That article does not state anything that I would have disputed. The thing with Chavez is, how much is he really for democracy if some of the facts presented by rimbaud and others (and which you still ignore) are true?
For me, I have not seen any evidence of malfeasance. Add to that the fact that the people who are up in arms against this are the very people having their riches taken from them by the peasant masses they have chosen to ignore for decades. It sounds like sour grapes to me and if the peasants have risen up to overthrow their oppressors, then I say hail democracy. This man is being disparaged for attempting to give the poor people education and opportunities that the vast oil wealth of that country should easily be able to support. The thing is, it cannot support those reforms AND a corrupt system that metes the oil riches out to the wealthy few. That is what democracy is all about. I will be up in arms against Chavez when he THWARTS democracy by not holding elections. This man has been elected, taken out of power by a coup then reinstated after the population erupted in massive protests. Then, he was elected AGAIN and has now survived a recall election much like they had in Cali. He is the very MODEL of a democratically elected president and the rest of the world needs to let him do his job.
You have this weird picture of peasant masses rising up against rich oppressors. I have spoken to people who were definitely not super-rich or part of the governing elite. They were educated people like architects, lawyers, engineers, and there were some with less education. Those educated, "middle-class" people (as glynch would say) are among those who had everything/every opportunity to make a living taken away by the Chavistas. They are fleeing the country. You are seeing a country losing its educated "elite". No country can be run by "peasants" only. This country is in for trouble, unfortunately. Of course it is a good thing to provide education and to support the poor at least to a level where social peace is kept. However, I don't see a serious economic concept from Chavez, and the "elites" which every country needs are leaving the country as fast as they can.
Earlier in this thread, you quoted from <i>Venezuelan Analysis</i>.......... which isn't middle of the road. <a HREF="http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1255">Venezuelan Analysis</a> If you are going to be picky about the sources others use against you......at least have the decency to use neutral sources yourself.
Yeah, that is pretty much how I understand it went down. Chavez originally drew the ire of the US when he came out against the drug war. That ended up creating a lot of pro Chavez sentiment when the US ambassador basically came out and slammed Chavez before the first election he won. This sentiment came mostly from the poor people who were not represented in their government until Chavez came along. Well, they had several opportunities to make peace with the people, there were several uprisings over various issues, but the "elite" chose to ignore the masses, thinking that there was no person that those people would all rise up and support. They ignored the people and as a result, will pay the price. I am not saying it is right, but it could have been avoided. The real point is that Chavez has been elected several times over now and it is not for the US to interfere, as we already have in supporting the coup attempt. With education, the peasants have a chance to BECOME the middle class you are complaining about. The country cannot be run by peasants alone, but there is no way you can say that every single educated person is going to leave Venezuela. Many who were sucking the system dry are certainly going to have to leave and those seem to be the ones complaining the most loudly, notably the ones who used to run the oil businesses there. Chavez wants to make sure that the wealth of Venezuela benefits more than the wealthy few that it had been enriching up until lately. More trouble than having nearly 60% of your people living in poverty and feeling totally ignored by the government? Which they did not do for decades, thus the current backlash. From what I understand, he nationalized the oil companies so that their profits would fund his education initiatives (rather than lining already wealthy pockets) and opened up a land giveaway so that the peasant farmers could take over previously untilled lands held by many of the same wealthy people who were plundering the oil companies. Chavez has done some pretty radical things, but the thing that REALLY concerns the US government is his stance on the drug war, which he is vehemently against. This is one of the reasons that most of the US newspapers are running anti-Chavez articles at the behest of our propagandists. I will admit that the drug war angle is one of the big reasons that I boned up on this subject, but it looks to me like all Chavez is guilty of is wanting some of the same opportunities that the "elites" have trickle down to the common folks and that, IMO, is a good thing.
