he had actually done, though, was propose something entirely legal. The Constitution does not specify the number of Supreme Court justices. Congress can add justices. He proposed that Congress add a number of younger justices to balance the rightwing control over "New Deal" programs. There was such a hue and cry from the corporate/rightwing media that he withdrew the proposal. But the clever pressure that FDR has brought to bear caused one justice to change his mind. Thus, Social Security was saved!

If FDR hadn't been a strong leader, hadn't been clever and hadn't been determined to help the poor, we would not have Social Security today. You can call him a "dictator" if you want. He wasn't. He was just smart. Same with Chavez, who has many resemblances to FDR.

--------

A couple of other of points:

"It's okay if you worship him." --FLPanhandle

No, it's not. Politicians should be closely watched. But that doesn't mean ignoring facts and lying about them, as FLPanhandle has just done. This is a standard rightwing response when they encounter people who know what they're talking about--that if you disagree that Chavez is a "dictator," then you worship him. I've seen it hundreds of times here at DU in Chavez threads. Lack of imagination, I guess.

"For me, he's suppresses opposition and when that fails he rules by decree." --FLPanhandle

The second point is false. Chavez does not "rule by decree." He rules by LAWFUL powers given to him by the Constitution and the National Assembly, and ultimately by the people Venezuela. He "suppresses the opposition"? He's dealing with an "opposition" that mounted a coup d'etat against his lawfully elected government, and who kidnapped him and threatened his life, and who SUSPENDED the Constitution, the courts, the National Assembly and all civil rights. That's how much regard Venezuela's rightwing has for the "rule of law." In that context the Chavez government has run honest, transparent, internationally certified elections--elections in which the opposition just gained seats!

Shades of a dictator. --FLPanhandle

Bugga, bugga! Whoo-whoo! Scary shades, man. How about some facts, hm? Not shadows. Not bogeymen. Not phantoms of the corporate media and the CIA phantom-creation shop.

People who buy into this bogeyman seem only to object to strong leadership when it's on the left. Fascists like Bush Jr. and Alvaro Uribe don't seem to bother them. They can live with a million slaughtered in Iraq and prisoners tortured, and thousands of trade unionists, human rights workers, teachers, community activists, political leftists, journalists, peasant farmers and others being slaughtered for exercising their civil rights in Colombia--but--whoa!--let Chavez de-license a corporate TV station that actively participated in an attempt to overthrow the lawful governments, and he's a "dictator"!

Nobody's dying in Venezuela for exercising their civil rights--as they are, in Colombia, in the thousands. How come the rightwing doesn't rag on THAT?

The Chavez government is not "suppressing the opposition" but the U.S. supported and massively funded Colombian government and military have been doing just that--with murder and death threats and massive illegal spying and land theft and corruption and stark impoverishment of the majority of Colombians.

The Venezuelan public now has a bit more access to THEIR public airwaves than they did before, and one big fatmouth corporate coupster lost his broadcast license. We need to do some of that here and reclaim our public airwaves for the public good--like the public airwaves used to be run in this country in the era of the Fairness Doctrine. I'd like to see a leader here stand up and take the epithets thrown at him or her for DEMANDING balanced political coverage as a condition for using our PUBLIC airwaves. We have that right. We have the right to hear all voices. It has been denied to us. We are in fact suffering under a collective Corporate Dictatorship--over the media and over the U.S. government and its war machine.

THAT is scary. Not Chavez.

[sabrina 1]

115. Excellent post. You should turn it into on OP as there is so

much false information about Venezuela on this board lately.

Btw, I did not know that about the Supreme Court, that there could be more justices.

[amyrose2712]

134. Thank you , PP. As always a wonderful, well reasoned post. :)nt

[ChangoLoa]

140. How to pull a rabbit from a hat

How can a Parliament give decree powers for 18 months after all the legislators' mandates end?

All the legislators in the Venezuelan National Assembly were elected in 2005 and their time expired at the end of 2010.

A WEEK BEFORE it expired, in December 2010, they gave 18 MONTHS of full legislative powers to the executive. The argument was the floods.

