Challenge for Chavez detractors...

[Solon]

A Hypothetical:

Rewind time back to 1998, Clinton is the target of a Republican witch-hunt. Now, as in real life, the Investigation doesn't really turn up anything solid, impeachment fails, etc. However, then reports filter through the Republican friendly media, about Clinton being unstable, etc. Soon enough, pundits and others soon enough start calling for his resignation, through false accusations, innuendo, and lies. Some even go so far as to say that Clinton should be deposed, by ANY means necessary.

Then, on a specific date, Media pundits on all major networks then call on Republicans to storm the White House to depose the President. This is done that day, while the Media concentrates on trying to maintain calm nationwide, Clinton is arrested and deposed as President, Al Gore goes into hiding, and Tom Delay(hey, not THAT far fetched ;)) is sworn as a new president of a transitionary government while the Constitution is dissolved.

Clinton, being a popular president at this time, has many supporters, and they come out en mass, especially in Washington D.C. Republican Supporters counter protest Clinton supporters, and the National Guard is called in to quell the violence, in reality, they brutally suppress Clinton supporters, using deadly force.

However, this has a galvanizing effect on Clinton Supporters, and soon enough, the coup fails, Clinton is released from Leavenworth, and reinstated as President under the Constitution. Later on, the investigation into the coup reveals it was partially funded by various foriegn governments, and many Republican party structures are supported by these international foundations, in violation of federal law.

Now, think about this, the Media not only is complicit, but outright supported a coup against the government, what do you think would have happened to those networks, those pundits, the owners, of those media stations in this country? What do you think would happen to the Republican party after such a coup?

Now, think about this, this is PRECISELY what happened in Venezuela, just change the names as appropriate. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that the DA that investigated the coup was killed in a car bomb. Anyways, so if this happened in the U.S., NONE of these media companies would be broadcasting after such a coup, most of the pundits would have RIGHTFULLY been thrown in jail, and the Republican party would have been destroyed as an organized political party.

Oddly enough, NONE of this happened in Venezuela, no journalists, even the ones that did outright support the coup, are in jail. The media companies are still broadcasting, unfettered, regardless of the "disrespect" law that was passed after the coup. Note: Chavez actually VETOED the law, forcing a revision, because he thought it was way too severe. And the opposition can still oppose Chavez. Granted, those organizations that took foriegn money, well, they were arrested, but then again, that would happen in the U.S. too, we actually have very similar laws in this regard.

The opposition in Venezuela are disorganized, badly, but then again, they only have themselves to blame for this, I mean, during mid-term elections, they boycotted the ELECTION itself. I mean, how fucking stupid do you have to be to boycott the election itself, then turn around and complain that you didn't win seats in the legislature? Hello, you didn't field any candidates you jackasses!

As far as Chavez himself, he isn't perfect, nor is he some type of savior, at most, I think of him as a breathe of fresh air, for once a coup funded by the U.S. has FAILED in Latin America, think about that for a moment.

This also brings up another point, if ANYONE in the world actually has a right to call Bush anything he wants, its Chavez, I mean, Bush's administration stated, immediately after the coup, that democracy triumphed in Venezuela, at the same time, blood was running through the streets of Caracas.

Critisize Chavez all you want, but how good of a dictator could he be when the opposition STILL stages protests, openly, that have signs with pictures of Chavez in the crosshairs on them? Note, that is ILLEGAL in the U.S., and is considered a direct threat by advocating the assassination of the president.

Seriously, if you were to put Chavez on a scale for Despotism, from 1 to 10, 10 being Hitler or Stalin level, let's see how he would rate compared to some other leaders of nations:

1-Really nobody, every government is a little despotic
2-Clinton, mostly left us alone, which is a good thing. Also the only presidency that actually DIDN'T overthrow democratic governments.
3-Hugo Chavez, main reason is because of his lack of getting rid of the old corruption(legal hangups), and the disrespect law
4-Abraham Lincoln, now, before you flame, he DID suspend Habeus Corpus(something Chavez didn't do after the coup), and DID technically act as a dictator for most of the Civil War. Whether it was necessary or not is up for debate of course.
5-Fidel Castro, let's just say, it would have been much better if he did make the cut to join the New York Yankees.
6-George W. Bush, let's just say, he would have scored higher if he wasn't so damned dumb.
7-This is a tough one, I say a tie between Saddam and the Iranian Mullahs, one a (former)dictator, the other a Theocracy, both have a tendancy to take a dim view of human rights in any context.
8-Shah of Iran, SAVAK was particularly brutal, trained by the best(CIA).
9-Mussolini, don't really need to comment on this.
10-Hitler and Stalin, a tie, both killed a comperable amount of people, well into the millions for each, no need to elaborate further.

