In Chávez Territory, Signs of Dissent

[Psephos]

Source: New York Times

CARACAS, Venezuela, Nov. 29 — Three days before a referendum that would vastly expand the powers of President Hugo Chávez, this city’s streets were packed on Thursday with tens of thousands of opponents to the change. The protests signaled that Venezuelans may be balking at placing so much authority in the hands of one man.

Even some of Mr. Chávez’s most fervent supporters are beginning to show signs of hesitation at backing the constitutional changes he is promoting, which would end term limits for the president and greatly centralize his authority. Other measures would increase social security benefits for the poor and shorten the workday. New fissures are emerging in what was once a cohesive bloc of supporters, pointing to the toughest test at the polls for Mr. Chávez in his nine-year presidency.

In the slums of the capital, where some of the president’s staunchest backers live amid the cinder-block hovels, debate over the changes has grown more intense in recent days. “Chávez is delirious if he thinks we’re going to follow him like sheep,” said Ivonne Torrealba, 29, a hairdresser in the gritty Coche district, who has supported Mr. Chávez in every election since his first campaign for president in 1998. “If this government cannot get me milk or asphalt for our roads, how is it going to give my mother a pension?”

Both Mr. Chávez, a self-described socialist who has won elections by wide margins, and his critics say opinion polls show they will prevail, suggesting a highly contentious outcome. But departing from its practice in last year’s presidential election, Venezuela did not invite electoral observers from the Organization of American States and the European Union, opening the government to claims of fraud if he wins.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/world/americas/30venez.html?ex=1354078800&en=6cbb02c545cfd291&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

---

I'm posting Chávez articles from major newspapers the past few days because of the referendum to be held this weekend.

IMO, Chávez is neither a superman nor a demon, and if nothing else it's sporting to watch those who think he's one or the other wail and gnash teeth over what others say about him. I especially relish the secret international conspiracies cooked up to explain what he says and does. Almost equally gratifying are those who see in him Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin redux.

The less glamorous assessment is that he's a paratrooper whom circumstance and ambition have brought to an exalted place. Examination of his personal history and psychology explains a lot more than most of the ideological banter I've seen lately.

"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to the intelligent, nor yet favour to men of knowledge; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

[MADem]

1. But, but...that's a corporate/rightwing/shill fascist newspaper, doncha know!

You can't believe a WORD they say!!! Not a WORD!!

Que Viva Chavezuela!!!

:sarcasm:

Of course, tomorrow, Friday, Chavez does HIS demonsrations--and he'll be out there firing 'em up, too, make no mistake. The accounts of those demos will be posted as "proof" that these "stooges" who live in the poor neighborhoods, and were quoted in the NYT were sent over to cause trouble by the CIA and Uribe!

Since no one's observing this referendum, I'll bet the ballot boxes are already stuffed.

[High Plains]

26. Just curious: Do you actually know anything about the history of

US intervention in Latin America? Do you deny it ever happened? Do you doubt it is happening now?

Or are you one of those cold war Democrats who supported the Central American wars and the overthrow of Allende and all that because "we have to fight communism"?

[MADem]

78. Ya wanna talk about that? Start a thread. Don't hijack this one.

Only a fucking nitwit would assert that the US didn't, hasn't and doesn't intervene in SA.

But we aren't talking about that. We're talking about what is going to happen in VZ on 2 Dec. A referendum.

So stop telling me what I know, what I don't know, what I am, what you think I am, and what you think I 'believe.'

And get back on topic. Referendum. 2 DEC. 69 Articles. Major Constitutional changes.

The neccessary opposite of "This is a Shitty Referendum" is NOT "Get Rid of Hugo." The necessary opposite of "This is a Shitty Referendum" is also NOT "Let's Support US Intervention in Latin America to the GREATEST Extent Possible--Yee Haw!"

So put those moronic strawmen back in the field to scare away the birds from the crops.

Only someone who thinks partisanly, simplisticly, and with unthinking mouthbreathing ideology would take that sort of view.

Mind you, I'm not saying you ARE taking that approach, but ... fair warning.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ronnie624]

98. From the OP's posted message:

"I especially relish the secret international conspiracies cooked up to explain what he says and does."

What was that you were saying about a "fucking nitwit" and intervention in Latin America?

[EFerrari]

27. The NYTs will no doubt do as good a job covering this election

as they did in Ohio in 2004.

[MADem]

79. Whatever! They're all total LIARS!! That's the ticket!! Not a SINGLE word of truth! nt

[BornagainDUer]

80. Yer so full of shit. I don't even know were to begin.

Hyperbole

[MADem]

95. Wow, that was an incredibly immature comment!

Perhaps you don't know where to begin because you don't have a clue as to the subject matter, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with me.

Because if you did have a clue, you'd know where to begin.

But you sure made yourself look important for a half second there. Did it fill that empty void for even a moment?

[Socal31]

2. It must be 10,000+ CIA agents protesting....

*cough*

[JeanGrey]

3. I was going to say they're all CIA plants....................

cough, indeed.

[devilgrrl]

5. Here, I found some pictures!!!!

:sarcasm:

[dantyrant]

6. Heh... this is why I get my int'l news from the Asia Times :)

[EFerrari]

63. And while you're scoffing at a democracy, did you notice

that the New York Times lied to you?

*cough*

[SyntaxError]

83. No, only about 5,293 were.

[Peace Patriot]

4. "...it's sporting to watch...". Unfortunately, the CIA and the Bushites can count on

that attitude among some Americans, to literally get away with murder in South America. Considering the lives that our government and its associated global corporate predators have destroyed in South America, the union organizers, small peasant farmers and political leftists that their pals in Colombia have chainsawed to death, throwing their body parts into mass graves, and the numerous other tortured and murdered leftists over the decades, including two-hundred thousand Mayan villagers slaughtered in Guatemala with our government's direct complicity, and countless others slain in El Salvador, in Nicaragua, in Chile, in Argentina, in Haiti, everywhere, and the democratically elected leaders they have assassinated, and the democracies they have overthrown, and the one they very recently tried to overthrow, in Venezuela, with a U.S.-supported, violent, rightwing military coup, and then with a U.S./Exxon-Mobile-supported oil professionals' strike, and then with a U.S.-funded and organized recall election, and the horrors of poverty and neglect that they have created and supported, an attitude of sporting indifference suits them just fine.

With attitudes like this all too prevalent in our disinformed society, they know that they can get away with it again, while we, the American people--those of us who care, anyway--have been rendered more powerless and helpless than we have ever been, to stop our government's filthy, rotten, murderous interference in other countries, for the profit of the super-rich.

Place your bets, folks! Watch the fun!

[rAVES]

7. $hillery will continue this trend.. Hence her followers contempt for chavez

Hawks the lot of em!

[jackbourassa]

25. I don't support Hillary...

...and I think Chavez is a wanna-be dictator.

[Andrushka]

8. Well, good for you

"I especially relish the secret international conspiracies cooked up to explain what he says and does."

We'll just see how Operation Pliers pans out hey, and come back this time next week to see just how "conspiratorial" it is.

Will you be wanting pizza and popcorn as you "enjoy" the "sport" of watching a democratically elected government derailed by the CIA and their goons in Venezuela over the next few days? :eyes:

[go west young man]

9. They may not be CIA operatives but you can rest assured our CIA

had a hand in their being out there waving those signs.

[IsItJustMe]

85. Your Damn sure straight. Providing money, communications, support, the whole nine yards. And if

you truly believe different, I got some ocean front property in Iowa for sale.

[dantyrant]

10. "The Method to Bush's Madness in Venezuela"

Anyone else read this article that was posted up at Information Clearinghouse?

Just in the middle of it right now, but it's depressing as hell.

[Judi Lynn]

11. Not surprised you would want to post material by this

Here's a quick article on his reputation with people who really keep track:

U.S. Media Wages Propaganda War in South America
by Randy Shaw‚ Sep. 19‚ 2007

Thanks to the Iraq War, George W. Bush has not focused on overthrowing progressive governments in South America. In fact, the Bush Administration has paid so little attention to the region that democracy and progressive economic policies have been allowed to flourish. But the United States media has not given up its historic role as spokespersons for the area’s elites. Led by Simon Romero of the New York Times, the traditional media portrays Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez as a left-wing caricature, almost spoofing his efforts to help the poor. Bolivia’s Evo Morales is another frequent target, and Romero’s September 18 Times story offers the perfect opportunity to dissect media bias against politicians whose greatest sin is actually fulfilling their promises to help the poor.

From the 1950’s through the 1970’s, the CIA retained reporters like Romero to write stories undermining U.S. support for democratic governments in South and Central America. Today, Romero and others need no outside compensation to write such stories, as editors allow them to produce articles that fail the most basic tests of journalistic fairness.

