Venezuela.

[Sean of the Thread]

Chavez is an idiot. I'm not sure how there could be so much diplomatic friction between us when a corrupt ass like Chavez has so much tact.

http://www.11abril.com/index/videos/ChavezHitBush20060319.wmv

[Warriorbird]

Dude. When you have the bullshit Rice said to him, why do you think he'd act otherwise? Conduct foreign policy like a bitch and you reap the results.

[DeV]

Basically, this is how it went down:

Chavez Calls Bush a Donkey - Democrats Insulted

[Warriorbird]

Hey. I thought it was pretty funny, having actually watched the video.

[Skirmisher]

Of course Chavez is a bombastic, egotistical blowhard.

I don't know anyone who would argue the opposite. You probably also saw the quote below where he once again displayed his fine diplomatic skills.


“Don’t mess with me Condoleezza. Don’t mess with me, girl,” Chavez said during his weekly Sunday broadcast, sarcastically offering her a kiss and jokingly referring to her as “Condolence.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9924691/

[Warriorbird]

After all the stuff she's said to and about him? I think this stuff is great.

[radamanthys]

Ask my girlfriend, who had to be put under the care of the state department over thanksgiving and christmas, just because she was living there.

I think I prefer our leader.

[Skirmisher]

Lets all agree that both leaders suck:yes:

[Warriorbird]

:chuckles: I also find it funny all the effort that's clearly been taken to make the subtitles look bad.

[xtc]

Chavez an idiot? I think not. How much domestic mileage does he get out his tirades? He has threatened to cut off oil shipments to America, certainly an effective threat. The last thing we want is fewer oil imports.

What I find funny is what Condi said about Chavez:

"“We are very concerned about a democratically elected leader who governs in an illiberal way," said Rice, accusing Chávez of meddling in the affairs of other nations, having taken action against members of the opposition and stifling the independent media"

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1470

She could have easily been talking about her own Government.

[ElanthianSiren]

I found funny a few things:

1. Chavez egging Bush on to invade his country then criticizing him for killing people. Uh...yeah.
2. Chavez saying Bush is crazy. I found this funny because of the interview Bush gave while touring the middle east claiming that god speaks to him and told him to go down there and liberate Iraq.

-M

[DeV]

It makes for great political entertainment all around. And rofl @ what he said to Condi.

[Gan]

I dont think Chavez is an idiot, it would be stupid to underestimate him to that degree. I do however think he's a nutjob for other nutjobs to aspire to.

Best I can remember, Backlash was a huge supporter of Chavez and his form of nationalist socialism. It will be interesting to see what he adds to this thread.

Meanwhile...

Other interesting threads about Chavez on the PC from the past (now that the search engine is working). He's got tons of honorable mention posts in other topical threads, below are the ones dedicated solely to Chavez. Its funny to look back at some of the past impressions of him and compare them to posts/opinions expressed thus far in this thread.

1. Hugo Chavez: Hero or Villain by Backlash
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=11782&highlight=chavez

2. Chavez - No Halloween for YOU! by Ganalon
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=16904&highlight=chavez

3.Venezuela sending cheap oil to Massachusetts by Ganalon
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=17323&highlight=chavez

[Skirmisher]

I'm confident my opinion has remained constant.

He's not a complete idiot.

Just a liar and a boor.

He's the political equivalent to the comedian who always goes for the cheap laugh.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'm confident my opinion has remained constant.

He's not a complete idiot.

Just a liar and a boor.

He's the political equivalent to the comedian who always goes for the cheap laugh.

Except unlike comedy this guy is bonafide serious. Hilarious none the less.

[Back]

Best I can remember, Backlash was a huge supporter of Chavez and his form of nationalist socialism. It will be interesting to see what he adds to this thread.

What I will add is that everyone’s perception of me is not so much about what I actually say, but more about what other people accuse me of.

Thanks for digging up those links. I stand by my opinions. I like the idea of nationalized natural resources, people before profits, and I am still watching this guy to see if he is a good leader or not. At this stage I will agree that his rhetoric seems overly harsh, like that of Kim Jong Il, but he does have the overwhelming support of the people of Venezuela.

South America is currently undergoing what some might consider a socialist revolution. There have been numerous elections where what we in America call “leftist” leaders have been elected. Oddly, they consider the Free-Trade Agreement neo-liberalism.