First of all, legislators have absolutely NO POWER after their mandate ends. So how can they give something they don't have to the executive???

De facto, it canceled the new Assembly for which we voted during last September elections.

And, secondly, what were the first laws issued by the executive in order to fight against the bad housing and the lack of infrastructures which made the floods so destructive???

The civil militia law!
The military education law!


~~~~~~ "How to pull a rabbit from a hat" ~~~~~~

[Peace Patriot]

152. Congress doesn't enact laws that only last to the end of their term. That is a ridiculous argument.

Face it, the rightwing was OUTFOXED. They want to regain power over the oil revenues, and fill their pockets, and serve multinational corporate/war profiteer interests, they need more USAID "training" in how to manipulate democratic systems to those ends. Meanwhile, they can sulk. That's what they do best.

[spanza]

141. Right. Who the hell cares about the people's vote?!

The new legislators may very well be obstructionists, so they should be muzzled.
:sarcasm:


"Venezuela had been hit with catastrophic storms and floods, right after a catastrophic drought, and a whole city was wiped out, farms were wiped out, roads and bridges were destroyed, and tens of thousand people were homeless. Both immediate and long term action were needed, to house, feed, school and employ the homeless flood victims, arrange funding and loans for reconstruction, move government money from one agency to another to facilitate reconstruction, appoint people to head the emergency shelter and reconstruction projects and everything else that needs to be done in such an emergency. "

You don't need to "rule by decree" to deal with this. You just need a 50% majority in the Assembly which Chavez easily has. The only reason you need decree powers in Venezuela is when you want to bring changes to the Constitution (a 67% majority is required but Chavez doesn't have it anymore).

[cprise]

50. A limited-term power that was granted democratically

You got anything else?

[liberation]

66. I guess it is OK for you to build massive strawmen using your own projection

that is so much better then.

You can simply say that you disagree with him strongly, the fact that you require an ad hominem like "dictator" to frame him means that your arguments can hold much water so you decided to go for the personal approach.

[eridani]

125. So does Obama. Ever heard of an executive order?

How is a 'decree' by Chavez any different?

[harmonicon]

19. The kind of dictator who wins fair elections and governs at the will of the people?

If Chavez is a totalitarian dictator, as you say, I think every country would benefit from having such a totalitarian dictator.

[FLPanhandle]

27. Chavez tends to be polarizing

I try to call the good and bad as it happens.

He isn't all bad like some make him out to be. However, he is no saint being vilified by the MSM as some folks believe either.

If you are in the worshiping category, then focus on my praise of this action instead of the dictator part.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. "I try to call the good and bad as it happens."

Now inflammatory bullshit is "calling as it happens"?

You might disagree with Chavez and his policies and do so honestly, but when you call the fairly elected leader of a democratic republic a totalitarian dictator you are not doing that at all.

[dotymed]

98. My God,

That must be Boehner. Listen to that part, do not look behind the curtain!

[olegramps]

62. He was elected in 2006 with 63% of the vote.

74% of the people voted and the elections were declared without free from corruption by the OAS and the Carter Center. The OAS's endorsement of the elections it especially significant because under the influence of the United States in particular, it has been a critic of Chavez.

[harun]

71. Try watching a little less TV.

[FLPanhandle]

75. Don't watch any TV

Impossible to watch less.

[JackRiddler]

91. ... but at least he isn't killing the notion of language itself, as your comment does.

If Venezuela is "totalitarian," then I guess you'll have to make up a new and much worse word to describe most other countries, including the US.

[Judi Lynn]

180. I've always though rather better of the non-totalitarian "dictators", haven't you? n/t

[L. Coyote]

7. Exxon to spend excess profits on CEO millions, record profits, etc.

My best guess anyway, it sure won't be spent on wind turbines to bring down the price of oil!!

[naaman fletcher]