Consider Romero’s September 18th article, “Radical Brings Some Stability to Bolivia.” The piece profiles Evo Morales - one of the world’s most courageous, innovative, and charismatic leaders.
(snip)

Romero writes, “for all the worries that Mr. Morales’s radicalism would create economic and political turmoil in Bolivia, the reality of his tenure appears to be that the country is relatively stable.”

Who had such worries? The Bolivian elite who backed Morales’ opponent? Romero? It is left unsaid, but the reader is to understand that (1) Morales is radical and (2) this radicalism raised worries of turmoil.

One would never know from this article that Morales won the Presidency amidst major turmoil. These cataclysms even forced the James Carville-backed leader to flee the country. Instead, Romero wants readers to think that Morales inherited a stable nation and yet risked casting it into chaos.

More:
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4925

So far, the New York Times has ONLY assigned these scums to do their Venezuela coverage. Juan Forero left, works for the Washington Post, figures, and Francisco Toro, as it was revealed after he was also infuriating readers with his vicious, twisted writing, is, himself, a radical member of the Venezuelan opposition who belongs to several different NGO's (getting huge chunks of U.S. taxpayers' salaries to sponsor their relentless assault on the Venezuelan peoples' democratically chosen President), writes his own anti-Chavez blog, and now you're pushing this guy.

Well, the New York Times is striking out again and again. They also did so well with Judith Miller.

Any of these articles has to be scrutinized and researched endlessly to get anywhere close to the truth, and at that time, you've got a whole different story! Only a true deviant would want to promote these proven truth-mangling clowns.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A synopsis of a Simon Romero Venezuela article:

Mock, Shock & Naked Cock: NYT Coverage of The Chavez-Penn Summit!
If you can’t say something nice, go sit by Simon Romero. The New York Times’ crack Margaritaville correspondent is bitchiness-made-flesh today as he’s dragged from the nurturing womb of his well-staffed Caracas pied-à-terre to cover the great state visit from le Sean Penn. It’s Dorothy Parker without all that pesky “wit.”

Romero, best known for cribbing his stories from wire services, is understandably miffed to have to miss his bath and telenovelas, but the Venezuelans arranged the details of his trip, so he sort of had no excuse to skip it. The righteous bitterness of the unjustly inconvenienced literally (in the sense of “figuratively”) wafts from the page.

You can read the entire stereotype-reinforcing meow-mix, or just follow our paragraph-by-paragraph Cliff notes after the jump!


“Sean Penn Visited Venezuela, and My Editor Forced Me To Cover the Whole Thing” by Simon Romero (***Paragraph Summary by BoRev.Net).

· Paragraph 1: Chavez is paranoid.

· Paragraph 2: Chavez is crazy.

· Paragraph 3: Hollywood dingbats and foreign “intellectuals” fawn over Chavez, of course.

· Paragraph 4: Chavez is a vain opportunist “smarting from international condemnation.”

· Paragraph 5: Chavez is anti-American.

· Paragraph 6: Chavez is a propagandist.

· Paragraph 7: Chavez can’t keep his damn yap shut, always going on about “history” and such.

· Paragraph 8: Chavez is Anti-American and a propagandist.

· Paragraph 9: Chavez fantasizes about America’s death

· Paragraph 10: Chavez wants to help America die

· Paragraph 11: Chavez fawns over Hollywood celebrities

· Paragraph 12: Chavez is a control freak

· Paragraph 13: Chavez is vain
(snip/...)

http://www.borev.net/2007/08/mock_shock_naked_cock_nyt_cove.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On edit, adding the following:

CIA Spins spider's web vs. Cuba and Venezuela

~snip~
On Aug. 25, for example, a few newspapers throughout Latin America, among them La Nacion of Buenos Aires, carried an article by Simon Romero of Caracas claiming that Venezuela has collaborated with Iran in a uranium enrichment program.

Journalists working with that paper and others told the Association of Media Professionals in Argentina that the CIA had fostered that line. They alleged that U.S. "diplomats" had offered them bribes to present the U.S. side in stories covering Venezuela's admission into the Mercosur trade group and Brazilian President Lula da Silva's bid for re-election in October.

The exposé by Victor Ego Ducrotto, appearing on the Rebelion web site on Aug. 25, claimed that CIA personnel worked "elbow to elbow" with the representatives of the right-wing Inter American Press Society, based in Miami.
(snip/...)

http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/3475/9/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~snip~
Worse still is the dependably deplorable propaganda swilled by Simon Romero of the NEW YORK TIMES today, which is not dignified here with a link as Romero tells us that Venezuelan - Colombian relations have "moved toward a diplomatic crisis on Sunday after an exchange of insults between President Hugo Chávez and his Colombian counterpart, Álvaro Uribe." Because Romero does not report the facts and does not provide the actual words from Uribe, we do so here as above. Nowhere does Uribe insult Chavez nor does Uribe, as Romero soothingly tells us, spit in Chavez's face. The one doing the perp walk is....Chavez and Romero forgets again to report the facts.
(snip)

http://ecrisis.net/2007/11/26/hugo-chavez-and-his-allies-are-state-sponsors-of-terror.aspx

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NY Times misleads on Venezuelan military spending
Submitted by jonathan on Sat, 2007-03-03 16:50. Media Literacy/Bias | Propaganda and War
Summary:
Comparison of 'arms spending' doesn't include all arms spending

Full Story:
(an action alert from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)

A February 25 report in the New York Times on Venezuela's international arms purchases ("Venezuela Spending on Arms Soars to World's Top Ranks") used selective information and an alarmist tone to suggest that Venezuela's military spending was a potential threat to regional stability.

Reporter Simon Romero's alarming lead read, "Venezuela's arms spending has climbed to more than $4 billion in the past two years, transforming the nation into Latin America's largest weapons buyer and placing it ahead of other major purchasers in international arms markets like Pakistan and Iran." By putting Venezuela in the company of Pakistan and Iran—whose military programs have attracted global suspicion—the report was clearly intended to stir alarm and frighten readers about Venezuela's military designs.

But there are several problems with this piece. First of all, as the article reveals further down, it was based on information provided by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency. The Pentagon has a well-earned credibility problem when it comes to making intelligence claims about the threats posed by official enemies, and the fact that it was the source of the article's assertions should have been mentioned in the lead.
(snip)

Given that Venezuela spends at least some portion of its military budget domestically, this would imply a huge increase in military spending between 2004 and 2005--at least 50 percent, and perhaps more than doubling. Such a remarkable jump is hard to believe, particularly without Romero and his DIA sources calling attention to it, and raises doubts about the credibility of the article's entire premise.
(snip)

http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/media_literacy_bias/ny_times_misleads_on_venezuelan_military_spe

[Judi Lynn]

12. As for the lack of invitation to international observers, the same stupid story was spun in other

times. I've found one from 2005, a tale spread around by "Sumate," which is supported by heavy infusion of U.S. taxpayers' money sent to them by _{George W. Bush} through N.E.D., USAID, and other organizations. Sumate works night and day to destabilize the administration.

Here's the same claim being spread in 2005, in the last paragraph:

1. The existing National Electoral Council was designated in violation of the Venezuelan Constitution.

The Supreme Tribunal of Justice, without the intervention of the proper Nominating Committee stipulated by Article 295 of the Constitution, designated the existing CNE on a provisional basis in August 25, 2003. However, this CNE has been acting as if it was permanent, which is not. In fact, when two of the principal directors, Carrasquero and Zamora, left, they should have been replaced by their official substitutes ("suplentes") but this was not done. Article 296 was violated in the manner this replacement was made, not on the basis of a selection by a Committee of civil society but chosen by the Chávez regime. Originally, in truth, the members of the CNE should have been designated by the vote of the two thirds of the membership of the National Assembly but this was never done. Therefore, all the past and future acts of this CNE are illegal and invalid since the composition of the Board has been structured in violation of the Constitution. Such an irregular CNE cannot preside over a valid election! There cannot be valid elections under the supervision of this illegal Electoral Council. Yet, this is what this regime is attempting to do. And I have to ask: What is the OAS doing there, accepting to monitor elections that are illegal to start with?

2. Current conditions make a free and democratic election impossible.

Súmate, the organization being persecuted by the Chávez regime for treason is denouncing that the elections of August 7th in Venezuela cannot be free and democratic. The issue of the transparency of Venezuelan elections is of the greatest importance for Latin America and the entire Western Hemisphere. What Súmate and the Venezuelan opposition are saying is:

* There is no reliable Electoral Register in Venezuela. Numerous irregularities exist in the number and identity of new voters, in the already registered voters, in the processes of change in the existing lists, in the possibility of doing audits and in the definition of new electoral circuits. As a result, there is no reasonable level of confidence in the transparency of the process. Venezuelans cannot be sure that only those who should vote will vote. For example, the register grew in one month, July 2004, by 12%. This sounds very strange when one sees that this growth is only normally attained in five years. This abrupt increase coincided with the appearance in the register of foreign terrorists such as Rodrigo Granda and the man called "El Chiguiro," both members of the Colombian narco-guerrilla. And Granda voted!

