Bolivarian homophobes

I do not know what is it with these bolivarians and their complexes, but they all seem to be of the same feather.  I have long written on chavismo as the homophobic and anti-Semitic presence in its leadership (examples here).  Now it turns out that Evo Morales is another homophobe!  And, as expected, in association with ignorance.

Evo Morales declared at an "alternative climate summit" (Copenhagen was not good enough for them, it did not have feathered natives enough I suppose)  that eating chickens raised on hormones was a cause for homosexuality.  His exact words, and a video to prove it:

"El pollo que comemos está cargado de hormonas femeninas. Por eso, cuando los hombres comen esos pollos, tienen desviaciones en su ser como hombres"  The chicken we eat is loaded with feminine hormones.  That is why, when men east these chickens, they have deviations in their maleness being (or something like that).

Thinning air in La Paz

Bolivia held local elections yesterday, a rather unusual proposal for a Latin American country to vote on Easter Sunday.  As expected Evo Morales followers won, which did not stop quite a few surprises from taking place, eerily reminding recent electoral situations in Venezuela.

Of the ocasional uselessness of new constitutions: The doomed new Bolivian Constitution

Today Bolivia voted on a new constitution which as far as I am concerned is destined to fail as badly as the Venezuelan one of 1999. The reason is very simple: a constitution which is imposed by a majority over a reluctant minority cannot create a democratic state since it starts by denying the rights of the minority. It does not matter how many elections are held, how many referendums are called, as long as the constitution does not genuinely reflect the notion the country has of itself it will not succeed. A constitution is not a law, it is the framework used to make laws. If you cannot agree on the framework, you are less likely to agree with the laws made through it.

The US constitution of 1787 succeeded (for all the crisis it suffered) because it reflected what the “founding fathers” thought of what the US was and should be: a federal state where freedom of expression and of religion should always be guaranteed. It was a social pact, a minimum upon which all agreed, from Maine to Georgia. Its major failing which led to the Civil War came because the rights of the slave minority were ignored. Even though the slaves had little chance on their own to change the bad hand dealt to them, their existence corroded enough the majority cohesion that the crisis came. Now that constitution has allowed Obama to reach power and turn a final symbolic page on this issue.

The French constitution of 1958 succeeded because the country agreed that the executive should be a stronger institution and that the quarrelsome parliamentary system inherited from 1870 was exhausted. Just as the 1870 system succeeded, at least until WW2, because it reflected the consensus that France should never be open again to the rise of a strong man to rule its future. The weak executive was reinforced by the strong parliament as needed during survival crisis such as WW1; but eventually it failed because it was unable to adapt to changing historical conditions when clarity of purpose was needed to terminate the colonial period and modernize France.

One can write similar paeans to successful constitution such as the recent ones in Spain, Germany or older systems such as the English one. But one can also write about constitutions that failed even in democratic countries as the rights of minorities, or even majorities, was eventually denied. It is the story of most constitutions in Latin America, including the failure of Chile’s in the 70ies when Allende refused to understand that he never got 50% of the popular vote and yet pretended to rule as if he had won that vote share. The Venezuelan one of 1961 succeeded at first because it was designed to guarantee the right of the minority to reach power eventually. That is how Chavez won in 1998. But it also failed in the end because it could never quite break with a “tradition” of strong man, even if they were granted only 5 years to rule.

The Venezuelan constitution of 1999 has already failed as proven by Chavez himself. In spite of being the promoter of the new charter he has tried to modify it enormously in 2007 and he now tries to debase it by creating an executive elite that enjoys enough access to power to remain in office forever. It was doomed from the start when the Constituent Assembly of 1999 had 97% of its seats representing only 60% of the population. The 40% that did not make it to that assembly never accepted its result and if today they defend the 1999 charter it is because the modifications proposed by Chavez ensure that the amended document will serve only the 30% or less that serve Chavez by sheer sycophancy or plain material interest.

I do not know the details of the Bolivian new constitution that is approved today. I am sure that it carries very valid redress measures for a Native American majority that has been abused since BEFORE the Spaniards reached Bolivia as the Inca was already an imperial master. The vote in Bolivia is clear: the new constitution which was already drafted by violating the conditions with which it was supposed to be established is receiving a strong approval in half the country and a strong rejection in the other half. Bolivia is not yet at the breaking point but today it is making a step further towards that possibility. True, Morales and the Media Luna leaders have demonstrated that at the brink of disaster they were able to hammer an agreement of sorts, but that is not the way a constitution is drawn. The agreement that allowed for today’s vote was not a consensus, it was a “let’s get over with this and move on to something else”, implicitly acknowledging on both sides that the constitution was just an excuse of a larger power struggle.