8. good for him.

and I mean that. Too bad however it won't be sustainable in the long term as he is not keeping up with the spending that the industry needs to maintain production.

[Solly Mack]

11. What an evil doer.

[MasonJar]

13. I truly admire Chavez. The US government and media have tried

to discredit him, including Obama, but his actions speak for themselves.

[and-justice-for-all]

14. Good!! nt

[joanbarnes]

15. We need to start a war with them.......

[mysterysoup]

20. The US will get around to this. Right now it's busy in the ME & Africa.

Anyone who nationalizes the oil becomes a target: Mossadegh, Saddam Hussein, et al.

[Judi Lynn]

181. They view natural resources everywhere as belonging to the US multinationals.

What a damnable shame.

Dishonest, greedy, shady, and treacherous beyond all imagination.

One day the rest of the world WILL be strong enough to protect itself.

Welcome to D.U.., mysterysoup. :hi:

[lunatica]

21. Dammit! That's a Fuck You right in our face!

How dare he keep doing things without our express permission?!

[bobthedrummer]

22. K&R n/t

[DCKit]

23. He has been... is this new news?

I don't want to be the total dick in this conversation, but this dates back to BushCo*. It's one (of many) reasons they hated him and tried to take him out.

[Judi Lynn]

182. Some of the numbers are new. From the O.P.:

The decree primarily hikes the so-called oil windfall tax, introduced by Chavez in 2008, from 60 percent to 95 percent on revenues from oil prices higher than $100 per barrel, giving Venezuela's socialist leader enough room to conduct populist policies.

ETC.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. Must. Invade. Now.

[Zorra]

63. LOL!

Why let those peasants benefit from their oil when filthy stinking rich multinational oil companies can reap ALL the profits for themselves?

The Prez will be receiving a phone call from Royal Dutch Shell with instructions and an invasion schedule within the next 24 hrs.

[Judi Lynn]

183. I just saw what the country's oil profit was when Greg Palast wrote about it in 2004. Very ugly!

Published on Monday, August 16, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Dick Cheney, Hugo Chavez and Bill Clinton's Band
Why Venezuela has Voted Again for Their 'Negro e Indio' President

by Greg Palast

~snip~ ....Chavez had his Congress pass another oil law, the "Law of Hydrocarbons," which changes the split. Right now, the oil majors - like PhillipsConoco - keep 84% of the proceeds of the sale of Venezuela oil; the nation gets only 16%.

~snip~
A brilliant campaign of placing stories about Chavez' supposed unpopularity and "dictatorial" manner seized US news and op-ed pages, ranging from the San Francisco Chronicle to the New York Times.

But some facts just can't be smothered in propaganda ink. While George Bush can appoint the government of Iraq and call it "sovereign," the government of Venezuela is appointed by its people. And the fact is that most people in this slum-choked land don't drive Jaguars or have their hair tinted in Miami. Most look in the mirror and see someone "negro e indio," as dark as their President Hugo.

The official CIA handbook on Venezuela says that half the nation's farmers own only 1% of the land. They are the lucky ones, as more peasants owned nothing. That is, until their man Chavez took office. Even under Chavez, land redistribution remains more a promise than an accomplishment. But today, the landless and homeless voted their hopes, knowing that their man may not, against the armed axis of local oligarchs and Dick Cheney, succeed for them. But they are convinced he will never forget them.

More:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0816-03.htm

[jwirr]

36. This is not totally new for that country is it? Isn't that why they nationalized

the oil companies, etc?

[slay]

41. Wow what a great idea - using the resources to help THE PEOPLE instead of a just a few rich assholes

Go Chavez!

[Cal Carpenter]

42. This is an outrage.

That money should be lining the pockets of the uber-wealthy leisure class. What is wrong with him? How uncivilized.

:sarcasm:

[Starry Messenger]

45. k&r

[AllyCat]

47. What? No! They are supposed to spend it on more war!!

If I was to live with a dictator, I'd pick Chavez over many, many others, including our own oligarchs.

[The abyss]

51. Recommend +

[Judi Lynn]

186. Thank you, The abyss.

:hi:

[mountainlion55]

54. Hmmm

From what I have been able to disern of Mr. Chavez, he seems like a stand-up guy. Unlike 70% of our pols!:smoke:

[Beartracks]