My biggest problem with people who critisize Chavez isn't the fact that they critisize him, hell, I just critisized him right here, no, its the unsubstantiated claims that he is a dictator, one who apparently came to power through internationally monitored elections, I don't think Saddam or even Bush bothered to allow that.

[wyldwolf]

1. what is the source of your rating?

[Solon]

4. I'm proud to say that I pulled it out of my ass...

then again, it is based on certain realities, for example, Lincoln suspended the Constitution in damned near every aspect(First Amendment, etc.), except for maybe his re-election, but then again, that could theoratically be considered unconstitutional itself, simply because almost half the country couldn't participate. Then again, it was an unprecedented time. Compare that to Chavez, who, after the coup failed, actually read the conspirators(those who didn't leave the country), their rights, and to this day, most have yet to see a jail cell. If anything, Chavez is the most incompetent "Dictator" in the world, hell, even Bush jails journalists.

Before you complain about my pulling this shit out of my ass, I've seen much more of that from critics of Chavez, at least I admit it.

[savemefromdumbya]

2. I think it is a breath of fresh air - someone notable who criticizes Bush

Doesn't it appear so that if one criticizes Bush they are immediately branded as something - whether it is a dictator, thug whatever. I don't think you have to hug and kiss Chavez for saying what he said. It was just as you say a breath of fresh air!

[Poll_Blind]

3. That was a really, REALLY, useful and informative post. Your...

...touching on the "There will be no witch hunts" proclamation by Chavez after he was returned to power is something I don't see alot of and I'm very thankful that someone touched on it, because it is very telling about who Chavez is.

  Really, damnit, thank you for taking the time to organize that and post it.

  I'd like to think that some of the Chavez detractors would deign to read it and that that might cause them to do further research on their own. More than a few of them are caught up in other threads demanding loyalty oaths or openly opining about how many conservative trolls there must be on DU for such an uproar to occur. Still, I wager you that at least a few will take the time to read what you've said and, even if they don't respond to the thread, it will still have been worth your efforts.

Thank you,

PB

[Solon]

6. The thing that really annoys me is the fact that...

Chavez was WAY too forgiving. Granted, they did start an investigation of the coup plotters, of course the DA in that case was assassinated by the opposition, but really, any other democratic government would have forbidden the complicit media from uttering one word or publishing one paper ever again.

Though, this should be clear, freedom of speech and press is fine, but actually calling for the head of a sitting President, and actually conspiring to bring that about is DEFINITELY crossing the line.

[Mojambo]

5. A very good post.

I will recommend.

[ms liberty]

7. Excellent description of recent Venezuelan history - K&R n/t

[RangerSmith]

8. Some of this doesn't

square with what Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have reported, but as long as he's trashing bush, he'll be the hero here.

If we ever get a Democrat elected President, his rhetoric won't change a bit. He is anti - US, period.

But, what will change is the attitude here about what kind of guy he is.

[Solon]

10. Already looked them up...

Most have to do with local corruption, which Chavez himself admits is difficult to deal with. That's mostly on Amnesty International's site. As far as HRW, they countinue to defend Súmate, which illegally accepted funds from foriegn sources and is being prosecuted for it. At least they get their day in court.

Also another note: Chavez has always taken steps to differentiate between the American people and our, his words, unelected President. If he calls Bush the Devil, he means EXACTLY that, don't read more into it, or you can sound like a fool.

[RangerSmith]

13. I'm sorry

but the only fools are those that in the end really believe he is any different than bush.

There are two major interests interfering with elections in Latin America... US and Chavez.

