The War on Democracy
Byrnzie
Posts: 21,037
Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9629840148
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_on_Democracy
'The War on Democracy is a 2007 award-winning documentary film directed by Christopher Martin and John Pilger.[1] Focusing on the political state of Latin America, the film is a rebuke of both the United States' intervention in foreign countries' domestic politics, and its War on Terrorism...
Set both in Latin America and the United States, the film explores the historic and current relationship of Washington with countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia and Chile. Pilger claims that the film "...tells a universal story... analysing and revealing, through vivid testimony, the story of great power behind its venerable myths. It allows us to understand the true nature of the so-called "war on terror". According to Pilger, the film’s message is that the greed and power of empire is not invincible and that people power is always the "seed beneath the snow".
Pilger interviews several ex-CIA agents who purportedly took part in secret campaigns against democratic countries and who he claims are profiting from the war in Iraq. He investigates the School of the Americas in the U.S. state of Georgia, where General Pinochet’s torture squads were reportedly trained along with tyrants and death-squad leaders in Haiti, El Salvador, Brazil and Argentina.
The film uses archive footage to support its claim that democracy has been wiped out in country after country in Latin America since the 1950s. Testimonies from those who fought for democracy in Chile and Bolivia are also used.
Segments filmed in Bolivia show that for the last five years huge popular movements have demanded that multinational companies be refused to access the country's natural reserves of gas, or to buy up the water supply. In Bolivia, Pilger interviews people who say that their country's resources, including their water and rainwater, were asset stripped by multinational interests. He describes how they threw out a foreign water consortium and reclaimed their water supply. The narrative leads to the landslide election of the country's first indigenous President.
In Chile, Pilger talks to women who survived the pogroms of General Augusto Pinochet, in remembrance of colleagues who perished at the hands of the dictator. He walks with Sara de Witt through the grounds of the torture house in which she was tortured and survived. Pilger also investigates the "model democracy" that Chile has become and claims that there is a façade of prosperity and that Pinochet’s legacy is still alive.
The film also tells the story of an American nun, Dianna Ortiz, who tells how she was tortured and gang raped in the late 1980s by a gang reportedly led by a fellow American clearly in league with the U.S.-backed regime, at a time when the Reagan administration was supplying the military regime with planes and guns. Ortiz asks whether the American people are aware of the role their country plays in subverting innocent nations under the guise of a "war on terror". Former CIA agent and Watergate scandal conspirator Howard Hunt, who describes how he and others overthrew the previously democratically elected government. Hunt describes how he organised "a little harmless bombing". Duane Clarridge, former head of CIA operations in South America is also interviewed.
Pilger traveled through Venezuela with its president, Hugo Chavez, who he regards as the only leader of an oil-producing nation who has used its resources democratically for the education and health of its people. The Venezuelan segment of the film features the coup of 2002, captured in archival footage. The film holds that the 2002 coup against Chavez was backed by rich and powerful interests under U.S. support and that Chavez was brought back to power by the Venezuelan people. Pilger describes the advances in Venezuela’s new social democracy, but he also questions Chavez on why there are still poor people in such an oil-rich country.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_on_Democracy
'The War on Democracy is a 2007 award-winning documentary film directed by Christopher Martin and John Pilger.[1] Focusing on the political state of Latin America, the film is a rebuke of both the United States' intervention in foreign countries' domestic politics, and its War on Terrorism...
Set both in Latin America and the United States, the film explores the historic and current relationship of Washington with countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia and Chile. Pilger claims that the film "...tells a universal story... analysing and revealing, through vivid testimony, the story of great power behind its venerable myths. It allows us to understand the true nature of the so-called "war on terror". According to Pilger, the film’s message is that the greed and power of empire is not invincible and that people power is always the "seed beneath the snow".
Pilger interviews several ex-CIA agents who purportedly took part in secret campaigns against democratic countries and who he claims are profiting from the war in Iraq. He investigates the School of the Americas in the U.S. state of Georgia, where General Pinochet’s torture squads were reportedly trained along with tyrants and death-squad leaders in Haiti, El Salvador, Brazil and Argentina.
The film uses archive footage to support its claim that democracy has been wiped out in country after country in Latin America since the 1950s. Testimonies from those who fought for democracy in Chile and Bolivia are also used.