55. Like Native Americans and casino income.

Many Native American tribes plow the income from their casino operations into housing, education, infrastructure, and other efforts that benefit their tribal members. I never thought about that as a "nationalized" industry, but since they are sovereign nations that may be an apt description.

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

[Lorien]

95. My cousin takes her 30k from the tribe's casino and gives it directly to tribes

who don't have any casino income to support schools and food programs. She did that this year too, even though she's been unemployed for five months.

[liberal N proud]

57. That's not how it's done in the US

We cut the social programs so the oil companies get reduced taxes.

The United Corporations of America

[liberal N proud]

58. That's not how it's done in the US

We cut the social programs so the oil companies get reduced taxes.

The United Corporations of America

[silverweb]

61. Good.

:)

[harun]

70. The U.S. is light years behind Venezuela in terms of policy.

[athenasatanjesus]

72. What a sociopath!

I bet Chavez helps old ladies across the street too.

[Devil_Fish]

81. I think I may move to Venezuela. Seems like I could give my family a better life there. NT

[me b zola]

82. K&R

[totodeinhere]

85. Good. Now maybe Chavez can send some of that money to his good buddy Gaddafi. n/t

[harmonicon]

105. fuck it - if he wants to, who are we to criticize?

I don't think he should, but the US has chosen sides in another sovereign country's civil war, so it would be hypocritical for us to criticize another country for supporting the other side.

[spanza]

108. Do you represent someone else? nt

[harmonicon]

109. represent? nt

[Mnemosyne]

113. You mean like the $850m the US gave Quadaffi a month before the rebellion? n/t

[liberation]

119. Oh, snap....

[totodeinhere]

155. See reply #154. n/t

[sabrina 1]

121. You're thinking of the US sending money to Qaddafi.

You got confused I think. The US has been sending Qaddafi all sorts of little gifts, like weapons eg. Chavez NEVER sent Qaddafi weapons.

Your attempt to discredit him fails miserably since it was the Europeans and America who were propping Qaddafi up.

I don't mind people having fact-based disagreements with Chavez. But I never see that. It's always made up garbage thrown out hoping it will stick.

On a rightwing board, it probably would since the Right not only hates people like Chavez who actually believes the government should serve the people, not the Multi National Corps, but they are so uninformed, that kind of baseless statement would be totally accepted by them, with no knowledge of the fact that their own government was the one who would better fit that description.

If you don't like Chavez, try to explain why using facts, not fiction. On a Democratic board, fiction will be exposed while facts, even if controversial will at least be respected.

[totodeinhere]

154. We made an agreement with Qaddafi in exchange for his giving up his weapons program and

renouncing terrorism. Actually, I was not crazy about the situation at the time but I understood the logic of it. But we certainly are not sending that murderous thug any money now. Instead we are dropping bombs on him and firing at him with drones. But all the while Chavez has been defending Qaddafi as well as Ahmadinejad and another of the naughty boys in the neighborhood, Assad. And BTW I think it is perfectly consistent with progressivism to oppose tin pot dictators like the ones I just mentioned.

[sabrina 1]

159. We were sending him weapons right up to

February of this year. Every prominent American politician including the President, was proud to have their photos taken with him.

'Supporting' doesn't mean NOT attacking, it means what the US was doing with Qadaffi, sending him business, bending over backwards to give him whatever he asked for, just so they get those huge contracts for Halliburton, Bechtel et al. The usual suspects.

In a million years, Venezuela could not catch up to the US on its support for dictators around the world.

The focus is on Qadaffi right now. We are also still supporting Karamov of Uzbekistan whose human rights record makes Qadaffi look like a moderate.

When you show that the democratically elected and popular president of Venezuela comes anywhere close, like maybe supplying ONE dictator with weapons eg, then you might have a teeny, tiny point to make.