* The audit of the electoral register requested by previous monitoring agencies (The Carter Center and the OAS) has not been done.

* The information on voters posted by the CNE is incomplete, without birth date or addresses. The information has not been given, as the law dictates, to the political parties or posted in the centers for voting. This is a violation of the Law of Suffrage, articles 95 and 106.

* Electoral circuits have been established in an illegal manner. They should have been approved by the National Assembly 13 months before and they were not. They were established without the required approval of the National Assembly. These illegal changes involve 30% of the voters.

* Independent organizations and political parties do not have knowledge of what systems and processes will be utilized in the August elections. This violates article 3 of the Law of Suffrage.

* There are no guarantees that voting will be secret. The article 112 of the Law of Suffrage establishes that there will be a physical record of each voter, together with fingerprint and signature. But the CNE has decided to establish an electronic system that allows the CNE to know how a voter voted. The electronic system violates the Law of Suffrage since this law demands secrecy of the vote and requires that the voter has total trust in that condition of secrecy.

* The CNE will not allow manual counting of all votes. During the last event only a manual counting involving 0.3% of the votes was done, without any monitoring by external observers. This, in spite of a promise to check manually at least 10% of the votes.

* International monitoring is being discouraged. Three days before the deadline for an invitation to monitor, the European Union has not yet received such an invitation. According to the regulations imposed by the current CNE they have the right to publish or not the reports of the observers.

http://sumate-is-a-chavez-target.blogspot.com/2005/07/sumate-free-and-democratic-elections.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We surely know they attended all the previous elections, don't we?

Only time will tell, apparently, whether or not your propagandist hit the jackpot, and discovered that the Venezuelan government thas gone crazy, and swerved dangerously from its established pattern! That's probably not going to be the case.

The lies always rush ahead of the truth, and by the time the truth is determined, really insipid assholes have already forgotten everything but the original charge.

It's a good thing D.U. has so many people who care about getting the REAL story.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Added, photos of U.S.-paid opposition group Sumate leader, Maria Corina Machado, who was brought to Washington to meet her patron, _{George W. Bush.}
He has brought coup leaders to Washington to visit him at the White House, and he does NOT invite the democratically elected President of Venezuela, or members of the Venezuelan government.

[EFerrari]

14. There will be international monitors according to this Venezuela Analysis

report:

"Chavez has also accused the opposition of planning to refuse to recognize the results if they lose and claim fraud. However, he says the Venezuelan electoral system is free and fair and the National Electoral Council has confirmed that 1,600 international observers will monitor the referendum."

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2923

[Judi Lynn]

31. Now that's a welcome sight: the truth! Isn't that the way it always goes?

They get out front with their lies, spread them around, and by the time the truth arrives, a lot of our stupid compatriots will simply forget everything but the original lie, anyway.

It's a cheap way to conduct human affairs, isn't it? Nothing is too low or too dirty for these scums.

Thank you for setting the record straight.

[EFerrari]

49. The VIO got back to me. They are trying to set up interviews

between the monitors and the press and I imagine, that's going to be quite a slog.

[Judi Lynn]

58. Well, that will be a great step to take. They're having to learn as they go, aren't they?

Normally, it wouldn't be a life or death struggle, you'd think, to arrange this, but trying to get the right-wing media in Venezuela to attend the event will be a challenge in itself, and, if they attend, to write honest accounts!

This would be the same body of "journalists" which has been known to portray Chavez as a gorilla.

On edit:

I'll try to keep an eye out, too, for anything that looks like they have worked this out. Surely there's SOMEONE who would help get the information to the people around the world who are waiting for some REAL news!

[EFerrari]

60. The media there OR here.

And I heard Professor Petras describe the way the Right Wing has published cartoons of Chavez and visiting African dignitaries as apes.

I've given up trying to estimate how despicable they can get.

[Judi Lynn]

66. Someone posted one of those illustrations here, once, and it was too crude and stupid to believe.

It was literally at a level so stark and hateful it would take your breath away.

There's so much that just doesn't get through to us here about how brutal these people really are. They have no reservations whatsoever about letting it ALL hang out.

Maybe you still remember reading about ambassador, who was out the door in a heartbeat in order to be one of the first at the Presidential Palace the moment they kidnapped Hugo Chavez, so he could throw his spindley little arms around the coup dictator, Pedro Carmona, who suspended the Constitution, shut down the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, sent forces to search for and arrest the Presidential Cabinet Members and throw them in jail, and break off relations with Cuba.

After the coup was terminated by the people of Venezuela, Charles Shapiro, entertained a group of anti-Chavez opposition Venezuelans, brought forth a comedian in drag who proceeded to entertain them all with a puppet show, which mocked Hugo Chavez.

And one can't help but notice that it is not simply a division between the wealthy and the poor, but also one of skin-colour. The Chavistas tend to be dark-skinned, reflecting their slave and native ancestry. The opposition is light-skinned and some of its more disgusting supporters denounce Chavez as a black monkey. A puppet show to this effect with a monkey playing Chavez was even organised at the US Embassy in Caracas. But Colin Powell was not amused and the Ambassador was compelled to issue an apology.
(snip)

http://www.progress.org/2004/vene02.htm



_Bush's man in Caracas, lover of right-wing coups,
official U.S. GREETER of right-wing tyrants, Charles Shapiro!

[boricua79]

21. may I say that's an INCREDIBLY attractive woman...

aaah....Latinas....goddesses to be worshipped! :blush:

[Judi Lynn]

32. Not to someone who doesn't like assholes, she isn't. Thanks, anyway. n/t

[boricua79]

68. hahhaa...that sounds like the shrills of female jealousy

I never said I liked her...I said she was attractive.

She could be a she-devil of the Republican right...she's still a physically attractive woman.

but hey...who am I to be able to decide...I'm just, you know...a man. I mean...really...who can count on a man's opinion on this subject. We all know they don't think with the right "head" on these subjects. :sarcasm:

[SKKY]

13. I still don't get you Chavez Cheerleaders...

1. He wants to remove term limitations, basically ensuring he'll be in power for, like, EVER!!
2. Almost all of Venezuela's highest government positions, some which didn't exist before Chavez, are occupied his by family members.
3. Has placed all but 1 television station under state control.
4. Utilities? State control.

Sounds like Mr. Chavez is building himself a nice little dictatorship there. Indeed, Viva "Chavezuela".

[Judi Lynn]

15. You're wildly confused. Spend more time reading, just the way the rest of us must.

If you have some charges, back them up with links.

Concerning your charge of no term limits, you are completely hysterical to make the wild jump to NO ELECTIONS. He would have to be elected, and that would only happen if the people were satisfied with how the government was working for them, any time he would run AGAINST OTHER OPPONENTS for office.

You seem to be completely unaware that Venezuela has the provision of RECALL, which allows them to petition, then hold a recall referendum at any point half way, and every day after that of any term.

You may not have been aware the opposition organized a recall referendum already. After their kidnapping of Chavez and the coup failed, after the business leaders' work lockout strike failed, they lept directly to try this measure, and failed spectacularly, being beaten heavily in the effort.

Post the information about Chavez relatives occupying "Almost all of Venezuela's highest government positions." That should be very helpful. I've only heard of his brother.

Apparently you don't realize that happens here in the states, and has, for a very long time.

All the utilities except one under control? Why don't you go look up a link for that? We'll be so happy to see it. You don't seem to realize Latin America has a problem with American based multinationals coming in, after they persuade corruptible national leaders to privatize the formerly government controlled utilities, and wildly inflating their cost of the simplest daily requirements, like water. This happened in Bolivia, when the Bechtel company, allied with _{Bush #41} got control of the peoples' water, increased the price 300%, claimed ownership of rivers, lakes, and streams, and tried to find a way to charge them for the RAINWATER they attempted to gather in rainbarrels, to save any money they could. The people rioted in the streets, when they found they could not even afford the cost the Bechtel company was charging them for their simplest needs. The people WON. Bechtel left.

By the way, the one station, RCTV, which lost its license still broadcasts on cable and satellite, and ALL the other coup-plotting and participating stations (which would NOT have been allowed to happen here, as you surely SHOULD have recognized, had you taken any time to try to THINK at all) are still blazing away, 24/7, as always.

Utilities? What are you attempting to express? Utilities all over the world are controlled by governments, and we've never heard any right-wingers bitching about that, not that it's any of their damned business how those people conduct their governments, anyway.