As such I predict that today’s voted paper will be just another one of the many that Bolivia got, just as the 1999 in Venezuela is already an exhausted one.

P.D.

Amazingly Bolivia emitted results as early as 7 PM Venezuelan time. On February 15, with the voting set to last until 6 PM I am pretty sure that we will not get a single result until midnight or even later. May I remind readers that WE STILL DO NOT HAVE THE FINAL RESULT OF THE 2007 REFERENDUM?



-The end-

Is there a state left in Venezuela?

When I look at what has happened today in Venezuela, in a single day, I wonder if there is a state left in Venezuela. There is also the option to think that Venezuela has become a failed state and we are about to become aware of that.

Let's start with the latest one. We just learned on TV that the grand daughter of ex-president Leoni has been found murdered in her apartment, possibly with her youngest child having witnessed it all, her mother near death next, both stabbed several times. The murder, by the way is in her Santa Paula apartment, a few blocks away from where I stay when I visit Caracas. A middle class neighborhood. What is the difference between Lorena and, say, any of the Chavez bothers? She had a small apartment in Caracas, he has large estates in Barinas. She had no body guard, he has all the body guards he can think of, taken away from the police corps, and thus away from the streets where they should be busy protecting the common citizen from crime, such as Lorena Moreno Leoni. Lorena is the grand daughter of a president that did not get rich while in office. She and her siblings have had to work all their lives for whatever they had as their grand parents left them only the family home. Another ex-president who died a simple man was Herrera Campins whom his friends had to help with his final medical expenses. The Chavez clan has become in ten years filthy rich, and let's not start with all the associates of the regime...

Or rather, let's start with these associates as the Miami trial is finally over and Franklin Duran has been declared guilty. Guilty as in guilty of being an undeclared agent of the Venezuelan government in the US. That is all, but it is much, much more than what it seems.

• It means that indeed Chavez regime is dispatching people to the US to commit actions that at the very least fail to meet the ethical label. In other words, Chavez agents in the US are up to no good, the more so when they are not registered.
• It means that the evidence presented at the trial demonstrates that the jury believed that corruption in Venezuela was at the root of sending such illegal agents. NOTE: the jury could not emit its opinion on corruption per se but the defense could not prove that the actions of Duran where not motivated by trying to cover up corruption in Venezuela.
• It means that the jury accepted that Venezuelan corruption is spilling over the US and as such should be stopped.

What are the implications?

Venezuelan government now cannot pretend the 800,000 dollars in the suit case just happened to be there. In fact, today, Antonini now free of the trial constraints talked in public for the first time, on CNN nothing less, to say that the money in the bag was for Cristina Kirchner campaign. Cristina and Hugo can chose to ignore Antonini declarations but the rest of Latin America who watched CNN "en español" now can wonder about the corruption in both countries (and in theirs if they are associated in any way with the bolivarian mafia). Well, they are not wondering, of course, as Argentina and Venezuela are considered quite corrupt even by our very lax Latin standards. No, they are going to wonder if these two crooks are going to do something about it. They will not have much of a choice anyway as in Argentina already the opposition is getting ready to cash in.

But in Venezuela, instead of investigating the huge corruption scandal of giving money to foreign campaigns, the Venezuelan mafia in charge uses law artifacts to remove one by one any opponent that looks to win at the coming polls. Yesterday it was Lopez, Mendoza and others. Today it was Lapi's turn. Tomorrow expect Salas Feo, Capriles and Rosales. That is the only way that chavismo can win an election, remove those who are running against them.

And while all of this took place, while European Human Rights observers were barred form doing their job, while Lech Walesa was "convinced" not to come to Venezuela, Chavez appealed to the racial card to try to get a date with Barak Obama. The Spanish original carries better the idea that Obama is black, like us. Chaevz simple assumes that Obama is misinformed. A little bit more and Obama is XXI centruy socialism Uncle Tom, if Chavez knew of that image.