I think the important questions are not are they left, or are they right, are they with us, or against us? The more important questions are in what context is the change in South American politics taking place? What has influenced them to consider more social aspects of government involvement? How has their history and recent past guided them to this path?

[Artha]

What I will add is that everyone’s perception of me is not so much about what I actually say, but more about what other people accuse me of.
You have, like Orwell's Napolean before you, become what you hate.

http://www.bushislord.com/images/mdf442728.jpg

[Gan]

What I will add is that everyone’s perception of me is not so much about what I actually say, but more about what other people accuse me of.


Well, first, I consider Chavez a modern hero...


LOL, sorry Backlash, I couldnt help but throw that dig out. I must say you have toned down your Chavez flag waving. :whistle: You did go onto say in that same post that he's been successful in helping his own countrymen without following the capitalist model, albiet its not something you hear a lot of coverage in the US media for whatever reason.

I found the clip of Chavez in this thread boorishly entertaining. Its like a twisted film clip from a David Letterman skit. I'm still waiting to see what happens when his second and final 6 year term is up and its time for him to hand over power. Will he do it? Or will something else creative happen that can be used as justification for him remaining at the helm.

Its also cool that Citgo (via Chavez) has supported the heating oil for the poor programs along the east coast of the US. Its for a good cause even if the message might have more than one meaning. I wonder if he's making any more strides with the hugely poor population of his own country at the same level of involvement as his other political activities. Its still not enough to make me rush right out and find the nearest Citgo station to fill up at

You gotta hand it to the man, nutjob or not, he knows how to play his audience.

[Warriorbird]

It's funny. Backlash and Ganalon consider different nationalists heroes. Different sorts of nationalists, too.

[Skirmisher]

You gotta hand it to the man, nutjob or not, he knows how to play his audience.


So did Mao, so did Mussolini etc...

Just find a country in a depressed state.

Start telling stories of how things once were and/or how things should and could be.

Find a boogie man to blame things on, in our case its the US.

Stoke the fires of nationalism. Tell your people how the boogie man is wanting to come and get them. In this case oh my goodness, it's the US wanting to invade Venezuela and the fearless Hugo vowing to fight them personally on the savannahs of the motherland.

And the one unique thing in his case, be lucky enough to come along just as the call for oil from aisia is exploding.

Add water and stir.

[Back]

LOL, sorry Backlash, I couldnt help but throw that dig out. I must say you have toned down your Chavez flag waving. :whistle: You did go onto say in that same post that he's been successful in helping his own countrymen without following the capitalist model, albiet its not something you hear a lot of coverage in the US media for whatever reason.

I found the clip of Chavez in this thread boorishly entertaining. Its like a twisted film clip from a David Letterman skit. I'm still waiting to see what happens when his second and final 6 year term is up and its time for him to hand over power. Will he do it? Or will something else creative happen that can be used as justification for him remaining at the helm.

Its also cool that Citgo (via Chavez) has supported the heating oil for the poor programs along the east coast of the US. Its for a good cause even if the message might have more than one meaning. I wonder if he's making any more strides with the hugely poor population of his own country at the same level of involvement as his other political activities. Its still not enough to make me rush right out and find the nearest Citgo station to fill up at

You gotta hand it to the man, nutjob or not, he knows how to play his audience.

Thank you for keeping it context. I do consider him a modern hero for utilizing his nation’s wealth for his people’s gain, rather than a few. On the other side of the coin, as I have also said, we have to wait and see if he is truly selfless or a power-grabbing dictator. At this point, with two elections behind him, the Venezuelans have spoken.

In another thread, Skirmisher has pointed out how his anti-American rhetoric has gained him points in South America. I can agree with that, but in what context? Just out of irrational hatred? Or is there a deeper, longer lasting reason?

That his opponents boycotted the last election there was a huge mistake in my opinion. I made a thread about that when it happened.

As for Venezuelan economic growth, I have a great article for you, Gan. Its about Globilization, but its very interesting. Try to read this from an economist's point of view.

Globalization vs. Growth (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2859)
NYT op-ed omits stats that debunk pro-corporate claims


The April 10 New York Times devoted half its op-ed space to an elaborate attempt to demonstrate the benefits of globalization, with charts showing that "more globalized" nations do better than "less globalized" on measures ranging from average inflation to the rule of law. But one obvious measure of economic health, the economic growth rate, is conspicuously absent—perhaps because those statistics would have directly contradicted the op-ed's point.