You really owe it to DU'ers to provide the evidence you need to back up your claims. Obviously, you haven't taken the time to attempt any THINKING about any of this. You need to know something about what you're attempting to discuss FIRST, then it makes more sense, and you gain credibility.

[KingOfLostSouls]

18. FDR didn't worry bout no steenking term limits

good leadership is hard to find these days. I knew they were going to go after chavez bigtime when he wanted to make the big oil companies pay their taxes like Repsol, Exxon, etc. wasn't it Exxon who threw a fit and pulled out?

add to it when Venezeula discovered they had more oil reserves than saudi arabia. why, how dare they want to control their own country, their own natural resources, and make foreign companies pay their taxes no time! how dare they use the profits from their oil revenues to improve the quality of life in their country and not buy villas and sex slaves for oil executives off the coast!

good lord, what could people be thinking, that chavez buying food for the poor and taking his country out of debt. such a bad, bad bad man.


should I even post the sarcasm icon for that?

[MADem]

96. Well, that's because he didn't have them.

It was after we realized that God Bless FDR, he stayed too long at the fair, that we imposed them.

They're a good thing. No one individual is INDESPENSABLE. And if you end up with an asshole, you know he'll be gone eventually. He won't be Presidente Asshole For Life.

[ronnie624]

100. Good for you. You agree with the Repulicans of 1947,

that term limits are a good thing. That isn't surprising, based on the content of your messages that I have read. But citizens of other countries, think term limits are not a good thing.

Are you really that concerned with term limits in general, or is the issue just any easy way to vilify Chavez?

And even after it has been pointed out to you repeatedly - including on this very thread - you seem to have already forgotten about the recall provision of the Venezuelan constitution, as well as the fact that Chavez would have to be elected multiple times in order to be president for life.

Either you have a very short memory, or you're just determined to disseminate misinformation, even at the expense of your credibility.

[MADem]

103. Yeah, the Democrats back then were into segregation, as I recall.

Way to go with the snide and childish attempt at calling me a Republican, there.

It's apparent you don't know your history. Back then, the GOP was the Party of the Black Man. It's why Martin Luther King was a Republican.

The flip didn't happen until LBJ put forth the Great Society.

So, if I'm a 1947 Republican, then you're a 1947 Democrat--which puts you, today, in 2007, in Trent Lott's and the Late Strom Thurmond's camp.

I've made myself plain, and if your grasp of US history is suggestive at all of your knowledge of what's happening in VZ, well, there's not much point continuing to debate with you. You don't know what you're talking about.

Chavez never has to be elected EVER again if this referendum passes. It is a point you seem to DELIBERATELY miss.

Of course, if you read the fucking thing, you'd see that.

All he has to do is pull a Franco, and declare an emergency. So long as the emergency lasts (and there are no limits to how long he can make it last--it can be a "permanent" state of emergency--and no one who has to "approve" his decision, either in the legislature or judiciary) he can keep that emergency going for DECADES. No elections during emergencies. All power vested in El Presidente. He can suspend due process, lock people up without charges, without trials, without access to lawyers--and no checks or balances on any of those actions. He appoints the equivalent of provinicial governors to keep things in line in the countryside--his choices, his stooges. Absolute power.

But hey, Que Viva Chavezuela!

[Justitia]

106. I'm sorry MADem, I've got to correct you on the party flip - it was way before LBJ.

More like around the turn of the century.

It is true that we lost conservative, southern Dems w/the Civil Rights Act, signed by LBJ, but the Democratic party as a whole was as it is today at that time.

Yes, the conservative, southern part of our party made the switch to republican with the Civil Rights Act, it's the story of my state (TX).
However, it's probably more appropriate to say that the southern conservative Dems lagged behind and never made the switch with the rest of the republicans at the turn of the century.

I'd go and look up the exact history of the 'party switch' for you, but I have to run to take care of my son this morning.

[MADem]

107. I am referring to the departure of historic Democrats from the

rolls in the South at the conclusion of Russell's heyday, around the time when Majority Leader LBJ opened a crack in the segregation dam with voting rights (weakass, but on the books) legislation, and later, President LBJ initiated civil rights measures. Nixon sealed the deal with the 'Southern Strategy.'

The Democrats OWNED the South before then--in fact, the Southern Democrats OWNED the Senate. And because they owned the Senate, they owned the entire legislative process. Nothing passed if they didn't give it the up-check. They had power in much greater measure than their actual numbers. They liked segregation, and they wanted to keep it. And they kept it for a long, long, time.

Here, let me give you a few quick links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

From 1948 to 1984 the Southern states, traditionally a stronghold for the Democrats, became key swing states, providing the popular vote margins in the 1960, 1968 and 1976 elections. During this era, several Republican candidates expressed support for states' rights, which was a signal of opposition to federal civil rights legislation for blacks.<4>



This book is a long read, but good, and breaks down the dynamic brilliantly: http://www.amazon.com/Master-Senate-Years-Lyndon-Johnson/dp/0394528360

If you're trying to tell me that that the GOP, before then, were a bunch of racists, I just can't buy that. The vestigal effect of the relationship between blacks and the GOP could be seen both in MLK's party affiliation, and the fact that even after it became apparent that the GOP was no longer the party of the black man, I was represented by a rare black Senator from Massachusetts who was a Republican.

About the only Democratic cracker that didn't get the word about the flip, apparently, was Zell Miller. He was like the last of the Mohicans.

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat

The States' Rights Democratic Party dissolved after the 1948 election.

Regardless of the power struggle within the Democratic Party concerning segregation policy, the South remained a strongly Democratic voting bloc for local, state, and federal Congressional elections. This was not true of Presidential elections.

In 1960, Democratic electors in Alabama and Mississippi appeared on the ballot as "unpledged electors" instead of as electors pledged to Democratic nominee John F. Kennedy. All 8 of Mississippi's electors, 6 of Alabama's 11 electors, and one stray elector from Oklahoma (a state carried by Richard Nixon) cast their votes for Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia. Alabama's remaining 5 electors voted for Kennedy.

In 1968, Alabama's Democratic former governor George C. Wallace ran for President on the American Independent Party ticket, and swept the electoral votes of the Deep South. The American Independent Party failed to keep its foothold in the South. Its 1972 candidate was John G. Schmitz, a John Bircher from California, whose strongest showing in the 1972 election was 10% in Idaho, but who did poorly in the South. Subsequent southern Dixiecrats running on the American Independent Party ticket included Lester Maddox and John Rarick, but these campaigns did not succeed either.

In the 1960s, the courting of white Southern Democratic voters was the basis of the "southern strategy" of the Republican Party's Presidential Campaigns. Republican Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater carried the Deep South in 1964, despite losing in a landslide in the rest of the nation to President Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas. Johnson surmised that his advocacy behind passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would lose the South for the Democratic party and it did.;/u] When the Democrats pushed for civil rights, the Republicans reaped the political benefits of a Southern white backlash. The only Democratic presidential candidate after 1956 to solidly carry the Deep South was President Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election.

[SKKY]

109. Here you go Judi Lynn, take your pick from any of these...

I rely on NPR, The Christian Science monitor mostly for my news, in addition to The Economist, ABC (A Spanish "leftist" paper), and to a lesser degree BBC. I wish I had the time to study Venezuelan history like most of you seem to, bet these give me a pretty round picture of a particular issue I think.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15236963 (Take your pick from any on the page)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1011/p04s01-woam.html (Hmmm. 16% interest and a devaluated currency. Sounds peachy. I'm sure the poor in Venezuela are much better off though. Chavez's family sure is.)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16739651 (The Chavez family, Venezuela's newest Oligarchy)

But hey. I know I'm not going to change your mind because, and to this day I have no idea why, some on DU are card carrying member of the Hugo Chavez fan club. To each his own. I've given you a snippet of what helps me form my opinions about Venezuela and Chavez. How about you do the same.

[Judi Lynn]

110. NPR went right wing a long time ago when the right-wing Congress whacked its conventional funding

and made it totally dependent upon its good will, and then _Bush appointed nasty fascist friends of his to oversee public tv, radio operations. Fat chance they're decent sources now. You probably wouldn't have noticed, but everyone else certain stopped listening to them seriously long ago.

ETC.

Thanks, anyway.

[SKKY]

111. So, what you're saying is that the facts stated in the articles...

...are not true? Did you even read them? How about CS Monitor? I'm still waiting for some of your "sources" of information.

[Judi Lynn]

112. I didn't ask you what helps you form your opinions. I suggested you back up your specific claims.

Here's what you wrote:

1. He wants to remove term limitations, basically ensuring he'll be in power for, like, EVER!!
2. Almost all of Venezuela's highest government positions, some which didn't exist before Chavez, are occupied his by family members.
3. Has placed all but 1 television station under state control.
4. Utilities? State control.

