Hugo Chávez - A Great Loss to the Poor

[selek]

Those within Venezuela and living directly with all of the effects of his rule had a considerably more mixed point of view, proven by the election results.

Yeah- it's amazing the "mixed messages" you can generate when you close, burn, and destroy presses that criticize you, disenfranchise everyone who disagrees with you, jail anyone who speaks out against you, and torture, rape and murder the families of anyone who dares criticize you...

It's amazing what you can get away with when you arbitrarily dismiss judges who try to limit your power to that defined by law, and when that fails, arbitrarily redefine the Constitution to suit your whim, all backed up by a jack-booted personal guard loyal to you personally, rather than to the nation as a whole.

As for my opinion, I don't claim to know enough about the man or country to really hold one.

Then perhaps- given your admitted ignorance- you should adhere to the old axiom "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

By your own admission, you are woefully unprepared to opine about Chavez- but that didn't stop you from posting a couple of baseless digs at the "small group of Americans" on this board.

Unlike you, we know why this man was a threat, a tyrant, and a monster.

Unlike you, our opinions are informed by something other than ill-formed opinions and prejudices about "those ugly Americans".

[selek]

Because the oil companies are corrupt. Wall Street is corrupt. Big world business is corrupt.

Call For References, please.

You keep throwing out this charge like some sacred mantra- a catechism with which you can rebuke the demons of rationale thought.

But there is no weight of evidence or authority behind it.

We have provided specific, concrete examples of Chavez's abuse of power, rank corruption, graft, greed, and avarice.

All you have offered in turn are stereotypes.

Why is that, I wonder...

[Backroads]

HoosierGuy has no intention of providing any real information, as we all know. He has close-mindedly started a topic where he can qutoe rhetoric and approve of killing innocents.

[SanctitasDeo]

I don't need propaganda to think some phones are cool. I know they are cool. Only I went the cheaper route and got the cheapest, dumbest phone I could and bought a small tablet instead. More useful and much cheaper.

I know that I am responding to a comment from a few pages ago, but I don't care. Some things have to be said.

[Backroads]

And yet, if we buy phones because they are cool/cheap/the product of propaganda, who cares? It's our choice, our money. If someone is incapable of finding a good deal, why should I tear my hair out about it?

I'd rather worry about about real world problems than some guy who paid too much for his phone.

[prisonchaplain]

Because the oil companies are corrupt. Wall Street is corrupt. Big world business is corrupt.

Did the company corrupt the government officials or did the local governments require "greasing of the palms" to smooth permitting, etc.? It's the old which came first scenario. Perhaps the oil companies engaged in some underhanded practices--giving the likes of Chavez some thin cover for simply confiscating their stuff. On the other hand, it may well be that the government made it impossible to do business without the underhandedness--and them condemned for it.

Wall Street may be corrupt. Big world businesses may be corrupt. But I'd suggest that most governments are corrupt as well. I'm not sure all this corruption proves anything. It's awfully shaky grounds for justifying Chavez's theft of the oil industry...at least in my always humble opinion.

[annewandering]

Accusing someone of not believing in the American voting process, while discussing Venezuelan government? That's pulling something out of the air. Insulting someone's sense of patriotism and then running when it blows up in your face? Dirty pool.

Sorry Eowyn, I had to run to town to clean out the car my son wrecked this morning. But ok.

Chavez was elected, whether fairly or not is probably in doubt. Some people did like him. I think he is detestable if only for the way he tried to get publicity by taunting the US. He played the David against Goliath card quite often and it no doubt got him support.

[Mahone]

Yeah- it's amazing the "mixed messages" you can generate when you close, burn, and destroy presses that criticize you, disenfranchise everyone who disagrees with you, jail anyone who speaks out against you, and torture, rape and murder the families of anyone who dares criticize you...

References please.

My understanding is that almost none of the privately owned media in Venezuela supported Chavez during the 2002 coup, with only the state owned media channel supporting him, and even they stopped doing so half way through. Plus in this article from 2009, it suggests there is plenty of media critical of Chavez:

Venezuela still has a wide variety of newspapers and radio stations that are critical of Chavez.

It's amazing what you can get away with when you arbitrarily dismiss judges who try to limit your power to that defined by law, and when that fails, arbitrarily redefine the Constitution to suit your whim, all backed up by a jack-booted personal guard loyal to you personally, rather than to the nation as a whole.

What are you referring to here?