glynch & andymoon, <a HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54913-2004Jun19.html">Chavez Tightening Grip on Judges, Critics Charge</a> <i> CARACAS, Venezuela -- Judge Miguel Angel Luna said he was sitting in his courtroom on Feb. 28 when prosecutors brought in two beer-truck drivers, who had been parked near an anti-government demonstration, and demanded that they be jailed. But there were no charges against them, Luna recalled. So he set the two men free. Three days later he was fired by the president of the Supreme Court without explanation. "The regime of President Hugo Chavez has turned our democracy into an autocracy," said Luna, 58, who has returned to his private law practice and believes that his only offense was to defy the political wishes of the president and his supporters. "Judicial autonomy has been lost, and that is the foundation of democracy." Luna's case illustrates how politics has eroded the judicial system, threatening the rule of law in one of the world's most important oil-producing nations. The loss of judicial autonomy could affect an Aug. 15 national referendum on whether to recall Chavez, according to political and legal analysts in Venezuela and a report released last week by the New York-based organization Human Rights Watch. The Chavez government presides over a judicial system where most judges can be fired at will. The National Assembly has also just passed a law that will allow Chavez and his allies to pack the supreme court with sympathetic justices who could end up deciding any challenges to the recall election, analysts said. The government argues that it is cleaning up a corrupt and inefficient judiciary it inherited when Chavez was elected in 1998, and trying to rein in the anti-Chavez groups who backed a coup in April 2002 and a strike at the national oil company last year that cost the country billions of dollars. The justice system in Venezuela has historically been corrupt and Chavez fired hundreds of judges immediately after his election, a purge that was widely seen as necessary. But critics said Chavez, a former paratrooper who led a failed coup in 1992, had gone beyond the changes needed to reform the judiciary. They said he was trying to silence dissent and create an authoritarian government in the style of Fidel Castro's Cuba. "This is a political assault on the judicial system," said Pedro Nikken, a constitutional lawyer in Caracas. "It's making the judiciary a branch of the executive. They are going to use this to attack the dissidents and guarantee the impunity of any abuses of human rights or acts of corruption by the government." In its report, Human Rights Watch said the "most brazen" challenge to the rule of law in Venezuela was a new statute pushed through the National Assembly by Chavez allies last month that expands the Supreme Court from 20 to 32 justices and allowed the Chavez-dominated assembly to fire and hire justices with a simple majority vote. Previously, firing a justice required a two-thirds majority. The report said the new law amounted to a "political takeover" of the court. It said the law would allow Chavez and his allies to "pack and purge the country's highest court," which is currently split 10 to 10 between judges seen as loyal to Chavez and those viewed as his opponents. The report called on the Organization of American States to investigate. "We are not talking about what could happen, we are talking about what is already happening," Jose Miguel Vivanco, head of the group's Americas division, said at a news conference. He noted that on Wednesday pro-Chavez legislators voted to fire one Supreme Court justice and to begin proceedings to suspend two more. All three were widely seen as opponents of Chavez and had ruled against his wishes in recent high-profile cases. Only 20 percent of Venezuela's 1,732 judges have tenure and job security; the rest are either provisional or temporary judges who can be fired at will by the Supreme Court's six-member administrative council, the report noted. The Chavez government responded to the report with ferocious rhetoric. The National Assembly's leadership said it would consider declaring Vivanco a "persona non grata" in Venezuela. Vivanco said he was detained briefly by federal political police at the Caracas airport as he left the country Saturday morning, which he described as an act of harassment and intimidation. Assembly President Francisco Ameliach Orta, quoted in local media, said the report reflected "total and absolute ignorance" and accused Human Rights Watch of "open and unpardonable meddling in the internal affairs of our country." He said the Supreme Court overhaul was passed by the National Assembly and represented the will of the majority of the Venezuelan people. Tarek William Saab, a key Chavez ally in the Assembly and head of the Foreign Relations Commission, said in an interview that critics failed to give the government credit for its efforts to "create an autonomous and independent judicial branch" and put an end to the "enormous impunity" that existed before Chavez took office. Saab said it was wrong to say that Chavez controlled the judiciary. If he did, Saab said, the leaders of the 2002 coup against Chavez and those who led the oil company strike would be in jail. "They have not been put in jail because of the lack of ethics on the part of judges linked to the opposition," Saab said. Still some analysts, including Alberto Arteaga Sanchez, a noted criminal attorney in Caracas, said Chavez and his allies were "using criminal law against their political adversaries." One of Arteaga's clients is an army general who was involved in the 2002 coup against Chavez. Arteaga said the Chavez government had proposed an overhaul of Venezuela's criminal code that called for up to six years in jail for "publicly or privately instigating disobedience of the laws or hatred among citizens." Arteaga said even a private discussion among friends could result in prison time. The reform calls for up to five years in jail for "causing panic" by disseminating "false information," even by e-mail. And it would jail anyone who "simply intimidates" or "pressures" public