Sounds like Mr. Chavez is building himself a nice little dictatorship there. Indeed, Viva "Chavezuela".
(snip/)

You have not provided evidence to back up these bogus claims which I illuminated in the post immediately after yours.

Since I did not make a specific charge, there's nothing to back up here.

When I do make assertions, I post sources. I learned that's the way to go about things long, long ago.

That's the only way anyone gets anywhere in conversations: need to use REAL information or it's all just a circle jerk, isn't it? That would be wasting other people's time.

[EFerrari]

16. Did somebody print that? I'm collecting disinformation

and would love the link.

[Andrushka]

17. Get the seawater out of your eyes

1. BS
2. Utter BS
3. Complete BS
4. Well done - one out of four. But...er, what's your point?

Sorry, but you just can't post that sort of crap here, especially this week with all the spin and lies going on about this referendum, and think that you will not be universally canned by people who actually care about the truth.

[Justitia]

36. This is less about Chavez than it is fighting against US led propaganda efforts

Some of us are long-time students of US meddling in Latin America. The history of our nefarious behavior is long and well-documented. Venezuela is simply the latest victim.

It is very disheartening to see even DUers susceptible to the vast amounts of Latin American propaganda being disseminated.

Please do your own research on our extensive history (using multinational companies & the CIA and others) of violent interference in Latin American gov'ts and societies.

As a limited start, try reading about the United Fruit Company case, it's only a tiny, tiny peek at our efforts in the Southern Hemisphere.

[EFerrari]

44. This situation has many parts for me.

In order, our media is revealing the depth of its complicity, I'm interested to see how Venezuela manages its democracy and I do admire Hugo Chavez. He has taken on BushCo as no one else has. That's remarkable, not to mention, dangerous.

[Justitia]

I started studying this stuff about 20 yrs ago (US involvement in destabilizing other govts)

and found it shocking, infuriating and shameful. Talk about cognitive dissonance!

It goes against everything we have ever believed about ourselves as "Americans".

No end in sight, but it is the duty of us all to educate our fellow citizens.

[EFerrari]

47. I believe that in a concrete way, our knowing what is happening helps.

Because we talk to people, we interact with them. It's much harder to fool me if you or Judi or Mika pool your information and make it accessible. I'm far behind you all but my own learning is helped by leaps reading you. No media outlet can really compare with people sharing the truth with each other. It's a very powerful activity. That's why the fascists try to shut it down at every opportunity.

And that has happened on DU this week. People came out of nowhere with a low post count and an opinion about Chavez. It's good to know "how to look" at these events. :toast:

[Justitia]

51. Absolutely. Education / enlightment is a responsibility. Interesting example.....

Propaganda in itself is an interesting study....

I'm sure everyone here is aware of the Soviet era of Pravda, the gov't controlled propaganda outfit.

Did you know that at the end of WWII, when Soviet citizens were getting their first glimpses of information from behind the Iron Curtain, that we found out they believed that the Jewish people were actually "the Nazis"?

They believed Jews & Nazis were the same group.
That is what they had been told.

That one still blows my mind.

[EFerrari]

55. Holy cow.

:wow:

[Judi Lynn]

64. The psychopathic right-wing has been working like crazy to blur the lines in the minds of Americans

who haven't learned the difference, yet, between "Fascists" (as they define them, of course) and Communists.

By pulling off that slick scheme, they can move all blame, all responsibility for everything destructive in the world over, and drop it at the feet of the "leftists."

I believe what you've written is easily accomplished, over time! People do tend to believe what they're told, and go about their own business, unless something in it doesn't quite fit, and it sticks in their minds and eats away at them!

Simple, smooth, repetitious information can seem to lull a lot of people to sleep.....

[Justitia]

65. Ah yes, the 'Red Scare'! Yes, it's work to parse political ideological definitions

and some know that and work very hard to confuse people, convincing them of ONE BIG BOOGEYMAN, or who is our "Enemy DuJour".

That is not to discount actual, real, enemies that do exist, but it primarily serves to teach people to look to a single source for information (aka their government).

It's all very time-consuming and confusing and it's easier for someone to just tell us.

My personal contemporary favorite? "IslamoFascist" - egad.

[Judi Lynn]

71. You bet! How obnoxious! They are banking on peoples' ignorance. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

45. I believe there are some who actually approve of US policy/actions against the people of Latin

America, and it's sick. Evil. Completely racist, delusional.

No one really has the moral right to countermand the choices a nation makes within its own borders in governing itself. To believe otherwise, and to agitate for hostilities against other countries is simply barbaric.

If they don't know about this filthy history by now, it's because they are unbelievably stupid, or they have been purposely avoiding their responsibility to inform themselves through doing the work needed to educate themselves. It's easily accomplished these days!

We've had a few stagger here, I suspect, from Free Republic, who may have just spent their adult lives drunk, and raving along with other wingers, and were too impaired to do some growing up, doing their own research. That takes a little more discipline than it takes to lumber around half-cocked repeating the crap spewing out of propaganda outlets.

[Justitia]

46. I think most are simply ignorant of the history, and then "can't believe" we've ever done these

things. It really does challenge your completely ingrained /indoctrinated ideas of our civic religion.

Yes, there are definitely people who are A-OK with these tactics and that is where we recognize that depravity exists in every country on the globe.

Most people I've known (and hopefully most DUers who trend that way) are just blissfully unaware.

It's an ugly, ugly thing.

But, once you learn, you can't "unlearn".

[EFerrari]

48. That's so true. You can't "unknow" something.

My family had to learn some very painful home truths about its own complicity in the oppession of the people of El Salvador. But once you know, you know.

And then, you have a choice. You can know more or you can try to avoid knowing more. But you can't undo that moment of understanding.

[Judi Lynn]

50. It's an unhappy discovery, isn't it? Truly, you can't go back to your former condition, once you've

been awakened by finally recognizing dissonance, and started your own search for the truth.

[Justitia]

54. see my post # 51 about propaganda for an interesting example

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3083560&mesg_id=3084311

Regarding evolution of propaganda - it explains a lot about the current attitude of Russians towards media and how the word "Pravda" became synonymous with "propaganda" around the world.

[Judi Lynn]

67. I've heard the difference between them and a lot of Americans is that they KNOW

they were getting lies, and learned how to read BETWEEN THE WORDS a little bit of the truth.

That shows a certain amount of intelligence, doesn't it?

[Justitia]

70. Yeah, but they had a long time to learn. We're relatively a young nation in that regard.

My best friend is from Italy, her father was a mbr of the diplomatic corp.
We talk about the sociological acceptance of various political ideologies.

She always reminds me - "America is such a young country, your history is very new and your internal struggles are still in their infancy w/regards to the rest of the world. We have the benefit of being able to look back on so much more history and judge our current leaders with some objectivity. You'll get there, everyone takes their turn."

[IsItJustMe]

88. I agree, It's almost a curse in a way. But once your mind has been expanded by truth, it will

never shrink back. It happened to me in a college history class when we discussed Latin America and how we tried to take out one of their leaders. I was totally stunned that our country would do such a thing.

[ronnie624]

101. I would never go back. n/t

[IsItJustMe]

86. It is indeed very disheartening, but human nature being what it is, it's just plain easier for some

folks to believe what they hear, rather than doing the hard work of reading and researching and thinking for themselves.

I hear rethugs constanty qoute crap from Bill O'Reilly, yet when I ask them to back it up, they just stare. Seems like this problem isn't just a right wing thing.

[BornagainDUer]

81. This is classic Right-Wing spin Liberalswabby. Removal

of term limits assures Chavez of nothing if the people don't want him in office. Nothing.

[EFerrari]

19. The headline is sort of funny, isn't it? There's a vigorous debate

going on in democratic Venezuela. But the headline implies that this is a recent change for the worse which it isn't. Why does the New York Times hate dissent? :)

[BornagainDUer]

82. Ditto. Excellent catch pat.

[boricua79]

20. he's not allowing observers?

I don't understand the logic? Does he WANT people to claim fraud?

SO far, he's won a lot of admiration and respect precisely because he's allowed votes to be transparent. Now he's NOT going to allow them in?

If you want the respect of progressives and social democrats everywhere, you need to have your elections be transparent.

And I hold that standard to ALL countries.

[EFerrari]

23. There will be observers, see #14. But the NYTs didn't report that.

I don't know who they are yet, though.

[boricua79]

30. thank you for the update

i was puzzled at why he wouldn't have them.

[Judi Lynn]

33. You wouldn't be puzzled if you took the time to watch the patterns in propaganda programs.

You'll need to take the initiative and become a self-starter, just like the rest of us. Do your homework.

[boricua79]

35. Judi, a few things...

One...I happen to have a Master's Degree in Political Science. I'm no neophyte to politics, especially in Latin America, where I focused my graduate studies on. I've also participated in numerous academic conferences on these subjects.