[truebrit71]

15. How do you figure that?

Chavez is the only one in that region that has had the cajones to stand up to, and defeat the US imperialistic designs on his countries natural resources? That makes him okay in my book.

Plus he was LEGALLY elected, something that CAN'T be said by the giggling murderer in the WH....

[Solon]

16. Can you provide any proof that Chavez has funneled money...

into domestic elections in other Latin American countries? Rhetoric is one thing, ACTION another. If you can provide sources for your accusation, then I will be more than happy to review them on their own merits.

[RangerSmith]

21. if bush backs a candidate

would he be interfering?

Can you document the US money into interfering with Latin American elections?

Yet we both know it's happening.

The man is on a mission... just like bush. The only difference is how you feel about his mission.

He is backing candidates in every election down there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5028910.stm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060500865.html

http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200604281442

http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2005/Aug/08-527036.html?chanlid=democracy

[Solon]

23. YOu bring up that bitter bellhop's webpage as proof...

You just shot your credibility all to hell. Also, as I said, Rhetoric is one thing, action another. Through the IED, the US has funded domestic political groups in many different nations. Hell, I mentioned Súmate already, didn't I?

[Tempest]

29. How about the $65 million Bush sent to the Ukraine?

To "influence" their election?

[RangerSmith]

30. I'm not for interfering, period. ...nt

[Ken Burch]

48. And Bush has no moral right to do so.

The wealth of Latin America by right belongs to THE PEOPLE OF LATN AMERICA, not gringo corporations.

"Free trade" hurts Democratic voters and hurts the people who would be natural Democratic voters in other countries.

Time to finally get on the right side of history. Security and stability rest on justice for the people, not profits for the few.

[Don1]

49. This is ridiculous.

Your links document Chavez saying stuff that is all. So what? You implied, though, that Chavez was contributing money to campaigns in other countries. The only link that says anything like that is the last link written by the Republican Administration which it uses to justify sending in its own money to Venezuela and other Latin countries to support fascism. But the worst thing about your dishonest posting is the original claim: "Some of this doesn't square with what Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have reported, but as long as he's trashing bush, he'll be the hero here." You never backed this up and instead posted some links to news articles about Chavez "endorsing" someone. Big deal. Then, you have the nerve to condemn DU itself as Bush-bashing by stating "...as long as he's trashing bush, he'll be the hero here." RangerSmith, Bush's cronies tried to off Chavez and Pat Robertson endorsed his assassination, so I just have one question for you. Are you insane?

[tkmorris]

18. You don't know what you are talking about

Sorry, you just don't. Chavez has always gone to amazing lengths to point out that he loves the American people, but despises bush. Your response? "He hates the US".

As far as your other claim that he interferes with elections in Latin America, well sorry, no sale. Has he expressed an opinion? Sure, but so what? That aint interference. Funneling large sums of cash through the NED to opposition groups, that's interference.

[bvar22]

26. The IGNORANCE is mind boggling.

Bush* (Corporate Fascist) is the EXTREME POLAR OPPOSITE of Chavez (Democratic Populist).

[bvar22]

25. Chavez is NOT anti-USA.

Hell, Chavez is sending Financial Aid to the USA.

He IS Anti-Predatory US Corporations.
Admittedly, it is difficult to distunguish between Corporate Boardrooms and the US Government.
Chavez directly threatens the dominance of the IMF and Free Trade in the Caribbean and South America.
This ALONE puts him on the US Government's...excuse me...US MegaCorporation's Hit List.
Naturally, the CorpoMedia will do anything to marginalize Chavez and the Bolivarian Reforms in Central and South America.

Have you heard anyting lately about the Populist Revolution happening in Mexico?
My point exactly.

[zeemike]

12. I think your assumptions are wrong

And when the real president Gore takes office I think you will se a change in not only Chavez attitude but that of the entire world.
Right now we have few friends in the world except for the Saudis.

[RangerSmith]

22. what do you suppose his issue was 100 yrs ago?

"Taking a question from a Mexican reporter Wednesday, Chavez mused he would have liked to be a fighter with the revolutionary Pancho Villa nearly a century ago when he led his men in a raid into U.S. territory.