The weapons Qadaffi is now using, were supplied by his 'friends' in Europe and the US, and of course Russia but at least Russia never pretended to something it isn't, like 'bringing democracy to the world' while it supports every dictator it can find.

When the US can show as clean a slate regarding support for oppressive regimes as Chavez can, then they can begin criticizing others. Meantime we are still trying to save our friendly dictators in Yemen and elsewhere even as their own people are being slaughtered by them.

[totodeinhere]

161. For one thing, I am speaking for myself, not the US government. The fact that the US

government has supported dictators doesn't mean that I cannot personally oppose people like Chavez who is currently trying to defend thugs like the ones I mentioned.

[Taverner]

89. Despite Chavez' shortcomings (and there are many)

He does this

And this is where I get to pull a 'good outweighs the bad' card...

[joshcryer]

99. Gotta start early to buy the 2012 elections.

But it'll backfire because inflation is exploding in Venezuela.

[Judi Lynn]

184. Right-wingers have accused leftists of "buying votes" from the poor for decades upon decades.

It's a filthy, unworthy, and ugly stunt to try to smear leftists for doing the work they REFUSE to do themselves, and everyone knows why.

Anal scum like Republicans will NEVER help anyone other than people within their own dirty circle while the world lives in real misery.

A lot to be proud of, there.

[jmowreader]

100. Chavez, right now, is SO lucky there's a Democrat in the White House

If there was a Bush there, the US would invade Venezuela and they'd pull Chavez out of a hole in the ground. Doesn't this fucking dictator (yes, he is one no matter how he attained office) know oil company profits are to be used to enrich his friends?

[harmonicon]

107. reading is your friend (nt)

[freshwest]

102. Oh, the humanity!

[Overseas]

111. K&R and Many Thanks !

[Judi Lynn]

185. Thank you, Overseas.

:hi:

[Nossida]

112. if only

do not expect Oil Oligarchs to spend one single
penny on the American People, or American infrastructure.
Without Socialism, America would have gone bust years ago.
But stick around, the Wall Street Democratic system will
destroy it soon enough. America's enemies love Republicans.
They being well aware just exactly who is selling it all
out to the Corporate Fascist.

[Judi Lynn]

187. Welcome to D.U., Nossida.

:hi:

[Judi Lynn]

116. Venezuela to Use Oil Revenues in Socio-Economic Investments

Venezuela to Use Oil Revenues in Socio-Economic Investments

Caracas - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced an executive decree for increasing the socio-economic investments from the current high prices of oil, which exceed $100 USD per barrel.

It is about a special contribution to the internal revenue due to the exorbitant price of the hydrocarbons, said the president in an interview with Venezolana de Television on Thursday evening.

According to Chavez, the law establishes an additional contribution to the National Development Fund (Fonden) when the cost of oil exceeds 70 USD per barrel.

If the price of a barrel of oil is between 70 and 90 USD, the contribution will be 80 percent, which will reach 90 percent if the price is over $90 UDS and less than $100 USD, Chavez noted.

More:
http://www.insidecostarica.com/dailynews/2011/april/23/latinamerica11042301.htm

[ProudDad]

122. Oh, the Horror!

:hi:

[classysassy]

128. Viva Chavez

The European minority are still angry because Chavez and the majority the non whites kicked the ruling whites out of power.We North Americans refuse to believe non whites can rules themselves,it's the same old racial issue world wide,it was started by the British and most non whites bought into the big lie.Get over it folks there is a new day all over the world,minority rule will soon be a thing of the past.

[ChangoLoa]

138. Your racialist view is an indication of your ignorance

Venezuela hasn't had a ruling white elite since the second half of the 19th century. Just a ruling elite. There's no ruling European minority neither. Venezuelans are one people and one of the most racially mixed in the planet.

And as a non white Venezuelan (just in case), I'd suggest you to keep your racialist anglo-saxon dystopia for other issues in your racialist country instead of victimizing us for your own ideological satisfaction.

[COLGATE4]

145. K&R

[harmonicon]

146. You don't think race plays a role in westerner's views of Latin American leaders?

I certainly do. Fuck, it's not just Latin America... it's not really a secret that a huge percentage of the "tea party" people are just racists who don't want a black president, so they come up with all sorts of lies about him. Same thing happens with Chavez, Morales, etc.