Second, I've followed Chavez' rise to power from its inception. I've generally supported his reforms and kept abreast of developments in Venezuela, though, despite the attempts of some on DU, I've grown worried, concerned, and bothered by many recent developments in Chavez' politics. That is my right, as an informed observer of Venezuelan politics. I am well aware of U.S. machinations in Latin America, and of the role the U.S. media plays to demonize opponents of the U.S. capitalist regime. That does not mean that I don't question, investigate, and disagree with the actions of those that are the target of the U.S. government. Permit me to question, be worried, and want to know more...both from the U.S. government AND Chavez...because he's not God....Ok? he's not God...let's get that out of the way.

I, however, am human. I have a day job and other hobbies, and my life does not revolve around knowing every single detail of Venezuelan politics. I think it's good enough that I do read online and visit forums like this one to at least keep a little informed.

Third, the original information on this thread did not indicate that he'd have observers. It wasn't until another kind soul on the forum informed me of opposing evidence that I found out that he will have observers. That's call being "corrected"...a perfectly normal part of discussing ideas and information. I thanked that observer for informing me and that was the end of it (until the Knight in Shining Armor of DU showed up with her act).

Four, the high horse act, which I've seen you run around DU, does not work with me. Unless you have some pedigree, and by that I mean, you have some resume of education and participation in politics that spans 6 or more years, with a focus on the subject at hand, I'm not inclined to take your "take the initiative" comments. And even if you did, I'd still consider you an academic arrogant. Plenty of PHD "SOBs" out there as well. I have no time for that holier than thou attitudes.

Five, if my grammar is not perfect, consider that English is my SECOND language.

Do me a favor...run along to your alternative websites, keep getting informed, keep HELPING others become informed on these subjects, and in relation to me, keep the attitudy commentary to yourself.

And if you're wondering where all this came from...it started with your "do your homework" admonition. thank you...but I already have a mother, and she ain't you.

[Peace Patriot]

72. Judi Lynn "attitudy"? No way! The woman is in it with her whole heart.

She was making the point that, if you understand anything about U.S./Latin American relations--not just know it, but understand it with your whole being, your heart and your soul--and if you know and understand anything about Venezuelan elections, and recent history in Venezuela, and NYT and other corporate news monopoly coverage of these matters--you would know, upfront, that the NYT is spinning more bullshit when it IMPLIES that there will be no international observers in this election, and you will then SEEK OUT the truth. You won't wait for someone else to do your homework for you.

But you don't have the time. You have your "day job" and your "other hobbies", and your "life does not revolve around knowing every single detail of Venezuelan politics." (Seeking out the truth is a "hobby" for you? "Other hobbies." Interesting.) So you come here and slash and burn someone who DOES take the trouble to track down "details of Venezuelan politics"--details that the NYT is lying about, obscuring, twisting, and disinforming people about. And you get snooty when she gets a little impatient--and I mean "a LITTLE impatient"--after all the bloody battles she has fought here, just to get basic facts out to the disinformed.

It's interesting that you ask for her creds. Those of us who know Judi's work here don't need to know her "creds." We know her work. And first you say that, if she doesn't have "creds" that you would approve of (academic?), then the hell with her. Then you say, if she DOES have "creds" that you would approve of (a Ph.D?)--hedging your bets--the hell with her anyway.

Well, I guess you can go back to your "day job" and your "hobbies" satisfied that you put that democrat with a small d in her place. "Pedigree" or no "pedigree," she's not your mother.

But, in a way, she is ours--those of us here at DU who have been fighting the disinformation battle about Latin America, to try to help prevent yet another U.S.-instigated torture-fest and bloodbath in that region. More like a grandmother--the keeper of the history and old wisdom. The keeper of the Family Album: her awesome photo archive of Latin American fascist thugs and CIA operatives, and the bodies of their slain victims--the poor, the leftists--who have dared to oppose U.S./fascist policy, and also photos of the good guys--like her wonderful photo of the three new Bolivarian presidents, Chavez, Morales and Correa, sitting together in indigenous costume. That kind of grandmother--knowledgeable, wise, caring. And if such a person tells you to "do your homework," and you react like a flibbertigibbet, with all your excuses, you can understand why we would then take your views of the matter at hand as...shallow, not deeply felt, distracted, self-involved.

[boricua79]

97. my response

"She was making the point that, if you understand anything about U.S./Latin American relations--not just know it, but understand it with your whole being, your heart and your soul--and if you know and understand anything about Venezuelan elections, and recent history in Venezuela, and NYT and other corporate news monopoly coverage of these matters--you would know, upfront, that the NYT is spinning more bullshit when it IMPLIES that there will be no international observers in this election, and you will then SEEK OUT the truth. You won't wait for someone else to do your homework for you."

I don't ALWAYS think the New York Times is lying. Sometimes they're right. Ever consider that everything they write is not always mandated by some underlying corporate motivation? Again, I have a life. I don't spend every single waking moment doing deep research to discount or discredit a NYT story. I'm not MediaMatters. I made a comment based on the available information on this forum and then was pointed to another source that gave more information. Judi's comments were unsolicited and drenching with "holier than thou" attitude. And I called her on it.

"But you don't have the time. You have your "day job" and your "other hobbies", and your "life does not revolve around knowing every single detail of Venezuelan politics." (Seeking out the truth is a "hobby" for you? "Other hobbies." Interesting.) So you come here and slash and burn someone who DOES take the trouble to track down "details of Venezuelan politics"--details that the NYT is lying about, obscuring, twisting, and disinforming people about. And you get snooty when she gets a little impatient--and I mean "a LITTLE impatient"--after all the bloody battles she has fought here, just to get basic facts out to the disinformed."

I didn't slash and burn anyone. I posted about an issue on Venezuelan politics...and received an unsolicited "go do your homework" comment. And I responded. Yes, I have "day job" (why the quotation marks...is it surprising to you that I actually have to...gulp...do something for a living?) And you said it...she got a little impatient. Yeah, and I didn't like that impatience because it was directed at me.

"It's interesting that you ask for her creds. Those of us who know Judi's work here don't need to know her "creds." We know her work. And first you say that, if she doesn't have "creds" that you would approve of (academic?), then the hell with her. Then you say, if she DOES have "creds" that you would approve of (a Ph.D?)--hedging your bets--the hell with her anyway."

Right. 1) if she's gonna be a little peacock, she'd better have that huge bush of feathers to prove it. 2) even if she did, people who go around peacocking STILL come across as arrogant, even if they are smart at what they are talking about. What's Judy's "work"? That she spends all her time scurrying the Internet for hard to find articles to prove her points? As I said, I work a day job, have life responsibilities, and I have a side business relating to the Arts that requires a lot of my free time. Researching Venezuelan articles and politics is really not something I can do all day.

"But, in a way, she is ours--those of us here at DU who have been fighting the disinformation battle about Latin America, to try to help prevent yet another U.S.-instigated torture-fest and bloodbath in that region. More like a grandmother--the keeper of the history and old wisdom. The keeper of the Family Album: her awesome photo archive of Latin American fascist thugs and CIA operatives, and the bodies of their slain victims--the poor, the leftists--who have dared to oppose U.S./fascist policy, and also photos of the good guys--like her wonderful photo of the three new Bolivarian presidents, Chavez, Morales and Correa, sitting together in indigenous costume. That kind of grandmother--knowledgeable, wise, caring. And if such a person tells you to "do your homework," and you react like a flibbertigibbet, with all your excuses, you can understand why we would then take your views of the matter at hand as...shallow, not deeply felt, distracted, self-involved."

Ahhh...I see. The cubs come to the rescue of the mother. Keeper of the history and old wisdom...I love the terminology. Knowledgeable...wise...caring...and a little impatient...that stern grandmother who carries around her ruler and tells her "children" to "do their homework" and "not wait for someone else to do it". How nice.

Hey buddy...who ASKED her to be my grandmother? I'm sure you "grandchildren" love to fawn at her feet...but I never voted for that or consented to it. She could be the smartest DU poster...she made one huge mistake when she became arrogant in her postings. She turned me off. Spare me your syrupy reminiscing about the great grandmother of DU. The great grandmother also has a great arrogant attitude.

And what's with the proxy defenders? Who asked YOU to get involved. Did I seek out a "battle" with Judi? Was I the one who decided to post "do your homework" to someone she doesn't know? She baited the flame, and she got it. And nobody invited you. So butt out. Go worship your Goddess/Grandmother.

[nick303]

99. Eh, she's pretty much always a condescending, arrogant ****

No need to worry about it or justify yourself.

[boricua79]

105. thank you...

It's nice to see that others notice that I'm not being way out of line here. My response to her, while to the point, was not disrespectful. I didn't need to get the sob story from her defender as well.

