I think he has tried to take the steps to keep the upper middle class contented and many of the smaller businessmen are not that UNhappy with him. the eoncomy is booming and not all of it is going to the poorest. The wealthy light skinned folks who consider themselves superior and have never paid taxes will be hard to please.
GRRRR! I didn't mean to upset you. As far as who I might be comfortable with or I support I'm not sure that it is germane to anything. This is not some sort of partisan attack on everything you hold dear. I am not saying Chavez is good or bad or I like him or not. It is not necessary to respond with a, "Oh yah, well you and your mamma too!" type of post. The anger is palpable. I think you are the most politically polarized person I have ever had any sort of contact with. Discussing politics with you is like discussing Comparative Religion with a tent revival Baptist. Everything is colored by your faith.
Sorry to upset you so much also. I don't think you have been around too many really political people who are to the left of the spectrum. There have been plenty of people pretty polarized to the right on this forum, but we are all so used to them in Texas, it just seems normal. I think you were the one who got sort of emotional and somewhat subjective with the hypertrophic etc. Belief that everything is always sort of moderate and basically ok is a rather common and unshakeable faith in America also. I just found an article that I think is pretty balanced on Chavez. We might be able to have some agreement about this. Sizing Up Hugo Chávez Fred Rosen January 25, 2006 Fred Rosen is a contributing editor to NACLA Report on the Americas and a political columnist for the Mexico edition of the Miami Herald. He is co-editor of Turning the Tide? Latin America after Neoliberalism, (The New Press, 2006, forthcoming). With Caracas hosting the annual World Social Forum and Washington pondering the pronounced regional tilt to the left, it may be time for a clear-eyed look at the most radical protagonist of that leftward tilt, Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez. There is no easy characterization of Chávez, but it is clear that he has become one of Latin America’s most astute, self-confident and, for now, influential political leaders, intent on changing the Hemispheric balance of power, significantly improving the lot of the region’s poor majority, and happily—at times with a twinkle in his eye —engendering hopes and fears from South America to Washington and beyond. Chávez’s recent trip to Brazil demonstrates his political savvy. This past Jan. 19, at his initiative, he and his Argentine and Brazilian counterparts, Néstor Kirchner and Lula da Silva, met in Brasilia to discuss the construction of a 4,500-mile South American pipeline that would carry Venezuela’s natural gas to the region’s Southern Cone. The project is emblematic of Chávez’s recent initiatives in two ways: It represents a drive toward greater Latin American economic integration and independence, and a faith in public investment as a means to stimulate regional growth and development. Both these elements of Chavista policy—regional integration and public investment—if successful, will redistribute global income to poorer countries and poorer people, reversing more than two decades of widening income inequality throughout the Americas. Chávez has called for a “socialism for the 21st century.” Loosely speaking, this “socialism” includes projects like the regional pipeline, plus domestic initiatives like land reform; state takeovers of closed production sites; and a set of new institutions called “missions”—organizations that work alongside, or bypass, established state institutions to foster greater security, inclusion and access to services among low-income Venezuelans. There is a mission that provides food security via the establishment of bimonthly discounted open-air markets; another promotes social and economic inclusion through a variety of educational programs, including basic literacy classes and high- school education for adults; another promotes economic inclusion through the creation of jobs and job training; and another provides health services via the establishment of primary-care clinics and ambulatory services in poor, previously underserved areas. This last, called Mission Barrio Adentro, employs more than 12,000 Cuban doctors, who have come to Venezuela as a part of a barter deal in which 50,000 barrels of oil per day are shipped to Cuba. Yet in many respects, Chávez’s governance has been problematic. There are complaints from all sides that public administration in Venezuela remains pretty uneven. A widespread current complaint centers on a belated effort to bypass a key highway bridge linking Caracas with its metropolitan airport and the Caribbean coast. The 50-year-old bridge, which traverses a deep canyon, has been deemed unsafe by government engineers because of the soil erosion under and around its pillars. The problem was first diagnosed some two decades ago, but it has now become critical and the bridge has been closed to traffic with no immediate alternative in place. Efficiency and routine infrastructural maintenance are not among the strong points of the Chávez government. Some observers blame this on the rapid change in the composition of the “political class,” people who take an active role in the affairs of state, which has meant that people with little or no experience have entered government, creating a certain degree of confusion and inefficiency. Others blame it on the undeniable presence in Chávez’s government of Venezuela’s pervasive culture of corruption, linked by some to the disproportionate presence in government of former military officers—people with no social commitments, but whose support is necessary to Chávez’s continuation in power. While Chávez has vowed to fight government corruption, the recomposition of the political class is the basis of his governance. Since he took office in 1999, his government has actively encouraged the formation grassroots social movements, many of which now play important roles in