"Globalizing Good Government," written by Richard W. Fisher and W. Michael Cox of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, chided opponents of a French law that would have made it easier to fire young employees (the law has since been scuttled) for "misunderstanding the realities of our globalizing economy." Fisher and Cox argued that "the more globalized nations tend to pursue policies that achieve faster economic growth," while "the least globalized countries are prone to policies that interfere with markets and lead to stagnation."

"It is clear that countries with solid policies will be more successful in the global economy," the op-ed concluded. "If our data demonstrate anything, it is that globalization prompts a race to the top by pushing countries to abandon policies that burden their economies in favor of those that fuel growth and economic opportunity."

It's true that on several of the policies favored by the authors, like "favorable corporate taxes" and "capital market openness," countries did do better—from Fisher and Cox's point of view—the more globalized they were. But do such policies actually result in faster economic growth? The obvious way to begin to answer such a question is to compare the various groups of countries in terms of growth in gross domestic product. Since the op-ed authors neglected to do this, FAIR looked up the most recent statistics available from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development—the change between 2003 and 2004—and found some surprising results.

Contrary to the op-ed's claims, the "most globalized" group—which includes the U.S. and Canada, Australia and New Zealand, several European countries and Singapore—actually had the lowest average growth rate, at 3.6 percent. The "more globalized" group, including Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Panama and most of the other European countries, did just slightly better, with an average growth rate of 3.7.

Growing much faster than either of those groups were the "less globalized"—a category that includes Asian countries like Taiwan and Thailand, African countries like Uganda and Nigeria, Latin American countries like Mexico and Argentina, and Europe's Romania and Ukraine. These nations grew at a 6.2 percent clip. (Statistics on Taiwan, which are not kept by the U.N., come from the CIA Fact Book.)

The fastest growth rate was found among the "least globalized"—in other words, the group with "policies that interfere with markets and lead to stagnation." This group, which includes China, India, Russia, Brazil and Venezuela, had an average growth rate of 6.3 percent. (Of course, the fact that China is counted among the "least globalized" when its exports amount to 42 percent of its GDP—versus 7 percent for the U.S.—calls into question the whole classification scheme used by the op-ed.)

Do such figures prove that resisting globalization leads to faster growth? Of course not; there are many variables involved, including the fact that the "least globalized" countries generally start at a lower level of development. But looking at the actual growth rates does call into question the op-ed's facile assertion that pro-corporate policies are the same thing as "policies that achieve faster economic growth." The New York Times op-ed page should have done some factchecking before offering this misleading opinion piece to its readers.

[Warriorbird]

So did Mao, so did Mussolini etc...

So did Bush.

[Skirmisher]

MEXICO CITY - Mexican soldiers seized 5 1/2 tons of cocaine worth more than $100 million from a commercial plane arriving from Venezuela, Mexico's Defense Department announced Tuesday.


A U.S. State Department report released in March said that Venezuela has become a key transit point for drugs because of "rampant corruption at the highest levels of law enforcement and a weak judicial system."

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez suspended cooperation with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in August, accusing its agents of spying.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060412/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/mexico_venezuela_drugs

[Sean of the Thread]

>>At this point, with two elections behind him, the Venezuelans have spoken.<<

100% legit elections too mind you. Can't wait to see the next debacle he holds. The guy is almost more corrupt than the Kennedy's.

[Gan]

Interesting article Backlash. Of course, Economists are just as guilty at skewing data as politicians are and they tend to agree with each other with the same frequency.

Venezuela provides an interesting case study for an emerging market.

Their estimated GDP per capita is still only $6,500 (2005 est.) as compared to the US which is at $42,000 (2005 est.).
Their primary industry is petrolium which accounts for ~30% GDP and ~80% export earnings.
Initial data I can dig up quickly show that (1998 est) 47% of the population live below the poverty line (which has a variable definition based on sub-groups of each country surveyed)
Unemployment rate is hovering around the 12.3% mark.
Inflation rate is pretty high at 15.7% (2005 est.) as compared to 3.2% (2005 est.) for the US.What is interesting is that Chavez is pursuing one of the more favorable paths that will eventually lead Venezuela into increased development. What I dont see at this glance is their efforts to educate the population in order to sustain an increased level of development. Considering the propensity, and history, of military led governments in Venezuela, and the willingness of the population to let that happen, Chavez is leading the country with a strong hand in order to sustain some economic and political stability.