[EFerrari]

39. You're welcome. I had to call someone to find out because

it's not anywhere in the press.

[boricua79]

40. why don't you tell Judi.

She seems to think THAT information is abundantly availabe, and we're just being "non-starters" for asking.

[EFerrari]

41. You guys cool it.

I need both of your eyes this weekend. :)

Edit: Ven Analysis did have the fact of the monitoring but I had to call for the entities. Wow. We're watching a genuine CIA driven destabilization effort.

[boricua79]

42. oh yeah...those bastards are hard at work

Been so in every election that matters to the U.S.

That coup of 2002 was all U.S. I spoke with some of my academic mentors (ex-State department guys with connections to Latin American embassies). They all confirmed that this was a U.S.-show (off the record). So I knew it was the same old, same old.

And then the American people DARE to ask, "Why do they hate us"?

The rest of the world knows the answer to that question.

[EFerrari]

43. And some of us Heinz 57 types. I'm half yanqui so you can imagine

the inner turmoil.

[Flanker]

52. There are plenty of observers

From Brasillian senators to Evo arch-foe Jorge Quiroga. The thing is that the OAS and EU did not have time to set up their operations, they were the ones on the final say not the electoral body.

Frankly I think they are not needed for a clean election as the system is pretty close to bullet proof and the opposition will observe every single step with detail with their own army of observers, the dangerous part has always been them crying fraud and the international community agreeing, but I doubt it.

[EFerrari]

57. And notice, without doing so explicitly, the NYTs has implied

the election will not be clean. And that has been picked up by the cable bubbleheads.

[MADem]

104. Where are they from? Who are they? What organizations do they represent? nt

[Voltaire99]

22. NY Times paving the way for more US meddling in Latin America.

See the Nov. 28 piece by James Petras at Counterpunch.

[KingOfLostSouls]

24. Yup

dirty wars all over again.


the only problem, well for the imperialistas, is that thankfully the people of latin america won't go quietly into the night this time. they're not going to let themselves be rounded up in futbol stadiums.

speaking of which, if chavez is as bad as the reich wing would have us believe, is what he'd be doing to the opposition. instead he puts it to the people. chavez has never once struck me as a fascist. fiery? yes. confrontational? definitely. temperamental? totally. but never a fascist. he genuinely cares for his country and he's fighting against a dirty war which wants to return the people back under the boot heel. its a lot easier when the enemy is attacking you with tanks and bullets, its a whole other thing when they're using propaganda and sabotage and people looking to make a buck to enrich their own pockets. I could see why he is having this referendum, because without it, there is a real danger that venezuela would be put back under the boot by those who tried to take over beforehand.

anyone who is attacking chavez should remember that the people who staged a coup beforehand and are attempting it now, after they were in power, cancelled all elections, dissolved the national assembly and supreme court, repealed the constitution, and fired on civilians. not to mention the simple fact they were backed by a military junta (The USA) to overthrow a democratically elected leader in free and open elections. these guys aren't pro democracy. all chavez is doing is letting the people keep him as long as they'll have him, same as FDR did.

[EFerrari]

28. That's right. Petras was on Amy's show this morning.

I have an email out to find out the name of the monitoring organization(s).

I don't remember being so disgusted with the corporate media since 11/04.

[EFerrari]

29. FYI: per the Venezuela Information Office, election will be monitored

by the NAACP and the National Lawyers Guild.

[YoungDUer]

34. Everything in US media seems to be anti-Chavez

That doesn't mean that's an invalid point of view; but there's lots of good things to say too. It's horribly unbalanced.

[EFerrari]

37. You've seen for yourself on this thread that there are outright lies.

I don't mind disagreement. A lying media is something else.

/oops

[Justitia]

38. see my post # 36 for an explanation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3083560&mesg_id=3084188

[Peace Patriot]

53. Slimy, sneaky, twisty lie by the NYT that Venezuela won't have international observers

for this election. Outright lie about why the OAS and EU groups are not participating (see below). It's not that the National Electoral Council didn't invite them; it's that they need 6 months lead time, and this referendum came up sooner than that. (The vote of the people was dependent on a vote of the National Assembly.) But the sneakier lie is the more important one, and worth studying--for it is typical of our war profiteering corporate news monopolies, who trade on giving the IMPRESSION of telling the truth, but are often actually slipping CIA-type disinformation, in support of Bushite/global corporate predator plots, into their so-called 'news' articles.

Study this sentence:

"But departing from its practice in last year’s presidential election, Venezuela did not invite electoral observers from the Organization of American States and the European Union, opening the government to claims of fraud if he wins."--NYT

Spot the disinformation! (Remember that game, "What's wrong with this picture?") WHO IS IT who is saying that OAS/EU not participating "opens the government to claims of fraud if he (Chavez) wins"? It's the New York Times saying this--echoing the bogus "we was robbed" claims of the rightwing elite in every election prior to this--elections that the OAS/EU DID participate in.

Why would this "open" Venezuela to such claims? The facts are the facts about the Venezuelan election system. It is one of the most transparent in the world--as the Carter Center, the OAS and EU election monitoring groups have time and again demonstrated during regularly scheduled elections. And who was paying those rightwing groups millions of U.S. tax dollars, through USAID-NED and other budgets, to claim "we was robbed" as part of destabilization plots?

All this essential context is left out, as the NYT shills for its corporate puppetmasters.

There is also the phrase "if he wins." The sentence is set up to personalize the issue--also very typical of these corporate news monopolies, who disguise their snotty contempt for the majority of the people of Venezuela--the poor and the brown, the workers, the lower middle class, small business, the indigenous--who overwhelmingly support Chavez (who enjoys a 70% approval rating overall in Venezuela), by making this, and everything else, about Chavez. If the amendments are approved by this vote of the people, the people of Venezuela win, not just Chavez. This is also a sneakier lie, by people who have sold their souls the Church of the Corporation. They don't even SEE ordinary people any more. They don't believe in democracy any more. Like Bushites, they view most people as slave labor or cannon fodder for their corporate resource wars. And they loathe populist politicians who think otherwise and who succeed at speaking for, and acting for, MOST people. So they target the personality of the populist politician and demonize him. Thus the will of millions and millions of people in a democracy is shoved aside, marginalized, black-holed.

But it is mostly this prediction by the NYT that the independent elections commission "not inviting" the OAS/EU to participate (not true) leaves the CHAVEZ GOVERNMENT open to "claims of fraud" that interests me here. This "talking point" was used as recently in the '06 presidential election in Venezuela, as part of a plot to push a false Penn and Schoen poll that Chavez actually lost (he won with 63% of the vote), to foment false "riots" and disorder, and to assassinate Chavez and again try to install a rightwing dictatorship. The opposition candidate was obliged to publicly disavow this plot, because it got exposed. It is a USAID-NED-designed strategy, paid for by our tax dollars, to continually sabotage democracy in Venezuela with false accusations of election fraud. And here, the NYT is feeding its readers the talking point--and omitting all sorts of facts, context and background, so that their readers stupidly accept it.

Utterly disgraceful journalism--by people who know damned well what they are doing!


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

"OBSERVERS FROM 39 COUNTRIES TO GUARANTEE CLEAN REFERENDUM VOTE
"November 30th 2007, by ABN

"Caracas, 29 Nov. ABN.- The National Electoral Council (CNE) announced that observers from 39 countries will guarantee a clean voting process during the referendum for constitutional reform to be held this Sunday, December 2nd.

"On Thursday, the CNE distributed the International Accompaniment Program for the Referendum on Constitutional Reform.

"Included in the list of observers are representatives of Antigua and Barbuda, Germany, Argentina, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Spain, United States, Philippines, Finland, France, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Holland, Honduras, England, Italy, Mali, Namibia, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Switzerland, Surinam and Uruguay.

"Among these representatives are electoral officials, writers, journalists, ministers, university educators, investigators, parliamentarians and representatives of various social organizations.

"CNE Director Germán Yépez said that he expects between 100 and 120 international observers from American electoral entities as well as American and European electoral systems experts.

"He explained that this time OAS and EU missions will not participate since the referendum preparation period was too short. The two organizations need five to six months to organize their activities.

"Regarding national observation, Yépez emphasized that three NGO’s were authorized: Asamblea de Educación (Education Assembly), Ojo Electoral (Electoral Watch) and Universitarios por la Equidad (University Students for Equity), each of which can accredit around 500 observers.

"In closing he announced that Electoral Power representatives would meet with international observers Friday at 9:30 am in the Alba Caracas hotel to discuss the electoral process."

"Translated by Dawn Gable

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/newsbrief/2927

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

To sum up, thousands of international election observer will participate in monitoring this election. Many international groups were invited. The OAS and the EU were invited but couldn't participate because of the short time frame (an unscheduled election, dependent on variables outside of the Venezuelan election commission's control).