Then perhaps- given your admitted ignorance- you should adhere to the old axiom "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Or, forgive my natural curiosity, I can discuss and find out more information to plug the gap in my knowledge. I find that remaining silent doesn't help in this regard, what about you?

By your own admission, you are woefully unprepared to opine about Chavez- but that didn't stop you from posting a couple of baseless digs at the "small group of Americans" on this board.

I did? You clearly see more than I do in my post. Please feel free to point out where my "digs" were, and what is factually incorrect in any of my post?

Unlike you, we know why this man was a threat, a tyrant, and a monster.

Feel free to elaborate.

Unlike you, our opinions are informed by something other than ill-formed opinions and prejudices about "those ugly Americans".

Please provide evidence of your claim that my opinion is built up solely on "ill-formed opinions" and "prejudices" about "those ugly Americans" - who's words are these by the way? I don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about quite frankly, and I really don't like the implication you appear to be making.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Mahone

[pam]

I'm kind of curious what you think about a large business such as Hobby Lobby which is owned by staunch Christians and treat it as a Christian based business. Closed Sundays to allow their employees to worship. Close early to allow their employees to spend time with families. What is your take on a business like this?

I'd still like a response to this.

[HoosierGuy]

I'm kind of curious what you think about a large business such as Hobby Lobby which is owned by staunch Christians and treat it as a Christian based business. Closed Sundays to allow their employees to worship. Close early to allow their employees to spend time with families. What is your take on a business like this?

I actually visit Hobby Lobby two or three times a month. They have earned some of my respect because they do close down on Sundays. They also close down at 8pm on most days too. Now all they would have to do is support universal healthcare and I would give Hobby Lobby an A+.

[pam]

I actually visit Hobby Lobby two or three times a month. They have earned some of my respect because they do close down on Sundays. They also close down at 8pm on most days too. Now all they would have to do is support universal healthcare and I would give Hobby Lobby an A+.

I was just curious. You might be surprised to know that they produce or manufacture 90% of the product they sell in their stores. Did you know that they own 4 HUGE manufacturing plants in China to manufacture their products?

Just goes to show that businesses that you say you would give an A+ to are also companies that you hold in contempt.

[HoosierGuy]

Now this is a cool chart from the Guardian:

Venezuela elections 2012: Chavez's 14 years in numbers, from poverty to oil exports - interactive | World news | guardian.co.uk

Look at the some of the numbers:

GDP Per Capita - 1999: $4,105 2011: $10,810

Extreme Poverty - 1999: 23.4% 2011: 8.5%

Infant Mortality per 1,000 live births - 1999: 20 2011: 13

Unemployment - 1999: 14.5% 2011: 7.6%

Now the murder rate did go up from 1999 to 2011: 25.0 to 45.1 per 100,000 population.

But look at the GDP and extreme poverty numbers and unemployment.

And take a look at this article from another journalist from the Guardian:

No one can deny the concrete benefits that many Venezuelans have received since the leader of the nation's "Bolivarian revolution" first came to power in 1999. His government has expanded education and healthcare while slashing poverty and writing one of the world's most progressive constitutions.

Hugo Chávez still has a hold on Venezuela's people – he's one of them | Edward Ellis | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

[annewandering]

Hoosier doesnt it strike you as very odd that the murder rate doubled? Maybe that is where all the poor the unemployed, and the high risk pregnancy women went.

[talisyn]

But graft need not be illegal--and indeed won't be, if the majority of elected official sanction it. Your assertion seems basically to come down to "might makes right".

I regretfully disagree. It allows government officials to continue their bad behavior and consolidate their power and continue to engage in bad behavior, by giving them intellectual cover for the idea expressed by Louis XIV as "L'état, c'est moi".

Not "bad" per se; but as has (incorrectly) been attributed to de Tocqueville, it becomes immensely problematic once the people figure out that as a voting bloc, they can pretty much bribe themselves with the public purse.

What? Did you actually read what Anne said, or did you just see her name and decide she's wrong? How is voting for people who you think will not

be corrupt encourage corruption in government?

[talisyn]

Because the oil companies are corrupt. Wall Street is corrupt. Big world business is corrupt.

