Chaves is stilled considered a loose cannon and a Castro wannabe in the Hispanic world. He isn't the popular democracy fighter the left wants to paint him in the states. He is a dictator in the making.
The point is that the US was involved in nearly every (if not all) overthrows in Central and South America.
In other words, the US Presidents love to talk about Democracy but they waste no time forcing it out of other countries that do not bow down to the US.
The US now works with a "might makes right" technique that thinking people everywhere loathe.
I was 13 when sent abroad to boarding school with the unexpected result of learning about my own country from another country's perspective. I have never been able to see the world the same way again, and almost 40 years later, I am still looking at the nuance way in which we collude to shape a world view that enables us to "act".
Fred, the point is, we cannot "know" but we can look at patterns and make reasonable assessments.
How could we know? That takes a societal valuing of recorded information management, that is, evidence-based practice in which we capture records of decision processes, outcomes, evaluation, integration into planning and action, etc. Then it takes the rigour and courage to look at patterns again - what evidence exists, and why? What gaps exist, and why?
RIM puts rigour into knowing and is fundamental...and it should occur as a routine byproduct of practice. The lack of attention to this my most organisations and most people is a key, if largely unrecognized, issue in transparency and accountability.
When Hugo Chavez was overthrown, his people, the people, the community of the barrios brought him back. What can that say about Hugo Chavez?
The people of Venezuela love Hugo, the rich in that country hate him. And with purpose. Hugo does not represent a Junta. He represents the one thing the poor never had, a voice.
The US is a junta there is not doubt about that to me now. A government for the few, the rich.
Some ideologists of a certain political persuasion believe in this government. I have thought more deeply on that now and it makes sense. As long as that government is for them.
Bush pledged billions to Darfur, or millions who can tell with that fool, but I wonder how much of that Darfur will actually receive, if any.
As it is in this country and those the US has helped to overthrow the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. We have an empire and a regime built on that dogma.
Pinochet is more of a name than I even knew, a person that made others disappear. Bolivia also had a leader we planted that couldn't even speak Spanish.
Venezuela for the time being is better off with Hugo. Hugo seems to me a man of the people. Hardly a dictator in waiting. Hardly a Hitler, a Stalin, a Pinochet, a Husein, or even a Bush.
After the coup the people wanted, demanded him back. That says quite a bit about Hugo Chavez.
Hugo understands the hardships of his people and during his time has done more to acknowledge those that live in poverty than any other before him.
Key word, acknowledge. If it weren't for the underground press here in this country you wouldn't even know that there was a skid row. As far as the tapestry of Venezuela went under prior leadership, the maps showed mountainsides as just that mountainsides. After Hugo the demographic maps shown what was actually there, and something for the rich to see.
Bottom line is, he gets under the skin of the rich in Venezuela and the rich there would like nothing more than to see him gone and the government overthrown by some western lacky. And we ALL KNOW WHY.
"Start with Article 147: "Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of 6 to 30 months if the offense is serious and half of that if it is light." That sanction, the code implies, applies to those who "disrespect" the president or his functionaries in private; "the term will be increased by a third if the offense is made publicly."
"There's more: Article 444 says that comments that "expose another person to contempt or public hatred" can bring a prison sentence of one to three years; Article 297a says that someone who "causes public panic or anxiety" with inaccurate reports can receive five years. Prosecutors are authorized to track down allegedly criminal inaccuracies not only in newspapers and electronic media, but also in e-mail and telephone communications."
"Article 297a says that someone who "causes public panic or anxiety" with inaccurate reports can receive five years. Prosecutors are authorized to track down allegedly criminal inaccuracies not only in newspapers and electronic media, but also in e-mail and telephone communications."
Fred I do have a question however. Did you watch the movie? Really the views that come from Venezuela itself hold more water than the views coming from you and your sources.
Despite what our so called free press, or the Washington Post for that matter thinks, Venezuela's press is also free.
Tom Brokaw had said something shortly before he retired about the current administration, that all stories that concerned the Administration had to be approved by it.
Actually, here in Spain Hugo is viewed much like I have stated. They view him as a man with a need to be in power and dangerous to do whatever it takes to maintain that power.
As for the people backing him, I think he realized that 51% were not with him when he placed his "power for life" referendumn out a few months ago.
Fred, I think you missed the part where Topper suggested that you watch the movie to see what the Venzeuelans are saying, rather than going with what the people of Spain are saying about what the Venezuelans are saying.
Sort of like if I wanted to know where you stood on an issue, I wouldn't ask Bruce what you think--I'd ask you what you think.