Segments filmed in Bolivia show that for the last five years huge popular movements have demanded that multinational companies be refused to access the country's natural reserves of gas, or to buy up the water supply. In Bolivia, Pilger interviews people who say that their country's resources, including their water and rainwater, were asset stripped by multinational interests. He describes how they threw out a foreign water consortium and reclaimed their water supply. The narrative leads to the landslide election of the country's first indigenous President.
In Chile, Pilger talks to women who survived the pogroms of General Augusto Pinochet, in remembrance of colleagues who perished at the hands of the dictator. He walks with Sara de Witt through the grounds of the torture house in which she was tortured and survived. Pilger also investigates the "model democracy" that Chile has become and claims that there is a façade of prosperity and that Pinochet’s legacy is still alive.
The film also tells the story of an American nun, Dianna Ortiz, who tells how she was tortured and gang raped in the late 1980s by a gang reportedly led by a fellow American clearly in league with the U.S.-backed regime, at a time when the Reagan administration was supplying the military regime with planes and guns. Ortiz asks whether the American people are aware of the role their country plays in subverting innocent nations under the guise of a "war on terror". Former CIA agent and Watergate scandal conspirator Howard Hunt, who describes how he and others overthrew the previously democratically elected government. Hunt describes how he organised "a little harmless bombing". Duane Clarridge, former head of CIA operations in South America is also interviewed.
Pilger traveled through Venezuela with its president, Hugo Chavez, who he regards as the only leader of an oil-producing nation who has used its resources democratically for the education and health of its people. The Venezuelan segment of the film features the coup of 2002, captured in archival footage. The film holds that the 2002 coup against Chavez was backed by rich and powerful interests under U.S. support and that Chavez was brought back to power by the Venezuelan people. Pilger describes the advances in Venezuela’s new social democracy, but he also questions Chavez on why there are still poor people in such an oil-rich country.'
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
this would be my sig if i could change it.
Five, your blog kicks ass.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Let's you see why Americans hate Chavez so much - taking money out of the hands of U.S corporations and giving it back to the people of his own country. What a wackjob!
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Such as?
http://www.hrw.org/en/americas/venezuela
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/venezuela
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... h%C3%A1vez
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Would you like to focus on any particular issue, as opposed to just posting Amnesty's and HRW's webpages?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... h%C3%A1vez
'As of December 2004, Amnesty International had documented at least 14 deaths and at least 200 wounded during confrontations between anti-Chávez demonstrators and National Guard, police, and other security personnel in February and March 2004.'
This particular issue was thoroughly debunked and is something addressed in the above documentary.
And as for investigating a t.v station, so what? The documentary also focuses on these opposition backed t.v stations and what they are able to get away with - constant criticism of the Chavez leadership, and comparing Chavez to Hitler every morning of the week. One of the links you provide merely points out that one of these t.v stations is being investigated for recently attempting to instigate a civil war. Another t.v station was not permitted to renew it's license in 2007 after openly supporting the failed U.S backed coup attempt. Seems fair enough to me.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
With all due respect, I don't think the people of Venezuela give a flying fuck what Americans think about Chavez. The people of Venezuela voted for him, and they continue to vote for him. And there's many reasons why they continue voting for him:
http://ww.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1406
'...there's no gainsaying the fact that Chavez first won office, in 1998, in a fair election with 56 percent of the vote, or that since then he has prevailed in several electoral tests—not to mention a general strike and a coup attempt—growing steadily in popularity each time. Nor is there any denying that he has brought into the democratic process, for the first time, large numbers of Venezuela's poor, most of whom live in the ranchos, or shanty towns, that ring the cities. (As for his alleged class baiting, in a country where the poor account for about 80 percent of the population and where income inequality is extreme and glaring, democratic politics can’t help but involve issues of class—and race: Venezuela's poor are disproportionately black and indigenous.) Through a string of "missions" the Chavez government has brought healthcare and education to many of the ranchos and rural areas, which before now have seen little of either. The missions are financed by proceeds from Venezuela's oil industry, control of which Chavez seized after the 2002 coup attempt (another sore point for opponents), and which, against expectation, is humming along quite nicely. (Also worth noting: for all that he fulminates against "neo-liberalist" free trade, and for all that he has expanded the role of the state in Venezuela's economy, Chavez's economic policy is fairly eclectic: he's pushed hard to have Venezuela admitted to Mercosur, the South American free trade bloc, and he's an energetic courtier of foreign investment.)'
Maybe you can explain why the clear answer is 'No'?
So far you've not provided even one reason.