Silly Hoosier. By their fruits ye shall know them, or something like that. Oil companies, Wall Street, and Big World Business are the paragons of virtue that we would be wise to emulate. I, personally, am glad that corporations are getting the personhood recognition they rightly deserve. They champion greater economic equality throughout the world by sending jobs from the unappreciative American workers to those who are grateful to work for wages higher than average in their nations. They tried so very hard a decade ago to give the gift of home ownership to Americans who otherwise wouldn't be able to gather up a suitable down payment, instead putting that onerous amount much later into the mortgage at only $3,000/month for a few years. They try to open roadless wilderness areas, superficially for oil drilling, but for the benefit of families who would be able to take their children to see parts of the beautiful Alaska wilderness that haven't been explored for centuries from the comfort of their cars/SUVs. They even try to help us with our retirement! 401Ks and pensions that rely on the stock market have made us more informed on how important it is to take responsibility for our investments, with the understanding that a stock that was trading at amazing highs can change to total losses in a matter of moments, and when that happens it's our fault we lose money for not selling at that millisecond of change.

Hugo Chavez was not my ideal communist dictator. I really don't think he was even communist. But I do believe he did a lot for the people of his country that he did not have to do, like nationalizing oil. After all, who wants their country to look like this: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ni.html

Oil-rich Nigeria has been hobbled by political instability, corruption, inadequate infrastructure, and poor macroeconomic management, but in 2008 began pursuing economic reforms. Nigeria's former military rulers failed to diversify the economy away from its overdependence on the capital-intensive oil sector, which provides 95% of foreign exchange earnings and about 80% of budgetary revenues.

[talisyn]

Hoosier, I prefer the CIA when it comes to the world outside of the USA

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html

Although poverty in Venezuela has declined during the CHAVEZ administration, dropping from nearly 50% in 1999 to about 27% in 2011, it remains high and some experts question how much of a role social expenditures have played in this poverty reduction. Progress in lowering poverty, income inequality, and unemployment may in fact be more closely linked to the rise and fall of prices for oil, Venezuela's dominant export. In the long-run, education and healthcare spending may increase economic growth and reduce income inequality, but rising costs and the staffing of new healthcare jobs with foreigners are slowing development. In the meantime, social investment has led to better living standards, including increased school enrollment, a substantial reduction in infant and child mortality, and greater access to potable water and sanitation.

Since CHAVEZ came to power in 1999, more than a million predominantly middle- and upper-class Venezuelans are estimated to have emigrated. The brain drain is attributed to a repressive political system, lack of economic opportunities, steep inflation, a high crime rate, and corruption. Thousands of oil engineers emigrated to Canada, Colombia, and the United States following Chavez's firing of over 20,000 employees of the state-owned petroleum company during a 2002-2003 oil strike. Additionally, thousands of Venezuelans of European descent have taken up residence in their ancestral homelands. Nevertheless, Venezuela continues to attract immigrants from South America and southern Europe because of its lenient migration policy and the availability of education and healthcare. Venezuela also has been a fairly accommodating host to more than 200,000 Colombian refugees

[Vort]

Hugo Chavez was not my ideal communist dictator.

We know the war for liberty has been lost when we have Americans discussing their "ideal communist dictator" using words other than "dead".

[annewandering]

We know the war for liberty has been lost when we have Americans discussing their "ideal communist dictator" using words other than "dead".

With all she said I knew this was the one phrase people would read. I am psychic.

[talisyn]

We know the war for liberty has been lost when we have Americans discussing their "ideal communist dictator" using words other than "dead".

I didn't know I was that important in the continuous war for liberty. You totally made staying up with a sick toddler more interesting :)

I was speaking hypothetically, of course. Communism is an incredibly unsustainable form of government and not one I advocate. I do think that those who declare for that ideal should be living the standards they set for others (i.e. no palaces or multi-billion $ checking accounts).

[RipplecutBuddha]

The ends do not ever justify the means. Perhaps Chavez did have some good ideas for how he wanted to improve his country. However, he chose the most violent, arrogant, and selfish methods.

Call me naive, but any conditions that cause the church to pull all missionaries from an area are not good. It seems a benevolent leader, such as Chavez could have been, would have done something to help. Instead he was concerned they were spies. Tell me how realistic that fear is.

[selek]

The ends do not ever justify the means. Perhaps Chavez did have some good ideas for how he wanted to improve his country. However, he chose the most violent, arrogant, and selfish methods.

Call me naive, but any conditions that cause the church to pull all missionaries from an area are not good. It seems a benevolent leader, such as Chavez could have been, would have done something to help. Instead he was concerned they were spies. Tell me how realistic that fear is.