What I dont get is why he's stabbing himself in the foot with his US relations since the US represents Venezuela's largest import and export partner (55.6% and 28.8% of total respective categories).

I think Venezuela will continue to be considered an emerging market (new term for third world country) as long as its political and economic infrastructure has high vulnerability to internal and external forces. Especially with the lack of economic diversification and its reliance on the petroleum sector.

Chavez will impress me if he can take the economic surplus and reinvest it into educating his demographic and pushing the envelope beyond the high school/industrial level and into a university/science/technology level. Until then I just look at him and Venezuela as just attempting to buy their place into the established world community. And his populace being too uneducated enough to remain gullable and let whomever is in power lead them around by their nose. Too bad our dependance on foreign oil continues to encourage that.

Data source:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ve.html#Econ
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Econ

[DeV]

What I dont get is why he's stabbing himself in the foot with his US relations since the US represents Venezuela's largest import and export partner (55.6% and 28.8% of total respective categories).

Oil. It's a powerful weapon and he is using it to the worst of his ability. And everything Skirm said. The man is a nut but he is as politically smart as Castro, and quite the political puppeteer as his attempts toward establishing a "national identity" for his country and people are boredering on desperation but are working nontheless. However desperate, as long as his people consider him to be well meaning and the sort of brave kid in the school yard that will stand up to the scary, powerful, "invader" (Bush or America) he'll be seen as a hero to them.

I have to agree with your assessment that once education starts to play a larger role in the economic and social development then we will really begin to see the country go through some internal, namely political changes. Time will tell.

[Sean of the Thread]

Except his oil is under wraps from OPEC. He is at their mercy. So far they're thinking he is a fruit too.

[xtc]

So did Mao, so did Mussolini etc...

Just find a country in a depressed state.

Start telling stories of how things once were and/or how things should and could be.

Find a boogie man to blame things on, in our case its the US.

Stoke the fires of nationalism. Tell your people how the boogie man is wanting to come and get them. In this case oh my goodness, it's the US wanting to invade Venezuela and the fearless Hugo vowing to fight them personally on the savannahs of the motherland.

And the one unique thing in his case, be lucky enough to come along just as the call for oil from aisia is exploding.

Add water and stir.

In the case of America the boogie man is the terrible swarthy Arab. I would say Bush did an excellent job stoking the fires of nationalism after 9-11.

[DeV]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4871938.stm

[Sean of the Thread]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4871938.stm

Opec wants nothing to do with it.

[DeV]

Opec wants nothing to do with it.Not surprising in the least. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.


http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2006/commentary06040503.htm

[Sean of the Thread]

Not surprising in the least. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.


http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2006/commentary06040503.htm

Double true.. it's shaping up to be very interesting to say the least.

[Skirmisher]

And why do we find Venezuela and Latin America "suddenly" turning away from the US?


Analysis: How the US 'lost' Latin America
As the BBC begins a special series on Latin America, Newsnight presenter Gavin Esler gives his view on the region's leftward trend and its changing relationship with the US.

There is trouble ahead for Uncle Sam in his own backyard. Big trouble.

It is one of the most important and yet largely untold stories of our world in 2006. George W Bush has lost Latin America.

While the Bush administration has been fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, relations between the United States and the countries of Latin America have become a festering sore - the worst for years.

Virtually anyone paying attention to events in Venezuela and Nicaragua in the north to Peru and Bolivia further south, plus in different ways Mexico, Argentina and Brazil, comes to the same conclusion: there is a wave of profound anti-American feeling stretching from the Texas border to the Antarctic.

And almost everyone believes it will get worse.


For full article see link below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4861320.stm

[Back]

The Washington Post vs. Venezuela (http://www.counterpunch.org/wingerter04182006.html)
By ERIC WINGERTER


Anyone looking to keep up to date with the current talking points for the Venezuelan opposition need only follow the writings of Jackson Diehl in the Washington Post. As deputy editorial page editor, Diehl drafts the un-bylined editorials about President Hugo Chavez.

When Diehl writes a particularly unsubstantiated column, the Post publishes his work on the right-hand side of the opinion page, thus minutely distancing his ravings from the official opinion of the paper.