servants. Arteaga and Nikken said that would include the habit of harassing public officials by "casseroling" them: annoying them by banging a spoon loudly against a pot. "This government is starting to show signs, like we saw in Cuba, of criminalizing political dissidence," said Nikken, noting that last year the Cuban government sentenced 75 non-violent dissidents, including journalists and librarians, to long prison terms. Potential political influence in the judicial system is especially critical now because of the recall referendum scheduled for Aug. 15. After years of trying to oust Chavez, first by coup and then through the oil strike, his opponents finally managed to gather enough signatures on petitions to force the recall vote. Noting that Venezuela is deeply and passionately divided between those who support and those who oppose Chavez, Vivanco predicted that the referendum could be so close that it may ultimately be decided by the country's high court, just as the U.S. presidential election in 2000 was by the Supreme Court. Vivanco said it was critical that the court not be stacked with justices acting solely for political reasons. Luna, the fired judge, filed a written appeal and was reinstated on April 15. But three weeks later he presided over a procedural hearing involving the case of another Chavez opponent. Following standard practice, Luna granted the man's request to allow two new attorneys to represent him. A week later, he was again fired. Luna said he was one of nine children of a small-town merchant and the only person in his family to graduate from college. He said he worked as a lawyer for almost 25 years before becoming a judge four years ago. He said he had never been an opponent of Chavez. A soft-spoken man with gray hair and glasses, Luna said he was sad that his career on the bench had ended because of "pure revenge." "We are waiting for the recall election to change our direction," he said, "to take us toward a horizon of peace and democracy in Venezuela." </i> <hr color=red> Similar articles at <i>Human Rights Watch</i>. that we could discuss. <a HREF="http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=venezu">Human Rights Watch: Venezuela</a>
Chavez wants to make sure he gets as much control over Venezuela's wealth as he can. I'm not going to get into whether or not the wealthy elite have done right by the people or not, but let's be a little more realistic about Chavez. Considering most US newspapers have run articles against the WOD, I find this linkage doubtful at best. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be anti-Chavez.
OK, so Amnesty and HRW don't like Chavez very much. I don't know about you guys, but I don't think that is a good thing. I am dumb, though.
Well it is interesting that the moderate Andy sees Chavez more or less as I do and the self professed very leftist Rimbaud doesn't. Many of those who don't mind killiing tens or even hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are very upset about the Chavez's government role in , even if the rightists are to be believed, a relative small number of Chavez's opponents. The guys who are protesting, tried to overthrow Chavez in a violent coup. They are hardly the mild mannered democrats you insist Chavez must be or forfeit his right to power despite the often expressed will of the majority. Chavez supported a coup in the past too, but apparently has reformed and subjected himself numerous times to the desires of the voters. When you have a minority who keep tryin to have a violent coup trying to sabotage the economy and owning all the press and lying about the government it is tough for the government to defend the will of the majority without committing at times human rights abuses, but they should try. Chavez should be criticized to the extent he overreacts. This is not enough reason to overthrow the will of the majorityy. Needless illiteracy and thousands and thousand of needless deaths due to lack of food, cleam water amd health care is a type of violence which the previous elite in Venezuela didn't seem to care about. This should be taken into account when weighing the relative justice of the opposing sides.
You are getting a little silly with your repeated "self-professed" usage. All I have posted about are human rights violations and some anti-democratic maneuvers made in Venezuela. Perhaps this is all temporary, perhaps not. I honestly don't know enough from sources I fully trust to make an emphatic "good/bad" statement with regards to Chavez. There have been many leaders who have followed a similar blueprint to power, only to become authoritarian once they gained strength. I, therefore, am always skeptical. Especially when torture is involved (a governmental trait common in harsh Latin American regimes) or, worse, people start becoming "disappeared" (the made-up word to describe the government kidnapping and murdering of men, women, and children in L.A.). An, no, it doesn't matter to me just who is being tortured and disappeared, so I don't care if they are all members of a violent opposition. Or maybe you are on to me and I am a right-wing fascist. Please just call me a liar instead of being coy.
Rimbaud, I agree human rights are important whether violated by left or right. Thanks for exerting yourself on the last post. I can understand that you don't feel particularly knowledgeable on the issue. I think it is tough to sort it all out when as in the case of pre Iraq war coverage the US media is being so biased. In the case of Venezuela it strikes me as being even more biased. I have known many types of leftists and the distinctions genuinely interest me. In the past you have stated that you are far to the left of me, which, is interesting. Of course it is your perogative to assert that with no explanation or response. I will try not to ever chide you on this again.
Your condescension is appreciated. And amusing. Incidentally, I have posted more than once about what I "label myself" and often participate in the political quizzes that place you on a spectrum and I always post the results, which have been fairly consistent. Too bad you have repeatedly missed it.