Let me pose you this question - what does Chavez and his government do that we should marvel over or want to emmulate? Seems to me many simply hand out credit to him simply because he speaks and tries to undermind the US power and empire, but people ignore the bad things he does which hurt his own nation and people.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
He does, and he likes it.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Care to provide an example?
Can you provide an example of why we should want to emmulate Chavez and his policies?
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Great. Pick one of those examples out and we'll examine it in detail.
Taking the big money out of the hands of foreign corporations and distributing it among the poor of your own country.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/09/18/v ... der-ch-vez
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/10/09/h ... man-rights
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/09/19/v ... n-expelled
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/06/02/v ... guerrillas
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/10/15/v ... ue-process
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ ... 05/2004/en
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
O.k, I'll do the work for you then shall I?:
http://www.goproxing.biz/index.php?q=aH ... Xo%3D&hl=0
'Venezuela still enjoys a vibrant public debate in which anti-government and pro-government media are equally vocal in their criticism and defense of Chávez. However, by expanding and toughening the penalties for speech and broadcasting offenses, Chávez and his legislative supporters have strengthened the state’s capacity to limit free speech, and created powerful incentives for critics to engage in self-censorship.'
How is this is any way different to the U.S? I'm sure there are 'broadcasting offences' in the U.S also.
'The Chávez government has engaged in wide-ranging acts of discrimination against political opponents and critics. At times, the president himself has openly endorsed acts of discrimination. More generally, he has encouraged the discriminatory actions of subordinates by routinely denouncing his critics as anti-democratic conspirators – regardless of whether they had any connection to the 2002 coup.'
How is this different to the U.S?
'A constitutional amendment proposed by a pro-government committee in Venezuela’s National Assembly would allow the suspension of due process protections, Human Rights Watch said today.
The amendment would eliminate the constitutional prohibition on suspending due process rights in states of emergency...
Proponents of the amendment have argued that the government needs to have free rein to suspend due process and other rights, including the right to freedom of information, in the event of another coup attempt like that which occurred in April of 2002 against President Hugo Chávez.'
How is this different to the U.S and it's use of arbitrary detention in times of emergency as practiced following 9/11 and as outlined in the Patriot Act?
Secondly, from what you posted in type, all it does is morally denounce the US's deteriorating democracy and practice in order to justify Chavez's practices. That's nothing to justify wrong-doing, merely deter guilt by saying, hey look at others doing bad things too, so it makes it ok if we do as well. That's not anything you or anyone else should be pronouncing as good, moral or common practice others should employ.
Lastly, you haven't really addressed the links I posted from reputable organizations with no real bias other than practicing fair human rights and justice (something everyone should want to promote). Please feel free to discuss Chavez's ill-record as discussed in the articles I posted, which you've yet to do.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
The link I posted is your own link. Maybe next time you should make the effort to produce the relevant section of the article under the links you post instead of just posting 6 links on the board and expecting somebody else to do the work for you.
Funny, but didn't you post the following on this very thread:
'We as a nation'?
Neither have you. You simply posted a bunch of links. Why should I do your work for you?
Secondly, you're not discussing what Chavez has done or is doing, merely discussing what the US has done or failed to do - yet we're not discussing that fact. And even if a wrong-doing occurs, it doesn't make it ok for others to follow in line as justification.
Lastly, I backed up my statements of Chavez's poor record of human rights and similar with links to stories from reputable organizations. You've failed to acknowledge that or comment in return about in any substance other than saying others do it, so somehow that makes it ok? Pretty poor excuse if nothing else.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I'm not bent out of shape. I simply suggested that in future you should refrain from simply posting six links in succession and then expect somebody else to do your work for you.
Neither are you. You just posted six links. Feel free to pick an example and then we can discuss it.
I never said it was o.k. I said that with regards the links you posted the U.S is no better, therefore why do you feel that you're in any position to condemn Chavez's Venezuela as a bad example to the world?
As for your claim about the US and Venezuela, isn't or shouldn't it be all of our responsibility and in our best interests for all to practice good? We should all strive for these types of things for everyone, which is what I've claimed.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
You claimed that Venezuela is a bad example to the world. Your links don't support this claim. And yes, I read them. Did you? Because you've failed to refer to anything in those links.
