Okay, I hear alot of talk about Cuba, but I really want to hear more about Chavez's government, as he was re-elected recently and I see very little talk of him on here. I notice that many people who don't necessarily promote Castro do support Chavez, while others from both side of the fence talk about them like they are peas from the same pod. Most news reports I see on the issue seem to almost promote one side or another,without any middle ground, so I feel a need to discuss it more with others. The only way I feel people can know the truth is by hearing the different sides of the argument and critically seperating what their mind want's to believe from the facts. I have to admit I am "almost" a clean slate on the issue, except that I tend to trust the news sources that give a rosier picture of Chavez, as these same news sources tend to be true to my own experience. Am I the only one who noticed this?
Chávez won the presidential election on December 6, 1998, the largest percent of voters (56.2%) in four decades, running on an anti-corruption and anti-poverty platform, and condemning the two major parties that had dominated Venezuelan politics since since 1958. Cháves is a pan-American (movement toward commercial, social, economic, military, and political cooperation among the nations of North, Central, and South America). Che Guevara was a pan-American, as well as Simón Bolívar. He claims his policies are inspired by the life and ideas of Bolívar. He is a close friend with Cuba, and they benefit from each other. Cuba has sent about 10 000 doctors to Venezuela, and Cuba are buying stuff from Venezuela. Chávez has launched sweeping land and education reforms as a way of offsetting the balance between the country's élites and masses, of which an estimated 80% of the populace is living in poverty. Soon after taking office, for instance, the president turned part of his presidential palace into a high school for homeless children, a move his critics claim was in conjunction with his political agenda. He has also implemented widespread immunization and food distribution programs for children, mostly nonexistent under previous Venezuelan presidencies. In my opinion, he is a good guy. I haven't read very much about Cháves, but I have absolutely noticed this when talking about other controversial persons.
Where do you get your news? I frequent Truthout and Democracy Now. I think most of the critism I hear about Chavez lie in the issues of wealth distribution and freedom of the press, I am curious about the particulars of his policies, which I can't seem to find detailed info on.
Chavez is a crooked wannabe-dictator, determined to relegate Venezuela to a totalitarian state. His economic policies have crippled the Venezuelan economy (it had a -9.2% economic growth rate in 2004).
OK. I use Yahoo News, Granma, and Aljazeera. http://news.yahoo.com/ http://www.granma.cu/ingles/ http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage I'll ask some friends if they have some good articles or news sites on Chávez and the situation in Venezuela. US propaganda as usual. What you just said sounds more like a horror movie than reality. Do you have any proof of this accusation? And do you have any idea why it is like that, and why there is a depression in Venezuela?
Most WHITE people will always hate Chavez, because he is an indigenous native, whose very presence reminds Whites that they remain an alien minority in the land. Whites must oppose Chavez, because he, like Nelson Mandela, is trying to reduce the effects of 500yrs of brutal White minority domination of his land and people. Remember that interview with the White woman at the beauty parlor in Caracas? She explained to the curious reporter, while having her soft hands manicured by a Native woman, that: 'These filthy Natives are lazy good for nothings, and Chavez, by trying to help the Natives, is destroying the country. Chavez is what happens when you allow too many of these good-for-nothing Natives to survive and breed.
Chavez has curtailed freedom of the press. Of the 193 countries in the world, Venezuela now ranks 150th in terms of press freedom. http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/pressurvey.htm Venezuela is the poorest country in South America per capita, and with the possible exception of Colombia it is the least free and least democratic. (CIA World Factbook) Chavez, while not yet among them himself, also makes a habit of supporting the world's most horrible regimes: Saddam Hussein's, Kim Jong-Il's, Fidel Castro's, and Moammar Qadaffi's. While I don't fault him for wanting to get along with all other nations (even rogue nations), he simultaneously turns his back on the free nations of Europe and the Americas. This indicates to me that it's not just a simple matter of wanting to be friends with all countries, but a deliberate effort to support the governments of those nations. Hugo Chavez is one of those leaders that I had high hopes for for a long time, like Vladimir Putin, Tony Blair, and Yasser Arafat. But just like those leaders, Chavez has proven that he is at best an ineffective leader and at worst a wannabe despot. Even though I've never agreed with his economic policies, I thought that maybe he could at least clean up the corruption in the government. Because of Chavez's idiotic economic policies bordering on communism. I've seen a lot of stupid posts in my time on this forum, but this ranks right up there as one of the stupidest things I've ever read.
Did I hit a nerve? The psycho-sexual dynamic of Race, Religion, and Class is an uncomfortable subject for most. Uncomfortable, because deception is every Primate's most successful tool for sex and survival. By speeking too frankly about our Racial Identity, we begin to uncover the deceptions of our Primate Sexual Identity; the very mask of our persona. Very uncomfortable! Chavez could even be as corrupt an ineffective as every previous Venezuelan leader, and the White establishment would be content. But Chavezes' corruption does not benefit White Venezuela. That's why the sudden outrage. Politics is sex by other means.
You're a moron. Not everything in this world is about race. Maybe I just disagree with his policies? Ever think of that? Prior to your mentioning it, I did not know (nor particularly care) what Chavez's ethnicity was. It's irrelevant to his policies. You can go on crying "racism" every time anyone disagrees with any non-white world leader, or you can actually take the time to learn about the issues and offer informed opinions to the discussion. It's your choice.