[ChangoLoa]

163. Yes, in westerner's views. nt

[Judi Lynn]

169. Your reference to the poster as ignorant is unfounded.

Personal attacks here are completely discouraged according to the rules.

[Judi Lynn]

170. Unfornately DU'ers have known about Venezuela's racism far longer than you've posted here.

It has been discussed here over many years.

For anyone who was in doubt about it he/she could have always checked so many sources.

We've all read Greg Palast, an American journaist living in England. He has had a LOT to say about it.

This is from John Pilger, a man who earned the respect of readers all over the world long, long ago:

Latin America: The Attack On Democracy
by John Pilger

~snip~
It is impossible to underestimate the threat of this alternative as perceived by the "middle classes" in countries which have an abundance of privilege and poverty. In Venezuela, their "grotesque fantasies of being ruled by a 'brutal communist dictator'", to quote Petras, are reminiscent of the paranoia of the white population that backed South Africa's apartheid regime. Like in South Africa, racism in Venezuela is rampant, with the poor ignored, despised or patronised, and a Caracas shock jock allowed casually to dismiss Chávez, who is of mixed race, as a "monkey". This fatuous venom has come not only from the super-rich behind their walls in suburbs called Country Club, but from the pretenders to their ranks in middle-level management, journalism, public relations, the arts, education and the other professions, who identify vicariously with all things American. Journalists in broadcasting and the press have played a crucial role - acknowledged by one of the generals and bankers who tried unsuccessfully to overthrow Chávez in 2002. "We couldn't have done it without them," he said. "The media were our secret weapon."

Many of these people regard themselves as liberals, and have the ear of foreign journalists who like to describe themselves as being "on the left". This is not surprising. When Chávez was first elected in 1998, Venezuela was not an archetypical Latin American tyranny, but a liberal democracy with certain freedoms, run by and for its elite, which had plundered the oil revenue and let crumbs fall to the invisible millions in the barrios. A pact between the two main parties, known as puntofijismo, resembled the convergence of new Labour and the Tories in Britain and Republicans and Democrats in the US. For them, the idea of popular sovereignty was anathema, and still is.

Take higher education. At the taxpayer-funded elite "public" Venezuelan Central University, more than 90 per cent of the students come from the upper and "middle" classes. These and other elite students have been infiltrated by CIA-linked groups and, in defending their privilege, have been lauded by foreign liberals.

More:
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2008/04/pilger-chavez-venezuela

[ChangoLoa]

199. Wow! You got it, we must be a bunch of self-hating brown people...

Is South Africa's population 85% brown/mixed?

No?

Irrelevant comparison, then.


As a "dark brown" person, I'd say there's racism everywhere in this planet, including Venezuela. I've lived in Europe, in Latin America and have worked for short periods in France and in many Latin American countries (Universities). All in all, my experience tells me that Venezuela is the least racist country where I have been.

Have you ever been victim of racism?
Have you ever been to Venezuela?

[irislake]

131. That evil dictator!

No wonder Americans demonize him!

[ChangoLoa]

135. Another "Chavez promises" thread quickly drifting to "Chavez the dictator"

Déjà vu...

[TBF]

149. Typical red-baiting -

I'd expect nothing less on this site.

[Judi Lynn]

176. There's a small group of these people who are driven to offer their opinions

on leftists, feeling Democrats are deeply interested in hearing them.

They don't realize Democrats simply do far more reading, research, communicating with others than right-wingers. We usually know when people are full of hot air, or ignorant enough to imagine they can put one over on us.

[kickysnana]

139. Perhaps if we used "programmes" and used it like they misuse reform we have chance of keeping them.

:shrug:

Edited for tense.

[Mika]

202. This thread is a near perfect example of why I don't hang out here much anymore.

Fukin pathetic DUers mewling that Chavez (or Castro) = Hitler. :banghead:

---

| | | | |