Can there be a state in a country where the president behaves in such ways, say such things, jail or bars whoever he wants? Can there be a state when the daughter of an ex president is fighting for her life because somebody stabbed her in her home while the same state gives away 16, SIXTEEN, luxury 4 wheel drive, armored vehicles to make sure that Evo Morales is not going to get mugged in La Paz streets?

There is only one explanation to make sense of all of this: Chavez plays deliberately at the destruction of the state, an encumbrance that blocks him from enjoying his loot.

-The end-

Of the uselesness of recall elections: Venezuela 2004, Bolivia 2008

[Updated]
Today Bolivia wasted precious time and resources in an electoral campaign that has solved nothing. All those that mattered won, no one punched down the other side and the country is in fact more divided than ever. Just as in Venezuela the Recall Election of 2004 solved nothing, allowing Chavez to retain office and unleash on the country the most corrupt and inefficient government of our democratic history. That is, assuming that Chavez is a democratic government which is something that has been questionable for quite a while. In both cases I squarely put the blame on the system of recall elections which after the example of Bolivia today is proven a useless system for our Latin cultural approach to politics. But first each result.

Bolivia 2008

The results are pretty much as expected. Evo Morales and his vice retain power with an increased percentage from 2005. But with a country more divided than ever. Indigenous people of the Altiplano voted massively for their man, no matter what, but the mixed races low land, at the heart of Bolivia economy voted against Morales. In fact, tensions were so bad that Morales at the end could not campaign there (not that the low-lands governor could campaign in the Altiplano for that matter...). So Morales seems to have gained over 60% of the votes but today he cannot travel in half of the country.

But even his own victory in the Altiplano has already the seeds of his future problems: the Oruro Prefect (kind of governor) also on the ballot apparently lost. And yet he was a man of Morales, who carried Oruro without problems. Thus we can already see the same pattern than in Venezuela, the pro-Morales vote is an emotional one whose coattails do not seem to work very well. In fact, interestingly, all could be happy as even those who lost got MORE votes than in 2005.

Even his own improvement in the Altiplano, revoking the Prefect of La Paz, is not necessarily a good long term prospect. To begin with Paredes was elected with a minority vote, and became an accidental opponent. Clearly, as soon as the Recall Election was called for he knew he was doomed, that his chances were null. Yet he did get close to 40% of the votes and now, freed of governing duties, and a victim in public opinion, he could soon become a much more dangerous opponent to Morales than what he would be had he retained his seat.

The regional opposition also can claim victory, though in all fairness the 60%+ of Morales, coattails or not, clouds prospects some. But the "media luna" Prefects all seem to have won with more than 50% of the vote, in particular the more radical one of the biggest province of Santa Cruz who got more than 70%. So now, considering that the loss of La Paz is meaningless since there was little Paredes could do against Morales in the capital, we have 4 ratified prefects, 1 for the opposition that was not required to stand the recall election as freshly elected (Chuquisaca), 3 for Morales and one, Cochabamba where the losing prefect announced long ago that he did not recognize the election (and who did not lose by that much anyway). If we consider that the loss of La Paz was pre-compensated by the election of an indigenous woman opposing Morales in Chuquisaca, the opposition is actually better off as geographically they all now hold together territorially, with the second capital, Sucre, in their hands, sort of anyway.

What next for Bolivia?

Think the US circa 1859-60. That is your reference point. And if you think that Morales with 60% of the vote will be able to force the army to retake Santa Cruz, you will be seriously disappointed. If the "media luna" were to break away, the Bolivian army would break apart, just as Robert E. Lee left the US army to lead the Southern one, after Virginia decided to bolt. Morales is the winner of a country more divided than ever, with the discomforting thought that many of those who voted for him ALSO did vote for an opposition Prefect and thus he cannot rely on his 60%+ to force acceptation the fraudulent constitution he has not been able to bring up to a vote. Nor can he rely on the La Paz inhabitants who voted for him to also get guns and go down to submit Santa Cruz. Bolivia simply squandered yet another opportunity where the only one who can claim to have gained a very little, and I am being generous, is Morales who at least has been able to maintain indigenous unity.

Now, they all have only one option, to climb down from their mutual arrogant positions, no matter how valid those ones are, and renegotiate the constitution project to send it to referendum. If this does not happen then the most probable outcome will be the break up of Bolivia. Venezuela will not be able to help as I am 99% sure that public opinion here will not accept it and that would be the end of Chavez (nor will Colombia, Peru or Brazil accept more involvement of Venezuela than what they are seeing today).

Venezuela 2004

The Recall Election process of Venezuela in 2004 did not solve any of the problems of Venezuela, just as today´s vote solved nothing in Bolivia as it did not address the underlying problems of the country: it was just an act to see who is the "Cacique". In fact we can today say that it aggravated the political problem even if the first result was for Chavez to win 22 out 24 states three months later.

First, the country became irremediably divided in tow irreconcilable camps with a "do not care" floating group who showed little spine as long as government benefits reached them. The 3 million+ of the Tascon list will never forgive becoming second class citizens. But what was worse than that, the Chavez victory and the Tascon list allowed him to transform progressively his followers into his subjects. They are starting to resent that. If to this we add that since then Chavez has felt free to violate the constitution and to apply at will unacceptable pressures to improve his electoral chances, and to buy any person he needed to buy, you can see that the neglect in their duties of the Carter Center and the OAS in 2004 only served to postpone the denouement of the crisis toward a new outcome that will be in all likelihood violent.

All proportions and local considerations observed, today Boliva started its transit towards a more violent outcome than what it could have achieved if it did not waste its time in an useless Recall Election.

The intellectual fraud behind Recall Election systems

After the result in Bolivia and Venezuela I am ready to toss out this system once and for all, at least for all of Latin America. Its first two applications did not work in that they only they exacerbated the crisis. True, the local good results of the opposition in Bolivia make this conclusion perhaps premature, but I am afraid that I will be proven right.

Why can't a Recall Election work in our countries? Because it personalizes the vote, it makes it an emotional demand on the voters. They are asked to punish one guy without the convenient excuse to be able to say "Oh, but the other one promised me something that interested me more. Next time I will vote again for you, worry not!". Such a vote forces the voter to make a definite choice and thus radicalizes the political process, driving away the normal give an take that politics in a democracy should be about. Not to mention that if the elector voted in the past for the politician to be revoked, you are forcing him or her to admit that they were wrong then, something that few people enjoy.

Reelections are less taxing. To begin with you can say "well, s/he has these flaws but overall I prefer him/her to the other guy". Or you can say "Well, he screwed up on this. To teach him I will vote for her, and is she does not work out, well, I will vote again for him". Think about the psychological underlining of these statements about your own responsibility in voting and you will understand better. A Recall Election does not offer you that moral ambiguity.

If to this you add a culture of love for the strong man, with racial undertones, you can quickly see that Recall Elections can only work in reasonably homogeneous cultures such as in Japan. And I doubt that.

No, for our Latin countries what we need is shorter terms, until people over time learn that they must vote responsibly (yet Western Democracies history seem to indicate that they are still quite far from voter responsibility!). People must learn that when they vote for a jerk, they have to put up with that jerk for the full term. If the jerk is simply unbearable there are other ways to remove him or her, and in Venezuela we have shown that we could remove presidents without Recall Elections or coup d'etat. Or has the world forgotten that Carlos Andres Perez was legally removed from office one year before he completed his second term? And for an offense that was a child's game compared to Chavez offenses today. In Venezuela the next constitutional reform we should consider is to shorten the presidential term, and, as far as I am concerned, remove reelection, ever. In fact I am becoming almost an Athenian as all ex rulers should receive the Ostraka, with a very nice pension for sure.

Update

Last night it was late enough that I forgot to include links to my Bolivian web sources. You can read more in the MAB blog and in the Blog from Bolivia, which shows what good PSF are able to do. If we were so lucky here in Venezuela....

This morning MAB carries graphs from La Razon which confirm what I was writing last night: there was a lot of crossover voters which do tarnish the victory of Morales some (I am not so sure it does tarnish the wins from opposition Prefects in the same way since all of them got MORE, way more votes some time than what they got three years ago).

The recall of Evo is confirmed in Chuquisaca. Thus his win in Cochabamba will not help him that much. And now the media luna is a more solid territorial crescent.

Rural and city vote is very split everywhere, the same phenomenon we observe in Venezuela with Chavez, as education and business drive away like garlic the vampirism of state control. this is dramatic in Potosi, the province that gave Evo its largest victory with 80.8%. The rural vote there was 94.1% FOR Evo but a much lower 68.5% in urban areas.

Crossover voting is more prevalent and important than what I thought at first. For example in La Paz the NO to Evo is 22.9% but the YES to Paredes was twice that amount, at 42.3%.

The division of the country is made clearer if we look at the average Evo Victory. In the 5 provinces he won, the average percentile SI is 70.8%. But in the four he lost the percentile average SI is 44.3%!!!! A difference of 25%!!!! It hardly gets more divided than that.

- -- --- ---- ----- ------

A funny note. The coverage of the ABN, the Chavez news agency, focused on the Santa Cruz media not focusing on the Morales victory. Example here. It is amusing because it really shows not only the embarrassing partiality of the ABN, but also its ignorance of how other countries operate when not all is fixated in their capital city, like it happens in Venezuela with Caracas (y lo demas es monte y culebra). Probably the ABN never caught on that in Santa Cruz everybody knew Morales would win and they were just much more interested into what score would their man do at home. Poor ABN, they probaly think that the life of Bolivan media revolves around Morales just like the life of Venezuelan media revolves aound Chavez.

-The end-

Alek Boyd visits Venezuela: the interview

Today I am interviewing Alek Boyd again. Readers might remember that he followed up and close the Rosales campaign in September-December 2006, the first time, as far as one can tell, that a blogger was allowed up close in a Venezuelan presidential campaign. I interviewed him then on his experience on the campaign trail. As it turns out Alek was back for the first time in Venezuela since he left in January 2007. I thought it would be interesting for some readers to learn what he has been up to these last few month (remember, he put his blog into "sleep" mode then) and what image he has of Venezuela.

Alek, so what brought you to Venezuela last week?

Thanks so much for the interest Daniel, and the opportunity to explain my views and current activities. Work reasons bring me here. Since early this year I have been doing research for the Human Rights Foundation.

Does that mean you have been traveling around Latin America? Could you tell us some about that?

Indeed, I have been traveling quite a lot lately. We were invited, as international observers, to the autonomy referendum in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. This was an incredible experience, having been in Venezuela's presidential campaign in 06 and knowing, as we do, the sort of 'elections' that we have here, where our president feels he can consider whether or not to accept results, I could only feel envy at Bolivia's utterly transparent electoral system. I had the opportunity, as anybody interested in doing so, of witnessing vote counting at all levels. Democracy is a remarkable thing, when it works as it should. Our report should be published soon.

From there I went to Ecuador, for I wanted to visit Guadalupe Llori, Prefect of Orellana, who was thrown in prison last December, merely for criticizing President Rafael Correa. Fortunately, our advocacy work to raise awareness about Guadalupe, by any measure a prisoner of conscience, has been echoed by Amnesty International and the International Society for Human Rights, alas the silence of feminists and gender movements is deafening. While there I also met with Guayaquil's Mayor Jaime Nebot and other figures to coordinate future projects. President Correa decided recently to attack the Human Rights Foundation's legitimate mission of defending civil and political rights, but sadly he did not address issues raised about trumped charges, illegal detention and violations perpetrated against Guadalupe.

Then I had the chance to go to Cuba. Words fail me to describe the situation in that place, for abject poverty, the regime's repressive security apparatus, lack of information, brutal prosecution, the embargo, etc., are not what make Cuba's reality so asphyxiating. Rather it is the ever present knowledge that one does not even control one's own destiny. Poverty I have seen in lots of places, even in London or New York. However the poor in such places are free to do what they please. In Cuba, only a couple of people get to do that. It is a soul piercing experience, aggravated by the hypocrisy of most nations, and thousands of tourists that flock the island to have the sex and the life, albeit brief, they can't afford in their own countries owing to personal and financial shortcomings. But then, one meets people like Yoani Sanchez, who against all odds are doing extraordinary things to voice their discontent. Her's is but one example of many others, which, need be stressed, are doing even more remarkable things that are unknown outside Cuba. Then one concludes that freedom, and the struggle to live free, is not an advanced society's thing but intrinsic to human nature. I guess that's why no matter how long such experiments last, at the end, invariably, freedom comes.

Any parallelism with Venezuela? What do the folks you met think about Venezuela in these countries?