Hugo Chavez has been democratically elected President of Venezuela on numerous occasions. He has transferred the nations wealth from out of the hands of U.S companies and given it back to the poor people of Venezuela. But you have a problem with this and suggest that it's not compatible with 'practicing good'. Perhaps you can explain your position instead of just posting half a dozen more links?
http://dissidentvoice.org/Apr07/Ash02.htm
Venezuela: The Times They Are A-Changin'
April 2, 2007
'...immediately after the failed coup against him, his first act was to guarantee the constitutional rights of the coup leaders, none of whom have been harmed. Likewise, he has consistently avoided using military and police forces under his command to repress the opposition, and had been exceedingly cautious towards foreign companies and investors. Some of his strongest supporters therefore consider Chavez excessively soft. The ideological message of Bolivarianism is straddling this society -- deeply divided by class -- with a strong Venezuelan and pan-Latinoamerican nationalism. The ambiguity is patently visible in the street iconography of Caracas, which combines the faces of the aristocratic liberal Simon Bolivar and the radical communist Che Guevara, both sharing the landscape with huge billboards of fashionable young women advertising beer.
Yet if the future is foggy, the present is dramatically clear. Under pressure from Venezuela's poor, on whose support Chavez's political survival depends, the government moved decidedly leftwards over the course of the last few years. This leftward move consists in two processes: democratization and redistribution.
First, redistribution. Having wrestled control of the national oil company from the old oligarchy, Chavez redirected a portion of Venezuela's significant oil revenues to new social projects, called missions, each targeting a specific social privation. The bulk of the resources were earmarked for non-cash benefits such as education and health. But government policies have also helped more people to move out of the informal economy and take formal jobs, affecting a significant rise in cash wages for the poorest workers. An international chorus of snickers erupts whenever these social spending programs are mentioned. Most completely miss the point. Is there corruption? Inefficiency? Probably. But by relying on the army, the national oil company, and ad hoc communal organizing rather than on the traditional state bureaucracy, the social missions manage a level of efficiency that is quite stunning.
As a small example, take the latest mission, 'energy revolution,' announced in November 2006. Its first project was to change all the light bulbs in Venezuela (52 million of them) to energy efficient ones by the end of 2007. The goal is to reduce the consumption of oil in electricity generation by about 25 million barrels a year, and cut a typical family's monthly expenses by $4.6 (a non-trivial sum in the poor neighborhoods). The distribution of free bulbs is carried out by different means: youth organizations, community councils, and reserve units. By mid February 2007, over 30 million bulbs have been distributed, 10% faster than planned. The white glow that rises at night from both the poor neighborhoods and the houses of the better-off confirms the statistics.
More complex missions, such as mission Robinson and Riba, which provide adult primary and secondary education with Cuban help, have been no less spectacular. "Proofs" that these missions are bogus are a dime a dozen in the Western media. Yet in Venezuela, even fierce Chavez's critics I spoke with conceded that the missions were having a strongly positive effect on the life of the poor. The change is fast and visible. In a peasant community's primary school in western Venezuela I saw the preparation for an internet room for both the pupils and the larger community. In the nearby high school -- a school that only a few years ago did not exist -- students who divided their time between the classroom and their families' coffee fields talked of going to university.
Another common criticism is that the missions are not sustainable because they depend on oil prices remaining high. No doubt a drop in oil prices would force the government to cut spending (leaving aside the unresolved question as to whether high oil prices are themselves sustainable or not.) However, the thousands of people who learned to read during the oil boom would remain literate even if oil prices dropped. Nor would such a drop deprive the beneficiaries of an oil-financed cataract removal surgery of their vision. A more enlightened view would note that access to such basic services as dental and eye care is valuable in itself. But even if one were to look at Venezuela from the most narrow-minded economist perspective, one that only values economic growth, it would be impossible to find an oil-producing country that uses its oil bonanza in a better way. Improving health, education, housing and infrastructure contributes more to prosperity and economic growth than the preferred choice of conventional wisdom -- hoarding a large portfolio of U.S. bonds.
The proof is in the pudding. Caracas is booming. Fancy consumer malls are mushrooming, trendy shops and restaurants ring the cash register. In one mall, strongly anti-Chavez store managers expressed gloom and resignation about the government's economic policies while conceding that business was excellent. But in a restaurant off the airport highway, the owner, a man of humble background, took us with pride through the private orchard from whose fruits he serves fresh juice to his customers, and explained the situation thus: "Chavez is good for people who want to work….they dislike Chavez because the government now collects taxes from businesses." The opposition to Chavez is surely more than just about reinvigorated tax collection; a recent (and perhaps not fully trustworthy) survey shows a loss of income over 20% at the high end of the extremely skewed income pyramid. But there is little doubt that the boost to the income of poor households (80% of the population) is driving Venezuela's impressive economic expansion (9.4% in 2006) and also trickling up significantly to the better-off, especially those in the fast expanding retail sector -- the delivery period for a new imported car, including luxury models, can be longer than six months.
The democratization focus of the Bolivarian revolution involves structural changes to both politics and economics. Politically, those measures that help the foreign media paint Chavez as an autocrat are precisely those perceived in Venezuela as means of political decentralization and democratization -- the rule by decree, the formation of a unified party, and the direct executive control of funds. To understand the paradox it is necessary to grasp the historical context: the political parties, the parliament and the governmental bureaucracy have been, and still are, bastions of corruption and clientelism, providing the main interface between political power and economic wealth. It is quite possible in theory that the creation of alternative political mechanisms under Chavez's personal rule will lead to a new centralization of autocratic power. But mitigating that danger is the new sense of political entitlement of commoners, a deep cognizance of their own rights, and foremost the right to organize and take control over decisions that affect their lives. Encountering the strength of this democratic consciousness, fostered by education, public awareness campaigns, Chavez's speeches, and the recurrence of popular mobilizations, is one of the most intense experiences one has as a visitor to Venezuela today. While Chavez is the undisputable hero of this popular awakening, the latter is anything but a docile body of followers. On the contrary. Visiting a community center in Barquisimeto, we saw a local TV and radio station run by locals. The organizers were supposed to be trained by a professional government manager. Relations with the official boss however soured quickly and the community expelled the imposed manager, locking her out of the building. It took a month of struggle, but the new locally chosen administration was eventually recognized as legitimate. He would be a strange autocrat who encouraged small communities to run their own TV and radio station, free of government control. But this is exactly what the current government's policy is. Finally, the most important political development following the last elections is the plan to constitutionally empower local councils (of 200-400 households each) to take control of budgetary priorities and local services. This institutionalization of participatory democracy would irreversibly transform Venezuelan politics.
The linchpin of the change is economic structure is the fast growth in co-operatives -- worker managed businesses with a variety of internal democratic structures. The co-operative movement in Venezuela predates Chavez. However, with government support, this form of economic organization changed from a radical but marginal element to a significant component of the economy. Already in 2004 4.6% of jobs in Venezuela depended on co-operatives. By extrapolation, the over 100,000 co-operatives operating today in Venezuela probably account for 15% of jobs...
There is a lot to be fearful about in Venezuela -- the high level of crime, the dead weight of entrenched corruption, the unresolved tension between consumerist and socialist values, the danger inherent in Chavez's outsized shadow, and not the least the certain intensification of U.S. destabilization efforts. But outside the small pockets of privilege and affluent ressentiment, the Venezuela I saw is not in the grip of fear. On the contrary, it is in the grip of hope, pride and an infectious sense of self-confidence and ownership.'
And you keep saying he was democratically elected, this doesn't mean all that much as even in dictatorships, elections take place.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
She said that the money was NOT trickling down to the poor people, as Chavez's supporters claim it has.
She said that poverty and lack of resources was still plaguing a very large percentage of Venezuelians and that the infrastructure was it a terrible condition. She also said that the money that has trickled down, has largely trickled down to Chavez's upper class allies and supporters.
Upon reading that, I called a woman I used to work with years ago, who is from Venezuela and still has a large portion of her family, there. I asked her if she knew what was going on there and what were the experiences of her family, there. And she echoed the same thing. No one in her family has seen anything in the way of money and improved access to resources.
So I'll take the word of these women.
Ultimately, this discussion is not about America vs. Chavez. This about true freedom and humanity. And neither the USA, China or Chavez are on the good side of this topic.
And it is all of our duties to stand up, protest, challenge and be critical of any government (and leader) that behaves badly and commits attrocities against human rights.
In case you haven't noticed, what America has been doing for decades; does not sit very well with a lot of Americans. Certainly many Americans didn't even know what our governement was doing behind our backs......for decades. But more and more people are becmoing aware and standing against it. It's not happening fast enough for my tastes, but it is happening.
What atrocities against human rights are you referring to?
And you mention that not all of the money has 'trickled down' to the poor. Did you watch the above documentary? It touches on this issue.
And as for Chavez's 'Chavez's upper class allies and supporters', can you please explain what you mean?
What about his human rights record? Go ahead and explain to me what these links say about his human rights record. I read through them and I couldn't find anything tangible.