local politics and provide personnel for national campaigns like the missions. Most of these groups are fiercely loyal to Chávez, rather than to any particular political party or program. As president, Chávez has developed a remarkably strong rapport with poor and marginalized Venezuelans. In his long weekly televised chats with Venezuelans, he carefully explains current events in ways that include people who have previously been left out of political debates. He urges his viewers to involve themselves in their communities, to pressure his own government to fulfill its promises and achieve its “revolutionary” goals. The talks, frequently folksy and personal, often angry and inflammatory, create an apparent dialogue between the president and the people, and many of the historically excluded feel included in citizenship for the first time in their lives. There is a danger, of course, that this dialogue can become one between a caudillo (strongman) and his followers. Since his first election in 1998, Chávez has played by the democratic rulebook, but there are some genuine concerns about caudillo -type rule. The Chávez-promoted 1999 Constitution, which was approved overwhelmingly by popular vote, extends the presidential term from five to six years, and also allows for re-election, meaning that Chávez will very likely remain in office (counting his two pre-Constitutional years) for a minimum of 14 years. There is now talk among his followers of a constitutional amendment that would allow for subsequent re-election. Length of service does not constitute authoritarian rule, but Chávez’s critics have complained about the potential such a long term in office has for abuse. In addition, while freedom of information is protected under the new Constitution, a clause saying that the press must publish "truthful information" has led to fears of government censorship and intimidation. Over the seven years of Chávez’s governance, there has been no overt censorship, but Chávez has harshly criticized opposition journalists, and some have charged him with pressuring their employers to silence them. In December 2004, the National Assembly passed legislation increasing penalties for the defamation and “contempt” of public officials. The press and electronic media remain free and, for the most part, vigorously anti-Chávez. Nonetheless these “contempt” provisions are vague enough to be worrisome. But in the foreground of all this, Chávez has redefined citizenship in Venezuela. The wealthy and middle classes have long excluded the poor majority from any genuine sense of participation in civic life. The poor, who have been the maids, gardeners and delivery boys, but never the fellow-citizens of the privileged, now feel the country belongs to them. That’s why the opposition is so fierce. There is no gainsaying this accomplishment. http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/01/25/sizing_up_hugo_chvez.php
It seems to me that Chavez cares about his people more than Bush cares about us. Bush can learn something from him.
This is my favorite D&D post of the year. All the macho posturing, and the torture and sodomizing the constitution isn't being "tough on terror" its being cowardly.
chomsky is a linguist he knows words just like edward said in his book orientalism the issue is so stupid that there should be no conflict whatsoever I've lived abroad maybe 2 and a half years people don't hate the us they love the us there just quite unhappy how were letting ourselves look like idiots for supporting **** that even a blind dumb deaf person could figure out for what its worth democratic socialism is not a bad thing chavez is a cool guy just like castro is a cool guy if you cant see how cool they are as opposed to how evil we seem bush=antifozz chavez=neocastro oil baron I love america I wish that we could actually be americans for once and care about our own people before we ever open on on a whole uneducated mouths about the rest of the world considering only 8 percent of the population have passports
of course I'm a little drunk and sick but seriously cant we fix our own ****ed up problems here before we worry about what any other country thinks of us ? protectionist? revolutionary I'd say American
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chavez In late March 2005, the Chávez government passed a series of media regulations that criminalized broadcasted libel and slander directed against public officials; prison sentences of up to 40 months for serious instances of character defamation launched against Chávez and other officials were enacted I agree with the Democrats. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/21/chavez.ny/index.html "I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president: Don't come to the United States and think, because we have problems with our president, that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our chief of state,"
I think the democrats are being a bit too eager to apprea patraiotic. They were wrong in saying "come to our country to offend our president". Chavez came to UN to give his speech. UN is a world stage, not part of US. Foreign leaders are not obliged to cater American audiences when they speak at UN. You can criticize Chavez for what he said, but don't give "it is our turf" line. The democrats should pay less attention to appearing politically correct, and more attention on differentiating themselves from Bush.
Chavez is a joke to act like that in UN stage and openly insult the President of another country. However, those democrates were NOT ok if someone call the President "devil", but they were absolutely OK when their adminstration call several other COUNTRIES as a whole, evils or axis of evils. I guess people in those countries as a whole will feel offended, and call you back in names.
Now this gets interersting! Since the Iranian leadership has been calling us the great Satan for nearly 30 years now does that mean it was OK to put them in the 'Axis of Evil', but not North Korea, where as far as I know Kim Jong Il has never gone too far beyond the usual Communist anti-Capitalist insults?