Race, though major, is but one factor in our struggle for status within this Primate Sexual Hierarchy we call Hierarchical Civilization. Our racial identity adds or detracts from the confidence we have or don't have in our own sexual identity. No. Because "just disagree with his policies" is a simplistic response designed to deceive ourselves as to our deeper unconscious motivations. I'm pointing out that the racial fears and insecurities of White Venezuela undermines their subconscious sexual identity and motivates their politics. Chavez and his enemies care, and it is they, NOT us, who make it relevant. Though you may not have been aware of how relevant an issue Chaves's ethnicity is in Venesuela, I'm sure you must know how relevant the issue of race is in Venezuela and through-out the New World. Moreover, we do not wish it to appear relevant, because it would expose OUR pathological weaknesses and insecurities. "Crying racism" pierces through elaborate political deceptions, and acknowledges the irrational momentum of our racial collective unconscious. What appears to the casual observer as front-page political issues and policies are, instead, the deep-seated psycho-sexual pathology of Race, Religion, and Class. We can continue mere symptomatic and superficial political interpretations of world events, or we can expose our collective fears and insecurities for what they are; pathological struggles within our Primate Sexual Hierarchy. It's OUR choice!
(snip) They gave the United States to high a ranking for me to trust it. Not that I think they are biased, they are quite reputable. I just think perhaps they should change their study for changing times. Here is an interesting debate on "Democracy Now" in which representatives of both Chavez and the opposition debate the issues. It starts out about polls but then it gets interesting. -LINK It is sort of suspicious that the social programs took so long to start up, and interesting that both sides agreed on that point. On the other hand, there is also fishy business presented about the oil companies and the "strike". Most of the interveiws of the poor in Venezuela that I have read, are pro-Chavez, as well.
I think they tweak their methods every year to adjust for various factors. But actually, the US press is more free than a lot of people realize...despite the concentration of media in the hands of a few, and the occasional government prohibition on showing things (such as dead bodies returning from Iraq), the US media is still less concentrated than that of other countries (Italy, Australia) and faces less government regulation than that of other countries (France, Germany). Yes, generally speaking it is the poor who support Chavez because they erroneously believe he is a "man of the people." The upper- and middle-class (as well as the more educated segment of the lower-class) are generally opposed to his policies. What was fishy about the strike? The only thing that seemed fishy to me was that Chavez survived the recall...but since I don't think Jimmy Carter and a whole slew of international election monitors would have any reason to lie about it, I guess his election was legitimate.
Sorry I haven't gotten back to this, I had been distracted by other issues. According to some articles I have read the strike was in support of oil executives. http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/04.15A.Ousted.Returns.p.htm There was another interview that discussed it but I can't find it now. It's hard to believe any press that is controlled by interests of any side of an argument, in either the US or Venezuala. I feel as if I have to do vast amounts of research to find out the truth about anything.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4144855.stm Venezuela identifies 'idle' farms Venezuelan authorities have identified more than 500 farms, including 56 large estates, as idle as it continues with its controversial land reform policy. Under a 2001 land law, the government can tax or seize unused farm sites. A further 40,000 farms are yet to be inspected, the state's National Land Institute has told Associated Press. Vice president Jose Vicente Rangel has said farmers and ranchers with their titles in order and their lands productive have "nothing to fear." Critics of the land reform policy claim president Hugo Chavez is trying to enforce a communist-style economic programme that ignores property rights and will damage the country. Land owners claim the National Land Institute has made mistakes in classifying lands as public or private. But the government - Venezuela's largest land owner - say they are proceeding cautiously to prevent conflicts. In a statement, Mr Rangel said the land reform is not against the constitution, which permits private property, while stressing the efforts are to "vindicate social and economically" years of inequality in the country. Foreign owners One property in conflict with the government is the El Charcote cattle ranch, run by Agroflora, a subsidiary of the UK food group Vestey. Agriculture minister Arnoldo Marquez told Reuters news agency the site's documents "do not guarantee that this is a private land". Administrators of the ranch, however, have complained that pro-Chavez squatters have taken over 80% of the property in the last four years, and the UK government has asked Venezuelan authorities to resolve the conflict. "You should ask the company when they are going to put their papers in order and hand over the land that is not theirs," said Mr Marquez. So much for private property.
How ironic! If we ever really believed in property rights, would any of us alien invaders even be here?
You don't have to own property (in most countries anyway) to move there, find work, and become a citizen. There's no contradiction in believing in property rights, and relocating to somewhere you don't own property.
m6m, there is nothing heroic in supporting the self destructive downward spiral of a race war. look at mugabe, he talked exactly the same race baiting propaganda you do and rewarded his country by making everybody, including the poor, poorer. chavez is sure to follow. this is the beauty of socialism - equality in poverty.
Kandahar like Vladimir Putin, Tony Blair, and Yasser Arafat. But just like those leaders, Chavez has proven that he is at best an ineffective leader and at worst a wannabe despot. WOW well I must say I’m not the greatest fan of Tony Blairs but I’ve never seen him as a potential despot.
** Point what’s the matter? Let your brain go during Christmas and haven’t quite blown the tinsel from the synapses yet? You’re equating race war to socialism now? That must be a chapter on socialist theory I missed? **
m6m is using racial guilt to justify confiscation of assets in order to further a socialist economic program. nothing you'd be concerned about.
