Well I'm from Venezuela, I lived all his raise to the power, until April 2004 when i came to this country, 95% of my family live in there, all I can say is that Chavez is a constitutional dictator, every single move made by him was/is towards the acquisition of absolute power in the country, he controls the press, TV, and now he wants to control the internet, the poor is poorer than before, the middle class is almost nonexistent, and the new upper class is filled with people in his administration, the corruption is rampant and there's NO legal system, every single crime remains unpunished, except the people who say something against the government, they are considered criminals and receive higher sentences than murderers.
Anyway, comparing Chavez to Obama is basically impossible, but not because Obama is the total opposite of Chavez but because is not possible, Obama has to deal with a structure of government nonexistent in Venezuela, it is a totally different subject if you does a good or bad work with what he has.
And Sean Penn is just a misguided guy blinded by the lies of Chavez, I'm pretty sure that he did roamed the streets of Caracas by himself.
Chavez has won 14 democratically held elections. How do you explain that?
Didn't the president of Belarus just win a "democratic election"?
It is my opinion that some of the celebrities that have supported Chavez are not blinded by his lies, they are blinded by their hatred of the Bush Administration.
A common enemy can unite even the greatest of foes.
Well I'm from Venezuela, I lived all his raise to the power, until April 2004 when i came to this country, 95% of my family live in there, all I can say is that Chavez is a constitutional dictator, every single move made by him was/is towards the acquisition of absolute power in the country, he controls the press, TV, and now he wants to control the internet, the poor is poorer than before, the middle class is almost nonexistent, and the new upper class is filled with people in his administration, the corruption is rampant and there's NO legal system, every single crime remains unpunished, except the people who say something against the government, they are considered criminals and receive higher sentences than murderers.
Anyway, comparing Chavez to Obama is basically impossible, but not because Obama is the total opposite of Chavez but because is not possible, Obama has to deal with a structure of government nonexistent in Venezuela, it is a totally different subject if you does a good or bad work with what he has.
And Sean Penn is just a misguided guy blinded by the lies of Chavez, I'm pretty sure that he did roamed the streets of Caracas by himself.
It is my opinion that some of the celebrities that have supported Chavez are not blinded by his lies, they are blinded by their hatred of the Bush Administration.
I didn't say that, that is a quote from Jason P! even thou I agree
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Chavez has won 14 democratically held elections. How do you explain that?
when corruption is rampant - the word "democratic" has to be perceived with some perspective ...
cate from venezuela now living in argentina will likely say the same things ...
The only Venezuelans I've heard complaining and talking about corruption e.t.c, are wealthy Venezuelans - like those who can afford to move to other countries - who are upset at having been made to give up some of their toys.
Byrnzie while I respect your aggressive approach and knowledge on any subject here on the train I think on this one you have run into a wall, you can't argue with the life long knowledge and experience that arq has to offer on this subject,sorry man.
I was just thinking how blind we are as people,we support and defend people we have never met or really know very little about. just a thought.
Godfather.
i feel the same way about opposing and attacking people we have never met or really know very little about
do you?
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
The only Venezuelans I've heard complaining and talking about corruption e.t.c, are wealthy Venezuelans - like those who can afford to move to other countries - who are upset at having been made to give up some of their toys.
Byrnzie while I respect your aggressive approach and knowledge on any subject here on the train I think on this one you have run into a wall, you can't argue with the life long knowledge and experience that arq has to offer on this subject,sorry man.
Godfather.
...it's entertaining to watch though. I say keep it up!
ADD 5,200 to the post count you see, thank you.
*NYC 9/28/96 *NYC 9/29/96 *NJ 9/8/98 (front row "may i play drums with you")
*MSG 9/10/98 (backstage) *MSG 9/11/98 (backstage)
*Jones Beach 8/23/00 *Jones Beach 8/24/00 *Jones Beach 8/25/00
*Mansfield 8/29/00 *Mansfield 8/30/00 *Nassau 4/30/03 *Nissan VA 7/1/03
*Borgata 10/1/05 *Camden 5/27/06 *Camden 5/28/06 *DC 5/30/06
*VA Beach 6/17/08 *DC 6/22/08 *MSG 6/24/08 (backstage) *MSG 6/25/08
*EV DC 8/17/08 *EV Baltimore 6/15/09 *Philly 10/31/09
*Bristow VA 5/13/10 *MSG 5/20/10 *MSG 5/21/10
The only Venezuelans I've heard complaining and talking about corruption e.t.c, are wealthy Venezuelans - like those who can afford to move to other countries - who are upset at having been made to give up some of their toys.
Byrnzie while I respect your aggressive approach and knowledge on any subject here on the train I think on this one you have run into a wall, you can't argue with the life long knowledge and experience that arq has to offer on this subject,sorry man.
Godfather.
jon stewert had a venezuelan in his audience the other night.
when asked how it was living under chavez, he shrugged and said,
jon stewert had a venezuelan in his audience the other night.
when asked how it was living under chavez, he shrugged and said,
"its ok".
i guess it depends who you ask.
Yes because he wanted to say in national television "Chavez sucks" and then return to Venezuela to be "welcomed"...
have anybody seem the devaluation of the Venezuelan money? the deterioration of the oil companies, the horrible condition of the public health service? what about the unemployment rate?
Chavez is not a modern Robin hood people...
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Byrnzie while I respect your aggressive approach and knowledge on any subject here on the train I think on this one you have run into a wall, you can't argue with the life long knowledge and experience that arq has to offer on this subject,sorry man.
Godfather.
I'm just surprised that if the U.S government really are as opposed to Chavez as they say they are then why aren't stories of the violence and corruption in Venezuela jumped on by the media and made common knowledge? I admit I don't know exactly what's going on down there, but I refuse to just jump on the common anti-Chavez bandwagon without knowing the full picture. Though Arq's pm has made me realize there's some fucked-up stuff going on in that country.
jon stewert had a venezuelan in his audience the other night.
when asked how it was living under chavez, he shrugged and said,
"its ok".
i guess it depends who you ask.
There's clearly political violence and intimidation going on in Venezuela, but how much of it can be directly related to Chavez I don't know. Again, if he could be clearly implicated by the anti-Chavez brigade in the U.S then why hasn't he been already? If the violence and corruption down there are clearly related to Chavez and his party then why is this information not being widely disseminated?
On the one hand, I watch a documentary like John Pilger's 'The War on Democracy', which tells how the majority of Venezuelans have prospered under Chavez and that the coup in 2002 was largely funded and supported by the U.S, and on the other I hear stories like Arq's of violence and intimidation of those political parties opposed to Chavez.
So what's really going on there?
Some journalists in the mainstream media fail to report the facts when dealing with Venezuela, preferring instead to parrot Washington's line
John Pilger
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 4 December 2007
'...On March 28 2006 I described here a report broadcast on Channel 4 News the previous night by its Washington correspondent, Jonathan Rugman. Rugman is pretty typical of television's Washington correspondents; he reports as if embedded, when, in fact, his work is voluntary. What distinguishes him is his reporting from Venezuela. Rugman's brief visit last year to Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, produced what I described here as "one of the worst, most distorted pieces of journalism I have ever seen qualifying as crude propaganda". This was a piece, I wrote, "which might as well have been written by the US state department". For example, he described Maria Corina Machado as a "human rights activist". In fact, she was a leader of Sumate, an extreme rightwing organisation, who had been welcomed to the White House by George Bush himself. He caricatured Hugo Chávez as a buffoon dictator. In fact, he is an authentic product of a popular political movement that began in 1989 who has won more democratic elections than any leader on earth. Rugman reported that Chávez was helping Iran develop a nuclear weapon. In fact, this is laughable - see the US National Intelligence Estimate report published on December 3 2007. At the end of his performance, Rugman complained dramatically to the camera that he had been "held for 30 hours" by police in Caracas. In fact, he had walked into a military base and, surprise, surprise, was apprehended - as he would be on any Ministry of Defence establishment in Britain - and Venezuela is a country whose president two years earlier had been temporarily overthrown in a military coup. In fact, Chávez himself arranged for Rugman's speedy release. Rugman's "report" was so absurd that Channel 4 News, which maintains a reputation, was inundated with complaints and, as I was told, "embarrassed" - though not embarrassed enough to desist from sending Rugman back to Venezuela for yesterday's important constitutional referendum.
Chávez narrowly lost the referendum. His government wanted to change a number of articles in the Venezuelan constitution that would define what he has called "socialism for the 21st century", including allowing the president to stand in unlimited elections (which leaders in Britain, Canada, Australia and many other countries can do). But many of his own supporters were unconvinced and probably confused as to why they were being called upon to vote yet again, and 3 million of them abstained.
Ironically, the result actually reaffirmed the health of democracy in Venezuela and served to ridicule the incessant media propaganda that Chávez was a "dictator" and a "tyrant". In a gracious speech conceding defeat, Chávez congratulated the opposition and invited them to celebrate. His tone was the antithesis of the media-led campaign. On the eve of the referendum, closeted with Venezuela's rich minority, Jonathan Rugman allowed them to call Chávez a communist, which he isn't. "It's as bad that?" he contributed.
Presenting these people as victims, he said nothing about their history of rapacious privilege or that their wealth was actually increasing under Chávez. He allowed, unsubstantiated, histrionics such as, "There are Chávez supporters [who] will kill me." His clever cameraperson filmed soldiers from the boots up at polling stations - soldiers who, according to Rugman, instead of saluting cry out "for the fatherland and socialism". That they were guarding an election process internationally recognised and commended was not mentioned, neither was the fact that opposition monitors had announced they were pleased with the conduct of the election. For a spot of "balance", he toured what he called the "slums" and found "rubbish in the streets" and milk missing from otherwise abundantly stocked supermarkets. His script was crudely juxtaposed with images showing a screaming child being given an injection over which Rugman commented that "this is how Chávez is injecting his vast oil wealth just where it's needed most". "Chávez loyalists," said Rugman, "will control parliament." Imagine Channel 4 News describing Labour's electoral majority in the Commons as "Labour's loyalists control parliament."
He diminished or ignored the majority of the proposed constitutional changes including those that would reduce the working week from 44 hours to 36 hours; extend social security benefits to 5 million Venezuelans who work in the "informal economy" - street vendors and the like; end discrimination on the basis of gender - unprecedented in Latin America; lower the minimum voting age from 18 to 16, also unprecedented; and recognise Venezuela's African-Venezuelan heritage and multiculturalism as a step towards ending the rampant racism practised by a wealthy elite reminiscent of white South Africa under apartheid.
With the referendum results announced, Rugman rejoiced with a crowd of the well-off in Caracas. He declared that "the air is seeping out of the socialist revolution". Disgracefully, he reported that "[the opposition] feared that [Chávez] would rig the ballots against them" - when the opposite was both true and confirmed.
Propaganda such as this is an accurate reflection of the Venezuela media, which is overwhelmingly anti-Chávez and pro-Washington and was complicit in the lawless 2002 coup. As one of the coup plotters said, "Our secret weapon was the media." Dressed as journalism, it seeks not to inform, but to discredit - in this case, demonstrably one of the most original and imaginative and hopeful democratic experiments in the world. In doing so, it blocks real debate on issues such as those that led Chávez supporters to abstain and a definition of Venezuela's proclaimed "socialism" as well as the natural tension between the state and the grass roots. It is the same propaganda that has closed down debate elsewhere and helped to see off Allende in Chile, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and Astride in Haiti, not to mention a long list of those on other continents who have tried to raise their people out of poverty and despair. This is journalism as the agency of power, not people, unrelated in all ways to the craft of a Gellhorn, a Cameron, a Murrow, a Hersh.
Propaganda such as this is an accurate reflection of the Venezuela media, which is overwhelmingly anti-Chávez and pro-Washington and was complicit in the lawless 2002 coup. As one of the coup plotters said, "Our secret weapon was the media.".
... Chavez is a constitutional dictator, every single move made by him was/is towards the acquisition of absolute power in the country, he controls the press, TV, and now he wants to control the internet, ...
Propaganda such as this is an accurate reflection of the Venezuela media, which is overwhelmingly anti-Chávez and pro-Washington and was complicit in the lawless 2002 coup. As one of the coup plotters said, "Our secret weapon was the media.".
... Chavez is a constitutional dictator, every single move made by him was/is towards the acquisition of absolute power in the country, he controls the press, TV, and now he wants to control the internet, ...
hmmm.
Well the beauty of all is that no matter what, my country is just going to get worst, like i said to Byrnzie, just check the statistics in the world like, murders, kidnapping, corruption, ETC and you'll see that Venezuela is very high in all of them. I don't care what Washington says, I don't care what any communist country says about my country, you have to live it to believe it...
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Propaganda such as this is an accurate reflection of the Venezuela media, which is overwhelmingly anti-Chávez and pro-Washington and was complicit in the lawless 2002 coup. As one of the coup plotters said, "Our secret weapon was the media.".
... Chavez is a constitutional dictator, every single move made by him was/is towards the acquisition of absolute power in the country, he controls the press, TV, and now he wants to control the internet, ...
hmmm.
Well the beauty of all is that no matter what, my country is just going to get worst, like i said to Byrnzie, just check the statistics in the world like, murders, kidnapping, corruption, ETC and you'll see that Venezuela is very high in all of them. I don't care what Washington says, I don't care what any communist country says about my country, you have to live it to believe it...
ever think, considering the CIA is notorious for violence in south america, that it might not all be chavez's fault?
ever think, considering the CIA is notorious for violence in south america, that it might not all be chavez's fault?
It may be true to certain extend... but that doesn't convert Chavez into the George Washington of South America, he will remain a murderer a thieve and a coward.
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
I was not comparing Obama to Chavez, more so Sean Penn and his Love affair for the creep. This board has a tendency to take Ed and his pal's words as gospel sometimes. Penn is Dead Wrong as Jose pointed out on what Chavez is and what he stands for.
Glenn Beck is a schmuck, I don't watch him or any of the other ass kiss republican line toters from Fox News.
Though Obama has some Socialist tendencies, and undeniable socialist/Marxist/Leninist ties and beliefs, I don't think he is even close to Chavez in scale of his urges to integrate more socialist policies in their respective governmental policies. Hugo flat out wants to be a king
I'll take someone who has lived there's word as to how he is over a journalist with an agenda any day of the week. Yes you can Argue the first link is just that, but as Jose so eloquently pointed out the article is true true true and not swayed by a left right bias.
If anyone thinks Chavez would give back that power they are just not aware of his diabolical plans and desires
there are few countries on earth outside the US economic model. its empire, and its global.
venezuela is trying to be one of the few exceptions.
that's admirable. a system that rewards greed and selfishness cannot possibly produce what is best for mankind, talking about the US empire here. and we see that, from tax cuts to the extremely wealthy while 9/11 first responders aren't even getting health care, to third world economies where the tyrants running things are millionaires while people don't have a hospital to take their sick too. the rich get richer the poor poorer. countries are forced to pay back the loans first, ahead of social spending, things like hospitals and schools. the wealthy always get paid, those that need it the most aren't always taken care of.
i'm not saying venezuela is a shining beacon of how to do things, but it is an alternative. power corrupts and chavez is no exception. but he is allowing a vote. maybe that he keeps winning should tell us something about that system.
the US led 2002 coup was a direct assault on democracy. the people voted chavez in, many times, in elections that international observers deemed fair. yet the US tried to overthrow that government. having failed, we need only look at past US action in the hemisphere to see what's coming. if the country is experiencing kidnappings and murders, if that is true, given US involvement in south america in the past, the CIA are the most likely culprits, not Chavez.
and no that doesn't mean chavez is the next the venezuelan george washington, whatever that means, but he is certainly no hitler either.
I'll not post anymore in this thread anymore. I'll let the experts in foreigners affairs keep giving their opinions based on third hand accounts; what do I know? at the end I just lived all my life there
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
I'll not post anymore in this thread anymore. I'll let the experts in foreigners affairs keep giving their opinions based on third hand accounts; what do I know? at the end I just lived all my life there
I think everyone appreciates your insight and first hand accounts and opinions on the subject. However, an important point to make is that one man's experience should not be mistaken for the experiences of all. For instance, a supporter of the Nazi party in 1930's Germany would have a vastly different opinion than that of an anti-Nazi activist in 1930's USA. Sure, the man in Germany has a first hand account of his experiences, but he may not be getting the whole truth. Just as there were plenty of people who loved and hated GW Bush here, so too opinions varied worldwide. Some here were blinded by there own personal experience, while some overseas may have had a more objective point of view, and more facts to draw from.
My point is that personal experience does not necessarily mean you have all of the facts.
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
I'll not post anymore in this thread anymore. I'll let the experts in foreigners affairs keep giving their opinions based on third hand accounts; what do I know? at the end I just lived all my life there
I think everyone appreciates your insight and first hand accounts and opinions on the subject. However, an important point to make is that one man's experience should not be mistaken for the experiences of all. For instance, a supporter of the Nazi party in 1930's Germany would have a vastly different opinion than that of an anti-Nazi activist in 1930's USA. Sure, the man in Germany has a first hand account of his experiences, but he may not be getting the whole truth. Just as there were plenty of people who loved and hated GW Bush here, so too opinions varied worldwide. Some here were blinded by there own personal experience, while some overseas may have had a more objective point of view, and more facts to draw from.
My point is that personal experience does not necessarily mean you have all of the facts.
I would say that arq's experiences and understanding of living in that country over run any guesses or second hand stories given on this thread.
which is why i am waiting for you to tell us what you know for fact about chavez
if you could post some links on the proven horrible things he has done
i am sure you've read the wiki link i posted on chavez
what on that page is false?
please show us the monster
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
During the 1980s and 1990s there was a steady increase in crime in Latin America, and Colombia, El Salvador, Venezuela and Brazil all had homicide rates above the regional average.[148] The major reasons for high levels of crime in Latin America are high inequality, low incarceration rates and small police forces.[149]
During Chávez' administration, homicide rates have more than doubled, with one NGO finding the rate to have nearly quadrupled;[150][151] the number of homicides increased from 6,000 in 1999 to 13,000 in 2007.[152] Kidnappings have also become increasingly common.[153] Caracas in 2010 had the world's highest murder rate.[154] Chávez maintains that the nation is no more violent now than it was when he took office.[155]
Citizens now believe that crime is a serious problem and that police were themselves a factor in the increase in crime. Between 2000 and 2007, 6,300 police were investigated for violations of human rights. Because decentralization of police was blamed for their ineffectiveness, the 1999 constitution required the National Assembly to form a national police force; however legislation on this became bogged down in legislative discussions. In 2006 the government established the National Commission for Police Reform (Conarepol), in which a range of civil society representatives, politicians and academics investigated law enforcement in Venezuela and made recommendations. This included setting up a national police force designed to operate with high standards of professionalism and specific training in human rights. It also included initiatives whereby communal councils can participate in police supervision, by being able to request investigations into police behaviour and file recommendations and complaints.[152]
In 2008, Chávez passed a decree designed to implement Conarepol's recommendation on the national police force, and the National Bolivarian Police (PNB),[156][157] and Experimental Security University began operations in 2009. According to the PNB, murder has been reduced by 60%, robberies by nearly 59%, and gender-based violence has diminished by 66% in the pilot areas where the PNB has been active in and around Caracas.[157] However, not all homicides due to encounters with police are reported.[158] According to the publications El Espectador and Le Monde diplomatique, rising crime in rural and urban areas is partly due to increased cross-border activity by Colombian right-wing paramilitary groups like Águilas Negras.[159]
The decree has been criticized because it was negotiated behind closed doors, and did not follow all of Conarepol's recommendations to deal with human rights, and because "politicization of the force could undercut the goal of professionalization".[158][160]
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
I'll not post anymore in this thread anymore. I'll let the experts in foreigners affairs keep giving their opinions based on third hand accounts; what do I know? at the end I just lived all my life there
I think everyone appreciates your insight and first hand accounts and opinions on the subject. However, an important point to make is that one man's experience should not be mistaken for the experiences of all. For instance, a supporter of the Nazi party in 1930's Germany would have a vastly different opinion than that of an anti-Nazi activist in 1930's USA. Sure, the man in Germany has a first hand account of his experiences, but he may not be getting the whole truth. Just as there were plenty of people who loved and hated GW Bush here, so too opinions varied worldwide. Some here were blinded by there own personal experience, while some overseas may have had a more objective point of view, and more facts to draw from.
My point is that personal experience does not necessarily mean you have all of the facts.
I would say that arq's experiences and understanding of living in that country over run any guesses or second hand stories given on this thread.
Godfather.
Guesses, yes. Second-hand opinions on HIS personal experiences, yes. I think you are ignoring most of my previous post though. Would you also say that a pro-Nazi German's 'first hand' opinion would trump that of an anti-Nazi living in another country? A lot of opinions can be formed by personal experiences and a lot of times you can be clouded by your personal experiences. If you protest against the government here and are deemed a threat to national security, the government can come and lock you up without trial thanks to the Patriot Act. That person would say we are living in tyranny, while someone in another country who hasn't experienced that would say that our government is completely fair and just. See - personal experience doesn't always tell the whole story. Just because arq has had a negative experience in Venezuela shouldn't automatically mean it is the whole story. That is just narrow minded thinking.
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
Comments
Didn't the president of Belarus just win a "democratic election"?
A common enemy can unite even the greatest of foes.
Finally, real perspective!
...the same way Saddam won 100% of the vote in his country.
*NYC 9/28/96 *NYC 9/29/96 *NJ 9/8/98 (front row "may i play drums with you")
*MSG 9/10/98 (backstage) *MSG 9/11/98 (backstage)
*Jones Beach 8/23/00 *Jones Beach 8/24/00 *Jones Beach 8/25/00
*Mansfield 8/29/00 *Mansfield 8/30/00 *Nassau 4/30/03 *Nissan VA 7/1/03
*Borgata 10/1/05 *Camden 5/27/06 *Camden 5/28/06 *DC 5/30/06
*VA Beach 6/17/08 *DC 6/22/08 *MSG 6/24/08 (backstage) *MSG 6/25/08
*EV DC 8/17/08 *EV Baltimore 6/15/09 *Philly 10/31/09
*Bristow VA 5/13/10 *MSG 5/20/10 *MSG 5/21/10
I didn't say that, that is a quote from Jason P! even thou I agree
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
Byrnzie while I respect your aggressive approach and knowledge on any subject here on the train I think on this one you have run into a wall, you can't argue with the life long knowledge and experience that arq has to offer on this subject,sorry man.
Godfather.
Godfather.
You made me feel old
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
no...I'm old...kinda
Godfather.
i feel the same way about opposing and attacking people we have never met or really know very little about
do you?
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
...it's entertaining to watch though. I say keep it up!
*NYC 9/28/96 *NYC 9/29/96 *NJ 9/8/98 (front row "may i play drums with you")
*MSG 9/10/98 (backstage) *MSG 9/11/98 (backstage)
*Jones Beach 8/23/00 *Jones Beach 8/24/00 *Jones Beach 8/25/00
*Mansfield 8/29/00 *Mansfield 8/30/00 *Nassau 4/30/03 *Nissan VA 7/1/03
*Borgata 10/1/05 *Camden 5/27/06 *Camden 5/28/06 *DC 5/30/06
*VA Beach 6/17/08 *DC 6/22/08 *MSG 6/24/08 (backstage) *MSG 6/25/08
*EV DC 8/17/08 *EV Baltimore 6/15/09 *Philly 10/31/09
*Bristow VA 5/13/10 *MSG 5/20/10 *MSG 5/21/10
well played g you got me and understand what point you are making.
Godfather.
jon stewert had a venezuelan in his audience the other night.
when asked how it was living under chavez, he shrugged and said,
"its ok".
i guess it depends who you ask.
but one must be very careful.. cause the enemy of thy enemy isnt necessarily thy friend.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Yes because he wanted to say in national television "Chavez sucks" and then return to Venezuela to be "welcomed"...
have anybody seem the devaluation of the Venezuelan money? the deterioration of the oil companies, the horrible condition of the public health service? what about the unemployment rate?
Chavez is not a modern Robin hood people...
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
I'm just surprised that if the U.S government really are as opposed to Chavez as they say they are then why aren't stories of the violence and corruption in Venezuela jumped on by the media and made common knowledge? I admit I don't know exactly what's going on down there, but I refuse to just jump on the common anti-Chavez bandwagon without knowing the full picture. Though Arq's pm has made me realize there's some fucked-up stuff going on in that country.
There's clearly political violence and intimidation going on in Venezuela, but how much of it can be directly related to Chavez I don't know. Again, if he could be clearly implicated by the anti-Chavez brigade in the U.S then why hasn't he been already? If the violence and corruption down there are clearly related to Chavez and his party then why is this information not being widely disseminated?
On the one hand, I watch a documentary like John Pilger's 'The War on Democracy', which tells how the majority of Venezuelans have prospered under Chavez and that the coup in 2002 was largely funded and supported by the U.S, and on the other I hear stories like Arq's of violence and intimidation of those political parties opposed to Chavez.
So what's really going on there?
Keep the record straight
Some journalists in the mainstream media fail to report the facts when dealing with Venezuela, preferring instead to parrot Washington's line
John Pilger
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 4 December 2007
'...On March 28 2006 I described here a report broadcast on Channel 4 News the previous night by its Washington correspondent, Jonathan Rugman. Rugman is pretty typical of television's Washington correspondents; he reports as if embedded, when, in fact, his work is voluntary. What distinguishes him is his reporting from Venezuela. Rugman's brief visit last year to Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, produced what I described here as "one of the worst, most distorted pieces of journalism I have ever seen qualifying as crude propaganda". This was a piece, I wrote, "which might as well have been written by the US state department". For example, he described Maria Corina Machado as a "human rights activist". In fact, she was a leader of Sumate, an extreme rightwing organisation, who had been welcomed to the White House by George Bush himself. He caricatured Hugo Chávez as a buffoon dictator. In fact, he is an authentic product of a popular political movement that began in 1989 who has won more democratic elections than any leader on earth. Rugman reported that Chávez was helping Iran develop a nuclear weapon. In fact, this is laughable - see the US National Intelligence Estimate report published on December 3 2007. At the end of his performance, Rugman complained dramatically to the camera that he had been "held for 30 hours" by police in Caracas. In fact, he had walked into a military base and, surprise, surprise, was apprehended - as he would be on any Ministry of Defence establishment in Britain - and Venezuela is a country whose president two years earlier had been temporarily overthrown in a military coup. In fact, Chávez himself arranged for Rugman's speedy release. Rugman's "report" was so absurd that Channel 4 News, which maintains a reputation, was inundated with complaints and, as I was told, "embarrassed" - though not embarrassed enough to desist from sending Rugman back to Venezuela for yesterday's important constitutional referendum.
Chávez narrowly lost the referendum. His government wanted to change a number of articles in the Venezuelan constitution that would define what he has called "socialism for the 21st century", including allowing the president to stand in unlimited elections (which leaders in Britain, Canada, Australia and many other countries can do). But many of his own supporters were unconvinced and probably confused as to why they were being called upon to vote yet again, and 3 million of them abstained.
Ironically, the result actually reaffirmed the health of democracy in Venezuela and served to ridicule the incessant media propaganda that Chávez was a "dictator" and a "tyrant". In a gracious speech conceding defeat, Chávez congratulated the opposition and invited them to celebrate. His tone was the antithesis of the media-led campaign. On the eve of the referendum, closeted with Venezuela's rich minority, Jonathan Rugman allowed them to call Chávez a communist, which he isn't. "It's as bad that?" he contributed.
Presenting these people as victims, he said nothing about their history of rapacious privilege or that their wealth was actually increasing under Chávez. He allowed, unsubstantiated, histrionics such as, "There are Chávez supporters [who] will kill me." His clever cameraperson filmed soldiers from the boots up at polling stations - soldiers who, according to Rugman, instead of saluting cry out "for the fatherland and socialism". That they were guarding an election process internationally recognised and commended was not mentioned, neither was the fact that opposition monitors had announced they were pleased with the conduct of the election. For a spot of "balance", he toured what he called the "slums" and found "rubbish in the streets" and milk missing from otherwise abundantly stocked supermarkets. His script was crudely juxtaposed with images showing a screaming child being given an injection over which Rugman commented that "this is how Chávez is injecting his vast oil wealth just where it's needed most". "Chávez loyalists," said Rugman, "will control parliament." Imagine Channel 4 News describing Labour's electoral majority in the Commons as "Labour's loyalists control parliament."
He diminished or ignored the majority of the proposed constitutional changes including those that would reduce the working week from 44 hours to 36 hours; extend social security benefits to 5 million Venezuelans who work in the "informal economy" - street vendors and the like; end discrimination on the basis of gender - unprecedented in Latin America; lower the minimum voting age from 18 to 16, also unprecedented; and recognise Venezuela's African-Venezuelan heritage and multiculturalism as a step towards ending the rampant racism practised by a wealthy elite reminiscent of white South Africa under apartheid.
With the referendum results announced, Rugman rejoiced with a crowd of the well-off in Caracas. He declared that "the air is seeping out of the socialist revolution". Disgracefully, he reported that "[the opposition] feared that [Chávez] would rig the ballots against them" - when the opposite was both true and confirmed.
Propaganda such as this is an accurate reflection of the Venezuela media, which is overwhelmingly anti-Chávez and pro-Washington and was complicit in the lawless 2002 coup. As one of the coup plotters said, "Our secret weapon was the media." Dressed as journalism, it seeks not to inform, but to discredit - in this case, demonstrably one of the most original and imaginative and hopeful democratic experiments in the world. In doing so, it blocks real debate on issues such as those that led Chávez supporters to abstain and a definition of Venezuela's proclaimed "socialism" as well as the natural tension between the state and the grass roots. It is the same propaganda that has closed down debate elsewhere and helped to see off Allende in Chile, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and Astride in Haiti, not to mention a long list of those on other continents who have tried to raise their people out of poverty and despair. This is journalism as the agency of power, not people, unrelated in all ways to the craft of a Gellhorn, a Cameron, a Murrow, a Hersh.
hmmm.
Well the beauty of all is that no matter what, my country is just going to get worst, like i said to Byrnzie, just check the statistics in the world like, murders, kidnapping, corruption, ETC and you'll see that Venezuela is very high in all of them. I don't care what Washington says, I don't care what any communist country says about my country, you have to live it to believe it...
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
ever think, considering the CIA is notorious for violence in south america, that it might not all be chavez's fault?
It may be true to certain extend... but that doesn't convert Chavez into the George Washington of South America, he will remain a murderer a thieve and a coward.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
I was not comparing Obama to Chavez, more so Sean Penn and his Love affair for the creep. This board has a tendency to take Ed and his pal's words as gospel sometimes. Penn is Dead Wrong as Jose pointed out on what Chavez is and what he stands for.
Glenn Beck is a schmuck, I don't watch him or any of the other ass kiss republican line toters from Fox News.
Though Obama has some Socialist tendencies, and undeniable socialist/Marxist/Leninist ties and beliefs, I don't think he is even close to Chavez in scale of his urges to integrate more socialist policies in their respective governmental policies. Hugo flat out wants to be a king
I'll take someone who has lived there's word as to how he is over a journalist with an agenda any day of the week. Yes you can Argue the first link is just that, but as Jose so eloquently pointed out the article is true true true and not swayed by a left right bias.
If anyone thinks Chavez would give back that power they are just not aware of his diabolical plans and desires
venezuela is trying to be one of the few exceptions.
that's admirable. a system that rewards greed and selfishness cannot possibly produce what is best for mankind, talking about the US empire here. and we see that, from tax cuts to the extremely wealthy while 9/11 first responders aren't even getting health care, to third world economies where the tyrants running things are millionaires while people don't have a hospital to take their sick too. the rich get richer the poor poorer. countries are forced to pay back the loans first, ahead of social spending, things like hospitals and schools. the wealthy always get paid, those that need it the most aren't always taken care of.
i'm not saying venezuela is a shining beacon of how to do things, but it is an alternative. power corrupts and chavez is no exception. but he is allowing a vote. maybe that he keeps winning should tell us something about that system.
the US led 2002 coup was a direct assault on democracy. the people voted chavez in, many times, in elections that international observers deemed fair. yet the US tried to overthrow that government. having failed, we need only look at past US action in the hemisphere to see what's coming. if the country is experiencing kidnappings and murders, if that is true, given US involvement in south america in the past, the CIA are the most likely culprits, not Chavez.
and no that doesn't mean chavez is the next the venezuelan george washington, whatever that means, but he is certainly no hitler either.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
I think everyone appreciates your insight and first hand accounts and opinions on the subject. However, an important point to make is that one man's experience should not be mistaken for the experiences of all. For instance, a supporter of the Nazi party in 1930's Germany would have a vastly different opinion than that of an anti-Nazi activist in 1930's USA. Sure, the man in Germany has a first hand account of his experiences, but he may not be getting the whole truth. Just as there were plenty of people who loved and hated GW Bush here, so too opinions varied worldwide. Some here were blinded by there own personal experience, while some overseas may have had a more objective point of view, and more facts to draw from.
My point is that personal experience does not necessarily mean you have all of the facts.
nowadays hits you when you're young
I would say that arq's experiences and understanding of living in that country over run any guesses or second hand stories given on this thread.
Godfather.
i hope you know that i respect your opinion
which is why i am waiting for you to tell us what you know for fact about chavez
if you could post some links on the proven horrible things he has done
i am sure you've read the wiki link i posted on chavez
what on that page is false?
please show us the monster
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
During Chávez' administration, homicide rates have more than doubled, with one NGO finding the rate to have nearly quadrupled;[150][151] the number of homicides increased from 6,000 in 1999 to 13,000 in 2007.[152] Kidnappings have also become increasingly common.[153] Caracas in 2010 had the world's highest murder rate.[154] Chávez maintains that the nation is no more violent now than it was when he took office.[155]
Citizens now believe that crime is a serious problem and that police were themselves a factor in the increase in crime. Between 2000 and 2007, 6,300 police were investigated for violations of human rights. Because decentralization of police was blamed for their ineffectiveness, the 1999 constitution required the National Assembly to form a national police force; however legislation on this became bogged down in legislative discussions. In 2006 the government established the National Commission for Police Reform (Conarepol), in which a range of civil society representatives, politicians and academics investigated law enforcement in Venezuela and made recommendations. This included setting up a national police force designed to operate with high standards of professionalism and specific training in human rights. It also included initiatives whereby communal councils can participate in police supervision, by being able to request investigations into police behaviour and file recommendations and complaints.[152]
In 2008, Chávez passed a decree designed to implement Conarepol's recommendation on the national police force, and the National Bolivarian Police (PNB),[156][157] and Experimental Security University began operations in 2009. According to the PNB, murder has been reduced by 60%, robberies by nearly 59%, and gender-based violence has diminished by 66% in the pilot areas where the PNB has been active in and around Caracas.[157] However, not all homicides due to encounters with police are reported.[158] According to the publications El Espectador and Le Monde diplomatique, rising crime in rural and urban areas is partly due to increased cross-border activity by Colombian right-wing paramilitary groups like Águilas Negras.[159]
The decree has been criticized because it was negotiated behind closed doors, and did not follow all of Conarepol's recommendations to deal with human rights, and because "politicization of the force could undercut the goal of professionalization".[158][160]
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
Guesses, yes. Second-hand opinions on HIS personal experiences, yes. I think you are ignoring most of my previous post though. Would you also say that a pro-Nazi German's 'first hand' opinion would trump that of an anti-Nazi living in another country? A lot of opinions can be formed by personal experiences and a lot of times you can be clouded by your personal experiences. If you protest against the government here and are deemed a threat to national security, the government can come and lock you up without trial thanks to the Patriot Act. That person would say we are living in tyranny, while someone in another country who hasn't experienced that would say that our government is completely fair and just. See - personal experience doesn't always tell the whole story. Just because arq has had a negative experience in Venezuela shouldn't automatically mean it is the whole story. That is just narrow minded thinking.
nowadays hits you when you're young