"They invaded the United States," Chavez said. "The only one who has dared to invade the United States was Pancho Villa."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/09/22/1878907-ap.html

bush says he is with the Iraqi people all the time, too. I'm sure they take a lot of comfort in that.

[zeemike]

31. There is no issue.

He was just responding to the pride of the Mexicans in one of there hero's that had the balls to face up to the powerful Americans.
\The Mexicans as well as most latinos have great respect for bravery especially against great odds. But that does not mean that they hate us.

[bvar22]

27. You forgot Poland!!!!

:rofl:

[rman]

33. We've been over HRW 'reports' more than a few times in the past days

Those are not in fact "reports" but rather unverified complaints submitted to HRW by the Chavez opposition.

However, HRW reports on US violations of Human Rights have been verified.

[Ken Burch]

47. That would depend on what sort of a Democrat...

If a real Democrat like Kucinich or Feingold or Sherrod Brown were to be elected, it is possible that that Democrat might do the right thing and not insist on putting "property rights" and "free trade" before all else in terms of Latin America policy. Were we to have a Democratic president that admitted that radicalism in Latin America IS driven by poverty and oppression, rather than by "foreign subversion", Chavez might well be willing to work with us. As this might give us lower oil prices, we could even argue that a pro-social justice, and pro-Chavez stance would be in our national interest.

On the other hand, if we were to get Hillary or another Scoop Jackson clone, the sort who would shit on the poor the way most American presidents have, Chavez WOULD remain hostile to the US government and we'd have no right to complain if he did.

[bobbolink]

9. One thing I'd like to add to your story....

First, thanks for posting this. I sadly suspect that the loud detractors won't be bothered to actually think about your different view, but--you tried.

What I've heard from someone who was in Venezuela at the time of the coup was that Chavez supporters *didn't* go into the streets, didn't cause any uproar.

They simply started making things in the country unworkable. Those who worked for the phone company started unplugging things here and there. Those in the utility company did the same. Soon, things around the country just weren't working, and the generals had to speak up and say they couldn't make the country work, and were holding elections again.

As we now know, Chavez won reelection handily (which he even shouldn't have had to do, as he was still serving the term he won!), and the people are glad he is back.

I enjoy hearing what they did, because it's a sign of how together they were and like minded in the non-violent ways of getting their country back. It's not always true that people have to go out in the streets as individuals. Sometimes a quieter group effort works quite well. People just have to agree, and communicate well together. :)

[tblue]

24. The Chavez supporters did take to the streets and it's on video

An Irish filmmaker was making a documentary and got the 1000s of people on tape.

Here's the BBC report on it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1985000/video/_1985670_ven22_palast_vi.ram

[bobbolink]

41. thanks for the info and the video!!

much appreciated!

[1932]

32. The whole thing happened over two days.

The coup leaders pulled out because the guards in the presidential palace remained loyal to Chavez. People in Chavez's government called the coup leaders and told them that, in the basement of the palace, there were guards who were coming upstairs to arrest them. They fled. Chavez's government got tipped off to the coup by the president of OPEC, which gave them enough time to get the guards in place. Meanwhile, Chavez's supporters surrounde the palace.

There are great scenes of this in The Revolution Will Not Be Televised where the crowd can see that the guards are on their side and are about to take back control of the palace.

[bobbolink]

42. Thanks for the info! I won't be able to see that video you mentioned,

but I appreciate knowing about it.

And, thanks for your reply being civil. :) It's becoming a rare occurence here... :(

[rman]

35. It was a non-violent taking to the streets

Chavez supporters had surrounded the presidential palace when the coupsters had taken up residence there, the palace guard had remained loyal to Chavez and they took their que from the Chavez supporters there present. Not a single shot was fired, and Chavez returned that evening.

During the pre-coup confrontation between Chavez supporters and the opposition (which came about because in violation of their permit an opposition march that day marched on the palace), several Chavez supporters were shot dead by snipers.

The whole thing was captured on video by an Irish documentary team that was there to do a profile on Chavez:

THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5793200611323299754&q=inside+the+coup

[cali]

11. I think this is a really good post and makes an

excellent point. I still think Chavez' comments about bushco were childish and heavy handed. And I didn't find the rest of his speech particularly good either. That's virtually all I've said about it. I don't think Chavez is a thug or a dictator or anything but the duly elected President of his country, but by criticizing his comments and speech, I've enraged several DUers, and to my amusement been called a DLCer and a freeper. Preety interesting response.