Further--omitted by the NYT--there is absolutely no evidentiary basis on which to question the transparency of Venezuela's election SYSTEM, which has time and again been monitored by thousands of international observers--including the Carter Center, the OAS and the EU--and which, on its face--on the facts--is one of the most transparent on earth, and puts our own to utter shame. The NYT is planting a doubt. It is feeding an element of rightwing/Bushite/Corporate plots to topple this democratically elected government, and install a rightwing dictatorship, which, the last time they tried this, in 2002, suspended the Constitution, the National Assembly, the courts, all the laws, and all civil rights, and kidnapped the elected president and threatened his life.

This NYT talking point--"opening the government to claims of fraud"--opens the NEW YORK TIMES to claims of collusion!

[EFerrari]

59. I can't believe I was ever so deluded as to actually PAY

to receive that fish wrap. :nuke:

[Justitia]

62. Echoes of Operation Mockingbird, eh? -eom

[Judi Lynn]

69. Thanks for laying it all out to see at once. SO MANY COUNTRIES!

Especially wry to see "United States" in there, knowing what the N.Y.Times has tried to pull on its readers, and on the country about this referendum.

It will be important to save the link you posted.

[EFerrari]

75. The genius of putting the disinfo out in the NYTs

is that even many if not most DUers believe they have a liberal bias.

So, they fly under the radar.

Well, the NYTs is now the source for the seed of the idea that this election will be crooked. Just as it was the source for the rubber stamp on our last stolen election because as the Public Editor assured us, they were ready to "investigate" should there be any story in Ohio.

And, we're still waiting for that reportage, aren't we?

[Peace Patriot]

84. Yup, the NYT is a very special breed of scumbag journalism.

For those who still have any trust in them, I would just continually repeat the Judy Miller story. Front page, week after week, lie after lie, on Iraq's WMDs. That's what the NYT spent its reputation on--slaughtering a million innocent people in Iraq to get their oil, and to transfer the entire U.S. military to the Middle East. And it really wasn't to convince anyone. It wasn't opinion in a dialog. It was part of larger global corporate predator DELUSIONARY narrative that they were all collusive in creating, that aimed, not at convincing the American people, but rather at rendering them helpless to do anything about it, and feeling isolated and alone, in their view (56% of them, NYT poll, Feb. '03) that this war was wrong. That is what is unforgivable. It was an attack (and continues to be an attack) on democracy itself--with associated black-holing of election fraud as the other part of it.

And the snooty, kultchud shills at the NYT (and also PBS) are especially to blame, because they know damn well what they are doing. They could have stopped this horrible war, and these fascist murderers and thieves in the White House, and they have not done so. They have colluded with them. It is a disgusting spectacle.

Also, one thing that their role in trying to topple democracy in Venezuela teaches us is that they are unreformable. They learned nothing from how the Pentagon and the NeoCons used them on Iraq. They are not remorseful. They are not trying to mend their ways. They DON'T CARE. They are so embedded in the war profiteer and global corporate predator power structure that it is immaterial to them how disgusting they are to anyone who knows the truth on these issues.

That can help us on matters of strategy. One thing I already suspect is that New York was deliberately spared electronic voting, run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls--the fraudulent vote counting system that was crammed down everybody else's throats during the 2002 to 2004 period. And I think New York was spared this in order to prevent New York voters from becoming alarmed, and pressuring the NYT to expose it. Virtually every other state was forced by the Bushite election commission (and by their own election officials' corruption) to adopt this fraudulent voting system. Not New York. And now there is quite an election reform movement there to prevent it. But the time for alerting the rest of the country has long past. The damage is done--enormous damage to our democracy, and to our country and our government. Possibly the NYT would have colluded on election fraud, nationwide, anyway. But by preventing it from becoming an issue in New York, during the 2002 to 2004 period, the Bushites foreclosed the possibility of quick dissemination of alarms about the voting system, since New York is the center of a lot of news media, and the NYT is the center of that establishment. If the NYT covers it, others MUST cover it. And what the NYT says about an issue keys off discussion and debate, in other media and in the society as a whole.

I've found it very odd that the ONLY TWO U.S. SENATORS--D or R--who voted against the "Help America Vote Act" ($3.9 e-voting boondoggle to spread these election theft machines everywhere) were Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. The ONLY TWO. But I'm beginning to understand it. Don't alarm the New York voters.

How does this help strategy? I'm not sure yet. And how does it help strategy to be able to watch the NYT go to the dark side and stay there--hopeless, irredeemable. Not sure. But I'm sure it will. I'll think about it. For one thing, it removes Hillary's only redeeming feature (in my opinion)--that she voted against HAVA. And it thus removes my piquant hope that she might tolerate election reform, once she herself is in power. That hope is gone, if what I suspect about her vote is true (don't alarm New York voters, they might influence the NYT). And that means doubling our efforts at the state/local level, to restore transparent vote counting, and putting no time and energy into DC, which will continue to be as corrupt and fascist on this issue as they are now.

It also means forgetting the NYT for even mere factual info on the coming presidential election here. They will do as they are told by the global corporate predators who rule over us. Lies on Chavez mean more lies here, on more issues. On Iran, for instance--when the "Gulf of Tonkin" moment comes. Don't expect them to have learned any lessons from the Iraq War.

As to Chavez, it means doubling our efforts to get real information to our fellow and sister citizens. There is NOT A SINGLE news outlet in this country, or under global corporate predator control worldwide, who is, or will be, providing an objective view.

Has anyone been monitoring McClatchy News Service on Chavez? I know they own the Miami Herald, but the news service--different from individual newspapers that McClatchey acquired in the buyout of Knight-Ridder--has shown considerable independence on the Iraq War and other Bushite issues. The news service is separate. It has done some great reporting. But I have checked them on Chavez and Venezuela.

We should compile a list of reliable news resources on Venezuela, and post it as a comment on every DU corporate news article that gets posted, and say something like, "If you want the real story on Venezuela, don't rely on these lying scumbag corporate reporters--go here"--and give the list.

I'll check Asia Times--a fabulous news service. I would bet that they are good on this issue.

[SpikeTss]

56. Chavez must be an excellent president

Judging from the amount and the type of articles published in 'our' media outlets.

They really hate him, don't they?
It's really funny watching how helpless they attack him ... *rofl*

[Judi Lynn]

61. As a reminder of something DU'er "pescao" has told us, any DU'ers in London

could surely lend an appreciated presence by attending the demonstration planned for Sunday there, be sure to wear your cheerful red shirts! Any information needed could be gathered from contacting the "Hands Off Venzuela" organization:

http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/

[David__77]

73. They're in full scale McCarthyite war propaganda mode.

The US/UK media are totally united in their new "line" on the Venezuelan government. I am confident that on Sunday, the people of that country will usher in a better era and send the fascists packing.

[EFerrari]

74. I don't remember ever seeing anything like this.

It's not new but my god, it's so BALD. :wow:

[David__77]

76. Oh it's happened.

I mean, the 1985-1990 Nicaraguan FSLN government was democratically-elected, but the US media never ever pointed that out. There were all kinds of election observers there in 1985.

The elites are very frustrated because the single superpower neo-liberal era is definitely heading to a close and they're lashing out. I hope that a Democratic administration can come to terms with new realities and seek detente.

[EFerrari]

77. I was translating for UN people during the Nicaragua interference.

Maybe I just wasn't monitoring the press this way or, maybe at the time, it wasn't possible to monitor the press so globally.

It would be encouraging to see Democrats not just jump on the smear wagon but they usually do, as when Pelosi condemned Chavez for not renewing the license of RCTV who tried to get him killed.

[AmanAplan]

87. It still begs the question of how the CIA got tens of thousands

of protesters to chant against the egotistical arrogance of hugo the
great.

[Guaranteed]

89. Not beg, raises nt

[EFerrari]

93. What is it about dissent that is so hard to understand?

We really are screwn if even DUers can't imagine in a country that big that a good number of people will speak up and on camera. If we can't imagine that for Venezuela, we can't imagine it for ourselves.

[IsItJustMe]

90. LOL. You folks never quit, do ya?

[EFerrari]

92. No. That's just democracy. People out on the street. n/t

[Socal31]

102. Its all the Big Bad U S of A's fault!

Hilarious.....yet sad.

[EFerrari]

108. Reading up on the history of the US suppression of democracy

in Latin America is very sad.

[killbotfactory]

113. You're flippant dismissal has convinced me

Oh wait, the US has a long history of pulling dirty tricks against foreign countries like Venezuela. A lot of which result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the destruction of democracy and freedom.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

But, it's okay, I'm sure the ends will justify the means. They always do.:eyes: