Boycott Citgo Oil and Jugo Chavez

My wife's Aunt just returned from working in Venezuela.

She is a dentist and was sent to rural Venezuela as a good will ambasador by Her Employer, the Cuban Goverment.

It was a good gig for Her, she was paid in hard currency and was able to purchase consumer goods while in Venezuela. Now she has a new stove a refrigerator. television and a few other things. Things unavailable to her in Cuba.

She said the people of her location were greatful for the medical attention, that they were poor country people. Being on the telephone from Cuba, She was circumspect about what She would say.

She is home now, it seems that the medical ambassador program has hit a rough stretch and now the doctors are paid in Cuban Pesos which is more like a coupon than a currency, they cannot purchase those consumer goods in Venezuela anymore.

The Miami Herald has plenty of coverage of Venezuela if anyone is looking for information.

 

And why the fuck would you assume that my comment was directed towards you specifically?

Get your ego in check, you large-government-dependent ass.

 

^^^
And this comment has what to do with Hugo Chavez? If you want to start a pissing contest, do it on another thread or pm's. I don't really care for insult slinging, especially since it's off topic.

Peace and love

 

I think it has everything to do with Chavez. Michael obviously supports the Bush administration and that puts him on the defensive against Mr. Chavez and what he is attempting to accomplish in Venezuela. Of course, Socialism in South America makes it ripe for the picking when the US gets tired of what lies next and elects another Neo-Con (probably around 2021). I mean, we can't have social fairness knocking on our back door, can we? If not Venezuela, some other Central/South American nation that will have actually removed the barrier between the haves and the have-nots and allowed humanity to prosper within their own borders.

Social fairness and equality just aren't the American Way. They must be crushed, right Mikey? How can we get apples, pears and grapes from Venezuela to sell at inflated prices in the US while the morons in our government PAY OUR FARMERS NOT TO GROW FOOD if those fruits are being used tofeed the poor and starving Venezuelan masses who cultivated them? Can't have that, right Mikey? You seem to care if those people "suffer" without "Democracy" but not if they're poor and starving? Yeah. I believe that you care. Really.

These aren't insults. These are facts peppered with valid questions, on topic. Since Mike seems to have all the answers, I'd like to hear his responses, even with the arrogant, overly defensive attitude.

 

#1 I don't particularly care for the Bush administration. Never have. I voted 3rd party both times. However, unlike you, that doesn't mean that I'm irresistably inclined to bend over backwards to support socialist DICTATORS just because they hurled some insults at him. And I CERTAINLY don't bend over backwards to justify the gross human rights violations perpetrated by said dictators.

Now...I already know that you're dead set in your opinions, and as far as you're concerned these "human rights violations" are all just lies being told by the neocons or the boogeyman or something. So for that reason, I'll just go ahead and reference the Human Rights Watch Organization website: http://hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=venezu

Recent headlines from said source:


[size=-1]Venezuela: Proposed Amendments Threaten Basic Rights

[/size][size=-1]Venezuela: Investigate Pre-Referendum Violence
[/size][size=-1]The Venezuelan authorities should carry out prompt, thorough and impartial investigations into all acts of violence committed against demonstrators both supporting and opposing the constitutional reforms proposed by the government, Human Rights Watch said today.

[/size][size=-1]Venezuela: Disturbing Plan to Suspend Due Process

[/size][size=-1]Venezuela: TV Shutdown Harms Free Expression

[/size][size=-1] Venezuela: Court Orders Trial of Civil Society Leaders
In ordering the trial of four civil society leaders on dubious charges of treason, a Venezuelan court has assented to government persecution of political opponents, Human Rights Watch said today.

[/size][size=-1] Venezuela: Rights Lawyer Faces Judicial Persecution
Criminal Investigation Launched to Intimidate Critic of Government’s Rights Record
The Venezuelan government should immediately halt criminal proceedings opened against one of Latin America’s most prominent human rights lawyers, Human Rights Watch said today.

[/size][size=-1]Venezuela: Curbs on Free Expression Tightened

[/size][size=-1] Venezuela: Chávez Allies Pack Supreme Court
The Venezuelan Congress dealt a severe blow to judicial independence by packing the country’s Supreme Court with 12 new justices, Human Rights Watch said today. A majority of the ruling coalition, dominated by President Hugo Chávez’s party, named the justices late yesterday, filling seats created by a law passed in May that expanded the court’s size by more than half.




That was just the first half a page or so. The list does go on...

Oh, and just for kicks, why not check out the organization's list for the United States? I did...wanna know what I found?

Some stuff about lethal injections, guantanamo detainees (aka men who were caught brandishing loaded AK47's), and the unfair nature of "sex offender registries".


Now personally I am thankful to God that the first list belongs to a country that I am nowhere near!

But, as we all know opinions may vary...perhaps you'd much rather live under those conditions? Perhaps you'd like to spend some time living under the thumb of "Mr. Chavez". What were the words you used to describe his motivations? Social fairness and equality? Well if those headlines don't paint a picture of social fairness and equality, I don't know what does!


Oh and I really do apologize for my arrogant, overly-defensive attitude...

NOT!!!
[/size]

 

You certified your position when you mixed political opinion with the following 5 words:

Thank you for acting predictable. Now I'm done.

 

Is there anything in those articles that HASN'T occurred in the US? I could list an example for each article, but I have to be in class soon. When I have more time, I will. Overview: Kent State 4 killed by national guard, no due process for those deemed "terrorists," Patriot Act I & II, our president has similar powers during a State of Emergency, etc.

Peace and love

 

According to one account,

Agreed. Violent crime and terrorism are often a result of the resentment and desparation brought on by poverty and class differences, yet our society seems too self centered and short sited to acknowledge this. Instead we're headed in the opposite direction.

The six hour work day works for me. Granted, it would lower our GNP, and our standard of living would drop a bit as a result, but I'd be willing to make the compromise for more free time. You can't take it with you.

 

How would it lower our standard of living? People who are not overworked are more productive than those who are. So what if someone is putting in 40+ hours when someone who only works 30 hours has the same productivity level? It's been proven that people who work fewer hours can be just as productive, if not more so, than someone who is exhausted and has little time for anything but work.

Plus, if there are fewer hours per worker, that opens up room for other workers to make up the extra time. So a business that is open 24/7 would need at least 4 workers (6 hours) per day rather than 3 (8 hours) per day. Kind of seems like a win/win situation.

Peace and love

 

A little somethingI found in the news this morning:

Fear of Chavez is fear of democracy

Greg Palast
Online Journal
Tuesday December 4, 2007

The Family Bush can fix Florida. They can fix Ohio. But it’s just driving them crazy that they can’t fix the vote in Venezuela.

The Bush Administration and its press puppies -- the same ones who couldn’t get enough of the purple thumbs of voters of Iraq -- are absolutely livid that this weekend the electorate of Venezuela had the opportunity to vote.

Typical was the mouth-breathing editorial by the San Francisco Chronicle, that the referendum could make Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s president, “a constitutional dictator for life.” And no less a freedom fighter than Donald Rumsfeld, from the height of the Washington Post, said that by voting, Venezuela was “receding into dictatorship.” Oh, my!

Given that Chavez’ referendum was defeated at the ballot box, we now know that, as a dictator, Chavez is a flop. Of course, without meaning to gainsay Secretary Rumsfeld, maybe Chavez is not a dictator.

Let’s get clear exactly what this vote was about. Firstly, it was a referendum to change the nation’s constitution to end term limits for president.

(Article continues below)


Oh, horror! Imagine if we eliminated term limits in the US! We could end up stuck with a president -- like Franklin Roosevelt. Worse, if Bill Clinton could have run again, we’d have missed out on the statesmanship of Junior Bush. While US media called Chavez a “tyrant” for suggesting an end to term limits, they somehow forgot to smear the tyrant tag on Mr. Clinton for suggesting the same for the America.

We were not told this weekend’s referendum was a vote on term limits, rather, we were told by virtually every US news outlet that the referendum was to make Chavez, “President for Life.” The “President for Life” canard was mis-reported by no less than The New York Times.

But ending term limits does not mean winning the term. As Chavez himself told me, “It’s up to the people” whether he gets reelected. And that infuriates the US Powers That Be.
Secondly, beyond ending term limits, the referendum would have loaded the nation’s constitution with changes in property law, work hours and so many other complex economic adjustments that the entire referendum sank of its own weight.

It’s the Oil.
Term limits and work hours in Venezuela? Why was this a crisis for Washington?

Why is the Bush crew so bonkers about Hugo? Is it because Venezuela sits on the world’s largest reserve of coconuts?

Like Operation Iraqi Liberation (”OIL”) -- it’s all about the crude, dude. And lots of it. The US Department of Energy documents I obtained indicate that the guys holding Bush’s dipstick figure that Venezuela is sitting on 1.36 trillion barrels of crude, five times the reserves of Saudi Arabia.

Chavez’ continuing tenure means that Venezuelans’ huge supply of oil will now be in the hands of . . . Venezuelans!

As Arturo Quiran, resident of a poor folks’ housing complex, told me, “Ten, fifteen years ago . . . there was a lot of oil money here in Venezuela but we didn’t see it.” Notably, Quiran doesn’t particularly agree with Chavez’ politics. But, he thought Americans should understand that under Chavez’ Administration, there’s a doctor’s office in his building with “free operations, x-rays, medicines. Education also. People who never knew how to read and write now know how to sign their own papers.”

Not everyone is pleased. As one TV news anchor, violently anti-Chavez, told me in derisive tones, “Chavez gives them (the poor) bricks and bread!” -- how dare he! -- so, they vote for him.

Big Oil has better ideas for Venezuela, best expressed in several Wall Street Journal articles attacking Chavez for spending his nation’s oil wealth on “social programs” rather than on more drilling platforms to better fill the SUVs of Texas.

Chavez has committed other crimes in Washington’s eyes. Not only has this uppity brown man spent Venezuela’s oil wealth in Venezuela, he withdrew $20 billion from the US Federal Reserve. Weirdly, Venezuela’s previous leaders, though the nation was dirt poor, lent billions to the US Treasury on crap terms. Chavez has said, Basta! to this game, and has called for keeping South America’s capital in . . . South America! Oh, no!

Oh, and did I mention that Chavez told Exxon it had to pay more than a 1% royalty to his nation on the heavy crude the company extracted?

And that’s why they have to kill him. In 2002, The New York Times sickeningly applauded the coup d’etat against Chavez. But that failed. Therefore, as the electorate of Venezuela is obstinately refusing to vote as Condi Rice tells them, there’s only one solution left for democracy-loving Bush-niks, the view express out loud by our president’s spiritual advisor, Pat Robertson:

“We have this enemy to our south controlling a huge pool of oil. Hugo Chavez thinks we’re trying to assassinate him. I think we ought to go ahead and do it. . . . . . . We don’t need another $200 billion war . . . It’s a whole lot easier to have some covert operatives do the job.”

But Hugo’s not my enemy. Indeed, he’s made a damn good offer to the American people: oil for $50 a barrel -- nearly half of what it sells today. By locking in a long-term price, Venezuela loses its crazy Iraq war oil-price windfall. In return, we agree not to let oil prices fall through the floor (it dropped to $9 a barrel in 1998) and bankrupt his nation. But Saudi Arabia doesn’t like that deal. And Abdullah’s wish is George Bush’s command. (Interestingly, Chavez’ fellow no-term-limits dictator Bill Clinton endorsed the concept.)

I don’t agree with everything Chavez does. And I’ve found some of his opponents’ point well taken. But unlike Bush, I don’t think I should have a veto over the Venezuelan vote.

And the locals’ sentiments are quite clear. I drove with one opposition candidate, Julio Borges, on a campaign stop to a small town three hours from Caracas. We met his supporters -- or, more accurately, his lone supporter. The “rally” was in her kitchen. She served us delicious arepas.

The next day, I returned to that very same town when Chavez arrived. Nearly a thousand screaming fans showed up -- and an equal number were turned away. (The British Telegraph laughably reports that Chavez’ boosters appear “under duress.”) You’d think they were showing for a taping of “South American Idol.” (Well, the Venezuelan president did break into song a few times.)

It’s worth noting that Chavez’ personal popularity doesn’t extend to all his plans for “Bolivarian” socialism. And that killed his referendum at the ballot box. I guess Chavez should have asked Jeb Bush how to count votes in a democracy.
So there you have it. Some guy who thinks he can take Venezuela’s oil and oil money and just give it away to Venezuelans. And these same Venezuelans have the temerity to demand the right to pick the president of their choice! What is the world coming to?

In Orwellian Bush-speak and Times-talk, Chavez’ referendum was portrayed before the vote as a trick, a kind of “Saddam goes Latin.” Maybe their real fear is that Chavez has brought a bit of economic justice through the ballot box, a trend that could spread northward. Think about it: Chavez is funding full health care for all Venezuelans. What if that happened here?

 

Good article. It's not surprising that the oil men in the white house are pissed off when a country with all that oil doesn't play by their rules.

I agree with you there. Perhaps I should have re-phrased it to say the perception is that the GNP would be lower with a six hour work day. Sure, collectively we could be more productive if everyone worked less, and more people were employed. The problem is that employers would then be required to provide benefits for a 30 hour work week, and we couldn't have that, could we? Of course, benefits wouldn't be an issue with socialized health care.

 

Another interesting article on Venezuela to the effect that there is the threat of a CIA-inspired coup against Chavez. Of course you won't hear about this in the main stream media.

 

Alright, so the guy was fair this time around and didn't rig the vote to give himself expanded powers. That really is great news.

But, it doesn't change the fact that the 2004 elections that kept him in power were highly rigged in his favor. But don't take my word for it...see what the European Union has to say about it.


And to Skip who seems to be saying that "the ends justify the means", I say is there ever really an excuse for that?

I mean, you could make that very same argument in favor of the Patriot Act...why don't you? Why is it OK to strip people of their life and liberty in order to battle corporate influence (as in the case of Chavez), but not to stop terrorist plots (as in the case of the U.S.)?

My point is, if you're going to have these standards, you really need to apply them on a more universal level. You can't play favorites and turn blind eyes when it comes to a thing like human rights.

 

My point was that those issues aren't exclusively socialist-related, but happen in our democracy. You can't say that human rights violations are only related to Chavez when our history illustrates that the US is just as guilty if not more so than Chavez.

Look at Lincoln: during his presidency, he committed acts that would have been seen as human rights violations had their been a human rights committee. People during his time believed he was a dictator, but today he is seen as one of our greatest presidents. He did great things for our country and we see that he did not abuse his powers. You don't have historical perspective on Chavez and instead condemn him w/o knowing the situation he is dealing w/. If you were the ruler of a country that was possibly facing civil war, wouldn't you do what was necessary to keep your country united? That's what Lincoln did and what I believe Chavez was attempting, not trying to become a dictator. This election proves Chavez is not what you accuse him of.

BTW, the Carter Center actually observed the 2004 elections and deemed it legitimate. What is your proof that the election was rigged?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_recall_referendum,_2004

Peace and love

 

The EU wasn't even involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_recall_referendum,_2004

Sorry, facts don't back up your rigged election theory.

Peace and love

 

Ok. *clicks on link*


Hippiechick, I'm not sure that you actually read that article...did you really? Because here's what I'm seeing:



Separately, a number of both opponents and supporters of Chávez demonstrated outside several electoral locations both inside and outside the country, claiming that they were being prevented from voting because they did not appear in the official registration lists. Specifically, 300 Venezuelans in Colombia, as reported by the Venezuelan opposition press, apparently could not vote for that reason, which some have attributed to slowness or negligence of the CNE in going over the necessary paperwork. The Venezuelan ambassador in Colombia stated that his office had filed the proper documents on time and thus the CNE would be responsible for any potential problems.[10]

After the first preliminary result was broadcast, the opposition Coordinadora Democrática implied that a fraud may be taking place, stating that its own data put the "Yes" vote at 59% and the "No" vote at 40%. The entity told the press that no opposition representation was present when the votes were counted and that the physical ballots had not yet been taken into account.[11][12]

Exit polls conducted by the American firm of Penn, Schoen & Berland showed Chávez losing by a 60-40 margin, but the official results put Chávez winning the referendum by 58 to 41 percent. The Organization of American States and the Carter Center certified the referendum, but fraud allegations were raised.

The recall vote was held on August 15, 2004. A record number of voters turned out to defeat the recall attempt with a 59% "no" vote.[13] European Union observers did not oversee the elections, saying too many restrictions were put on their participation by the Chávez administration.[14] The Carter Center "concluded the results were accurate."[15] However, a Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates (PSB) exit poll showed the opposite result, predicting that Chávez would lose by 20%, whereas the election results showed him to have won by 20%. Schoen commented, "I think it was a massive fraud".[16] US News and World Report offered an analysis of the polls, indicating "very good reason to believe that the (Penn Schoen) exit poll had the result right, and that Chávez's election officials — and Carter and the American media — got it wrong".[16] PSB used Súmate, an anti-Chavez NGO, personnel and its results contradicted five other opposition exit polls. Publication or broadcast of exit polls was banned by electoral authorities, but results of the PSB poll went out to media outlets and opposition offices several hours before polls closed.[17] The Schoen exit poll and the government's programming of election machines were the basis of claims of election fraud.

According to the Center for Security Policy, Carter's "continued international work certifying election results has provided essential political cover to anti-democratic forces in the region. Indeed, it might be said that over the past four years, Jimmy Carter has been the most visible and arguably most influential U.S. leader in Latin America." The Center for Security Policy's report goes on to say that, "The (Hugo Chávez) regime delayed and obstructed the recall referendum process at every turn. Once the regime was forced to submit to such a referendum, moreover, it used a fraud-filled voting process to ensure victory. The government did everything—including granting citizenship to half a million illegal aliens in a crude vote-buying scheme and “migrating” existing voters away from their local election office—to fix the results in its favor. The outcome was then affirmed and legitimated by ex-President Jimmy Carter’s near-unconditional support." "Jimmy Carter ignored pleas from the opposition and publicly endorsed the results, despite the fact that the government reneged on its agreement to carry out an audit of the results. Carter’s actions not only gave the Venezuelan regime the legitimacy it craved, but also destroyed the public’s confidence in the voting process and in the effectiveness of international observers."[18]

Economists Ricardo Hausmann of Harvard University and Roberto Rigobón of the MIT Sloan School of Management performed a statistical analysis at Súmate's request, analyzing how fraud could have occurred during the referendum. They concluded that the vote samples audited by the government were not a random representation of all precincts, noting that the Chávez-backed CNE had "refused to use the random number generating program offered by the Carter Center for the August 18th audit and instead used its own program installed in its own computer and initialed with their own seed." They also noted that opposition witnesses and international observers were not allowed near the computer hub on election day.[19] According to The Wall Street Journal, a computer-science professor at Johns Hopkins University said, "The Hausmann/Rigobon study is more credible than many of the other allegations being thrown around."[20] CEPR, a liberal think tank (shocking!) [21] based in Washington, reports that other economists have called the Harvard/MIT assumptions about how the alleged fraud was conducted unlikely.[22]

Foreign Policy Magazine reports that the opposition was "shocked not so much by the results as by the ease with which international observers condoned the Electoral Council's flimsy audit of the results."[23] The sample for the audit was selected by the Chávez-controlled National Electoral Council, and was not of sufficient size to be statistically reliable.[24] The U.S. Department of State accepted that the results of the audit were "consistent with the results announced by (Venezuela's) National Electoral Council."[25][26] John Maisto, U.S. Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States, added that the results of the referendum "speak for themselves", saying that the quest for Venezuelan democracy "does not end with a single electoral process or referendum" and urging the "democratically elected government of Venezuela to address and recognize the legitimate concerns, rights, and aspirations of all of its citizens".[27] Regarding the recall effort, in testimony before the U.S. Senate, Maisto also pointed out that Carter had said that " 'expression of the citizen must be privileged over excessive technicalities' in resolving issues surrounding the tabulation of the signatures".



Well at least you were right about the EU not being involved. You do know WHY they weren't involved, right?

"European Union observers did not oversee the elections, saying too many restrictions were put on their participation by the Chávez administration."


I get the feeling you guys are being willfully dense about this.

 

Haven't you heard? Everything that President Bush doesn't approve of is illegal, immoral or rigged.

And Bush would know illegal, immoral and rigged.

 

Ugh...zoomie...do you ever make any REAL efforts to support your case? Or do you just continually spew drivel?

 

I'm quite certain I wasn't talking to or about you, but thanks for being defensive and insulting AGAIN.