[Solon]

14. To be honest, I agree somewhat...

I would not call Chavez a man of eloquence, he can be extremely direct and personal in his critisisms of others, and he definately DOESN'T mince words. Then again, I think he's excellent playing to the crowd in most instances. This most recent speech hasn't been his best, some of his past speeches, on the other hand, are REALLY good.

[bvar22]

28. I wonder how his supporters in Venezuela...

...and South America feel about his speech at the UN?
I wonder if THEY would say his performance was childish and unsophisticated?

I wonder how the Rest of the World feels about Chavez's comments at the UN.
What do you think the billions in South and Central America, The Caribbean, Africa, the Middle East, Palestine, Indonesia, Malaysia, South East Asia, and China think about Chavez calling bush a devil?

I believe that the Chavez critics are in an extreme minority, and had better take off their blinders, because changes are in the wind.

[Poll_Blind]

17. Kicking for just ONE more rec....n/t

PB

[tkmorris]

19. Done n/t

[Poll_Blind]

20. Muchos gracias! n/t

PB

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. At a cursory reading, it's not clear what your challenge is.

I'm very much a "Chavez detractor", and I don't see any contradiction between saying that his handling of the attempted coup was not a reason to criticise him and saying that other things are.

I've never seen a DUer (or indeed anyone else, although the media I follow is UK not US so I may well have missed something that was high-profile there) call Chavez a dictator. Not being a dictator does not mean he's an admirable individual.

It is clear that a lot of the criticisms aimed at Chavez are not valid; however, there are also a good many that are.

I'd quible with several bits of your "despotism ranking": Rating Castro (a dictator) as less despotic than Bush is clearly a big mistake; rating Chavez as less despotic (which is *not* the same thing as better) than him is highly debateable (it will go down well on DU, but most more objective comentators would disagree strongly, I think). I'd be inclined to rate Saddam as more despotic than the Iranian Mullahs, and possibly more so than Mussolini (I don't know enough about the Shah of Iran to comment on him), on the grounds of his treatment of the kurds.

Putting Hitler and Stalin in a class of their own is probably a mistake - they killed more people in total than anyone else except Mao, but that's because they were so powerful. Pol Pot only killed 1 million people, but out of a population of 3 million that's considerably bloodier than either of them. I think "murders per capita" is a better measure of dictators than "net murders".

[rman]

36. Ask yourself where you got the idea that Castro is a dictator

It's the same sources that would have us believe Chavez is a dictator; basically the big-money interests that own the MSM and would rather continue to get away with economic exploitation of poor nations (="US interests"), as they have been doing for ages.

Are you aware that Nelson Mandela is a good friend of Castro?
Not much of a surprise if you aren't; thanks to those darn liberal media.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. The Guardian, the Telegraph, the Economist, the BBC and of course the net

None of which would have us believe that Chavez is a dictator (with the obvious exception of some sections of the last).

Your parroting of buzzwords about the media is something I may quote if I ever want to demonstrate that it's not only right-wingers who choose to ignore things they don't want to hear - it may well be an accurate summary of some media organs, especially in the US; it's clearly not an accurate summary of "the media", and I've never seen a reliable source deny that Castro is a dictator, whereas I've seen all the ones I've listed above agree on it.

Arguing that Castro is a "good" dictator is I think deeply mistaken, but there's at least a case to be made there. Arguing that he's not a dictator is denying an incredibly obvious fact.

[rman]

39. What do you know about the political system in Cuba,

about elections there, about how much power Castro does or doesn't have?

[undergroundpanther]

38. In castros cuba..things are not what you think

Everyone has healthcare. FREE.
And if a Hurricaine strikes Cuba everyone is evacuated to safetyincluding people who can't drive away.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/09/20/transcript.wed/index.html
Cuba seems to care about its citizens well being too..
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/sfeature/sf_views_uriarte.html
American doctors trained in CUBA for FREE..
http://flux64.wordpress.com/2006/08/18/free-medical-education-in-cuba-2/
hell they offer FREE medical treatments for Americans Eyecare..http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1867703,00.html

[Donald Ian Rankin]

40. All quite possibly true

But nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Castro is or was a dictator or a despot - it's quite possible to provide free healthcare without being elected.

[bobbolink]

43. Cuba also does the same for other countries in the region....

helping them to get people out of harms way, sending in medical aid, etc.

As a matter of fact, sending medical aid to neighboring countries after hurricanes was the starting point for Cuba to bring in students to study at their medical school, free of charge! They decided to train doctors from neighboring countries, as a step to them having their own medical care, rather than relying on Cuba.

My understanding is that there are currently 80-some (I think it was 88 at the last count) students from the U.S. who are studying medicine in Cuba!

There are other things wrong, but there are things that are very right, and put the U.S. to shame!

[Solon]

46. I've seen plenty of DUers call Chavez a Dictator, especially in the past..

few days. Actually, I could call out every single on of the individuals out that DID call him that, or at least hint at it, here's one link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2182548#2182636

Also, as far as the MSM, they DO have a misinformation campaign against Chavez, and have hinted at him being a dictator too many times to count. As far as Bush, Castro and the rest, actually I'm surprised no one has challenged me on Abe Lincoln, but I digress, OK, Chavez is definately less despotic than either, for simple reasons. OK, first things first, Castro arrests Journalists, so does GWB, Chavez hasn't. You can look here for more info:

http://www.cpj.org/attacks05/pages05/imprison_05.html

That is one measure of despotism, others include the use of secret prisons, whether rule of law(and courts) apply to inmates, etc. In those instances, Chavez has Bush beat, hands down, in Venezuela, there are some people who were accused of accepting foriegn funds to either disrupt elections or overthrow the government, and oddly enough, THEY get their say in court, but in the U.S., you have no chance. Jose Padilla comes to mind here.

I do find it ironic that the biggest compaint on HRW is the fact that some people accused of a crime ACTUALLY GET TO SHOW UP AT COURT! Damn, how surprising.

The thing is this, at least you are somewhat honest, can't say that about other Chavez critics. As I said, I have NO problem with critism, in fact, this thread is a critism of Chavez, why the hell they CAN'T arrest the media there, I have no idea, I mean, they actually attempted to overthrow a democratically elected government, that I don't think is a free speech issue.

If anything, Chavez is too damned soft in some instances, going so far as to actually threaten to put term limit removal on the ballot IF the opposition doesn't oppose him politically. He's BEGGING for a legitimate opposition, one he can debate, one he can beat fairly in an election, which he will, they have throughly discredited themselves. I used the coup as an example of Chavez being MORE fair than 90% of democratically elected leaders worldwide. He had the PERFECT opportunity to sieze absolute power, and instead he passed on it. That more reassuring than anything I can think of.

[Don1]

50. Maybe you should do more than just a "cursory reading"

and answer the questions within the post.

[OXM]

44. My 2 Cents...

The problem with what happened at the UN is the similarity to Bush's Axis of Evil speech, which was probably as instrumental as the Iraq war to the rise of the extreme government in Iran (and the hard line in N. Korea). While people in Iran were slowly going in the right direction, Bush's meddling, offensive speech enraged them enough to stand behind an extreme government that would stand up to Bush.

The same thing might happen here (already we see it in Boston, with the call to remove the Citgo sign), with people choosing to stand behind Bush because they see Chavez's remarks as offensive to the US, and there is a point to be made here.

I can tell you Bush stinks of the blood of the people whose lives he destroyed, and you may say that too, but when Chavez says that it's not easy for me to see him as being on the side of progressive politics.

He's still on his side first, and on the side of truth and justice later.

[Joe Chi Minh]

45. I think you are very wrong to airly dismiss the notion of Chavez as

a saviour, even as a rhetorical device.

I am sure that there are many of the poorest folk in Venezuela for whom he has indeed been a saviour. Providing sustenance, health care and education. And while orphaned infants are living in drains and culverts in Brazil, and are periodically shot by militia, and the plight of the poorest in Venezuela in the past was unlikely to be much better, I suspect that would not be a feature of Venezuela today, under Chavez's government.

[NotGivingUp]

51. great post!