Over the years, progressive Venezuela watchers have come to regard Jackson Diehl Op-Eds as a sounding board for the urban legends and gossip promoted by Venezuela’s well-connected opposition leaders--sort of a Page Six for anti-Chavez innuendo. His columns have given mainstream credence to the ideas that the democratically elected president is actually a dictator, that a media law banning explicit sex on television is an act of political censorship, and that important literacy and health care programs are nothing more than a cynical attempt to buy votes from Venezuela’s unwashed masses.

The power of a Post editorial is significant, and it is partly due to the work of Mr. Diehl that the storylines above, although easily refuted, have framed the discussion of Venezuela in the U.S. press.

Diehl’s propensity for not letting facts get in the way of an anti-Chavez rant have often drawn the man well-merited and well documented rebuke.

In the lead up to the 2004 recall referendum against Chavez, the Washington think tank Council On Hemispheric Affairs published a paper on the inaccuracies of Diehl’s coverage of Venezuela. “Shame on such a senior Washington Post figure,” COHA wrote, “for dousing Ch&#225;vez with such flammable fuel which, if ignited, could further seriously undermine the U.S.’ professed intention to consolidate democracy throughout the hemisphere and destroy what little standing this country has today throughout the region.”

In December of last year, the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) took Diehl to task for publishing unsubstantiated rumors about President Chavez’s supposed funding of leftist movements in the hemisphere.

In April 2005, the Venezuela Ministry of Information and Communication felt itself compelled to respond to a series of Diehl’s tirades, which painted an “incomplete, cartoonish, and malicious portrait of Venezuelan media and law.”

But for the Venezuelan elite, eager to promote the latest rumor about the president they despise, a visit to Mr. Diehl’s office has become an essential assignation on their U.S. itinerary.

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

I’m posting this so people get an idea of how the media works in our country currently. Granted, the author in question writes opinion editorials, but you would think a Pulitzer winning paper like the Post would vet or double check their facts of their own authors. Just because something is opinion does not mean it is true. I could write an op-ed that says penguins and pandas are related but it does not make it true.

The Washington Post has reporters who have uncovered some huge stories against this administration but has also rub stories unequivocally supporting the current war effort. Their reporters have been involved in some shady dealings with White House leaks to damage the credibility of, and endanger the life of, American officials who have spoken out against the administrations claims.

One might think that the Washington Post has a balanced objective viewpoint when both sides are presented. But clearly, one side is fact based, while the other is opinion based.

[longshot]

So, should I go to Brazil or Argentina before I start business school...?

I'm a bit confused.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'm a bit confused.


Of course you're confused.. you just tried to read a retarded blacklash post.

[Gan]

Interesting article Backlash.

Its a good thing I've not had an opportunity to read the op-ed pieces from the Post, else it might have given my skepticisim of Chavez slippery footing to step on.

I still think the man is not what he's wanting everyone else to think he is. Only time will tell if I'm correct in my assessment. Not that it matters to anyone regardless of how it turns out.

[Sean of the Thread]

I still think the man is not what he's wanting everyone else to think he is. Only time will tell if I'm correct in my assessment. Not that it matters to anyone regardless of how it turns out.


>>I still think the man is not what he's wanting everyone else to think he is. <<

Do you think he is pretending to be a crazy loon? Or do you think he is pretending to be FOR THE PEOPLE!!

[Back]

So, should I go to Brazil or Argentina before I start business school...?

I'm a bit confused.

I am a big fan of your sig line.

Unfortunately I don’t get what your post has to do with anything relevant to this topic.

:?:

[Back]

Interesting article Backlash.

Its a good thing I've not had an opportunity to read the op-ed pieces from the Post, else it might have given my skepticisim of Chavez slippery footing to step on.

I still think the man is not what he's wanting everyone else to think he is. Only time will tell if I'm correct in my assessment. Not that it matters to anyone regardless of how it turns out.


Maybe you are skeptical considering your own party’s actions over the past 6 years. Is it so hard to believe that there may be politicians out there who deliver what the people need and want?

I’m on the fence also about Venezuela and Chavez in general. But I am also curious as to why South America, our sibling continent in this hemisphere, is moving the way they are.

[Gan]

heh, Chavez and his antics stand alone without any help from 'my party' which for the time being is Republican, since the capitalist in me slants me towards being independant over the long run.

I'll continue to be patient and skeptical with regards to Chavez, and I wont be blinded by his latest gimmicks when he's feeling left out of the media.

[Warriorbird]

Chavez is just utilizing moderately enlightened self interest. It's the price we pay for failing to bump him off or knock him out of power.