But RB, his ideology was pure!

We can't hold those of the proper ideology responsible for anything so silly as mere outcomes...

It is their intentions that matter- and the purity of Chavez and Guevara's vision far supercedes anything so trivial as mere human morality, compassion, or basic decency.

[selek]

References please.

My understanding is that almost none of the privately owned media in Venezuela supported Chavez during the 2002 coup, with only the state owned media channel supporting him, and even they stopped doing so half way through. Plus in this article from 2009, it suggests there is plenty of media critical of Chavez:

Venezuela | Freedom House

Venezuela - Committee to Protect Journalists

Freedom of expression "under attack" in Venezuela | Radio Netherlands Worldwide

Press freedom under attack in Venezuela - National South America Headlines | Examiner.com

What are you referring to here?

Venezuelan judge is jailed after ruling angers President Hugo Chávez

Venezuela's Chavez Tightens Grip On Judiciary : NPR

Or, forgive my natural curiosity, I can discuss and find out more information to plug the gap in my knowledge. I find that remaining silent doesn't help in this regard, what about you?

But you weren't "plugging a gap"- you were offering an opinion- and by your own admission, you didn't even bother to make it an informed opinion.

I did? You clearly see more than I do in my post. Please feel free to point out where my "digs" were, and what is factually incorrect in any of my post?

In the post to which I responded, you stated that the negative opinions and criticisms were limited to "a few Americans" on this board- insinuating that criticism of Chavez is some sort of latent Americano-centrism or moldy American imperialism.

You attempted to dismiss Chavez' critics as a small, isolated, and marginal group- without providing any justification for that dismissal.

Please provide evidence of your claim that my opinion is built up solely on "ill-formed opinions" and "prejudices"

By your own admission, that opinion was not fueled by any genuine knowledge of Chavez, his history, or tactics.

So what else is left?

..about "those ugly Americans" - who's words are these by the way? I don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about quite frankly, and I really don't like the implication you appear to be making.

Nor did I particularly care for the implication YOU were making.

Funny, isn't it, how sour people get when their own tactics are turned against them?

Pam has asked me to tone down some of the divisive rhetoric.

In the absence of specific knowledge, I can only assume that this was a blanket request rather than a finger on only one side of the scale. I was responding specifically to the "hit parade" of sneering innuendo coming from those who want to lionize Chavez and demonize his critics without providing any sort of substance to back up their presumption of moral superiority.

If some of you took that as attacks on your persons rather than your ideology, I apologize.

In any case, this will be my final post of the topic. I am invoking Hamblin's rule #1 and walking away.

The bottom line is this: those critical of Chavez have provided specific examples of his misdeeds, his excesses, and his abuses.

Those wishing to lionize him have offered us only class warfare rhetoric and the usual mantras about the beauty and purity of his ideals.

I know this will leave a bitter taste in many of your mouths, but "purity of vision" and fantasies of "idyllic workers paradises" don't fill bellies, they don't protect people's rights, and they don't change facts.

Playing to the prejudices of self-loathing Americans doesn't find people jobs, it doesn't protect against jailing people for their political views, and it doesn't guarantee the rule of law.

Chavez was a monster- no matter how much you loved his beatific propaganda.

Edited March 12, 2013 by selek

[Just_A_Guy]

What? Did you actually read what Anne said, or did you just see her name and decide she's wrong? How is voting for people who you think will not

be corrupt encourage corruption in government?

May I respectfully ask you to re-read my post? It's all there.

. . . it [democracy] becomes immensely problematic once the people figure out that as a voting bloc, they can pretty much bribe themselves with the public purse.

and

It allows government officials to continue their bad behavior and consolidate their power . . . by giving them intellectual cover for the idea expressed by Louis XIV as "L'état, c'est moi".

[idahommie]

I'm shocked at all the communists we have here professing to be LDS..............I think I'll get back to planning my lesson for Prieshood......

Wow, someone thinking Hugo was a great representative of the poor........hell must of dropped 2000 degrees.......

Edited March 12, 2013 by idahommie

[annewandering]

May I respectfully ask you to re-read my post? It's all there.

and

The Ugly American is a book.

Just_A_Guy, considering I never discussed this thread at all with Talisyn and we both had the same problem seeing how you got what you got from my post I can only assume that either you conservatives have keywords you respond to that us liberals dont know, or we are stupid, or hmmmm what else could it be? I really dont know but am curious.