Parallelisms? Yes and no. Chavez is, of course, trying to copy some of Castro's formulas. However, given Venezuelan's anarchical nature, product of decades of doing pretty much what they want at all levels of society, Chavez's intended project is, evidently, a failure. As a matter of fact, I'd counter the argument "Venezuela se esta cubanizando" with "Cuba se esta venezolanizando". The thousands that have arrived in these shores are, without a doubt, the best advocates for freedom there are in Cuba these days: they come, they get paid a fortune (compared to Cuba's 12 CUC/month national salary), they read, talk, eat meat, drink, travel, interact, buy and do pretty much what they please. They feel free, in most cases for the first time in their lives. Then, they go back, and tell big tales, which every new listener sexes up, as in Chinese Whispers game. It's like a virus, corroding uncontrollably, eating away communism 'values.' Chavez is not only his biggest enemy here, our money, contrary to what he intends, is liberating souls and provides the best taste of freedom there is.

Presidents Morales and Correa are in turn trying to replicate Chavez's formulas. If the first pupil, with all its money, is having such trouble imposing the Cuban script here, you can imagine how the other two are faring. An argument I like to use is "Castro wrote the 100-pages script: Chavez has taken Venezuela to page 47, Morales is lagging behind in page 20 and Correa is not even in page 10." In all three cases instead of going forward the contrary is taking place, revolutions in involution. Modeling our countries' democracies into Castroite systems just won't happen. In this front, Latin American democrats should take pause and learn from Bolivia's experience. What the prefects of the "Media Luna" and Tuto Quiroga's PODEMOS party have done is to show precisely that it can be done. That these attempts to impose authoritarianism, regardless of how well financed, how military powerful, how popular, can't take root and succeed if people unite and defend their freedoms and democracy.

A lot of people are watching what's happening here. Tuto Quiroga, for instance, told me that we had the second most powerful politician in Latin America. When I asked who that was in awe, he replied "General Raul Baduel." People in Cuba know the names of our student leaders and opposition politicians. President Correa will have a terribly difficult time to get his constitution approved, no matter how many TV and radio networks he expropriates or how many indigenous leaders he jails. Where intrinsic features don't work their magic, inflation, corruption and mismanagement of incumbents do the trick. It's just not going to happen. We are a basket case, an experiment that will never succeed.

What do you think about Venezuela today?

I remember well the outrage that one of my last posts from Venezuela in 06 caused. This is odious but time has proved me right. The crisis that Venezuela experiences is of a sort that does not bother the majority of Venezuelans. It is a crisis of the moral type that evidently goes unnoticed in a largely amoral society. Values and priorities are upside down in my opinion, and things have turned for the worse. Venezuelans seem to have grown accustomed to all manner of abuses from the State and its officials. To me, having an independent judiciary, where I can go get redress when somebody violates my rights and those of my family is infinitely more important than buying a new car, or having my wife enlarge her boobs. To me, being in an environment where my kids can: be safe, think independently, criticize, voice their opinions and reject safely cult-type behavior is more important than seeing them grow up in a place devoid of intellectual challenges, where fatuousness is the norm. To me, living without fear is invaluable. To me, a society that prices viveza rather than effort, intelligence and hard work is not worth living in. To me, listening to married men, purportedly committed and compromised with high moral values, relating with pride their latest extramarital sexual fling is just disgusting. But then again, I am certainly not a representative of the majority.

So the majority sees no crisis here. But then one meets with folks such as the second most important politician in Latin America, according to Quiroga. A man who has known and been with Chavez for more than twenty years and brought him back when we were still in shock for what had happened in April 02; and one listens to his outraged account about the perils that allowing Chavez in power represents; and one learns that his grief with Chavez, allegedly owing to discrepancies of preferred timing to attempt a coup d'etat, dates back to December 1991, and marvels at inside stories about how multi million dollar commissions for weapons deals are made and known about, or how Chavez decides which lackey will replace which in which ministry; and then one concludes that this country has the government, and the opposition, it deserves. Our lack of engagement and dysfunctional moral compass have brought us to where we're at.

Which is your latest project?

TellChavez, whereby we want to raise awareness about Venezuela's political prisoners and the atrocious conditions in which they're kept. President Hugo Chavez has had the nerve to say that there are no political prisoners in Venezuela but politicians in jail. What we are aiming at is to expose his hypocrisy in this respect, with specific cases. This will be followed with a joint project with Observatorio Venezolano de Prisiones.

Thank you for this on-line interview. We must congratulate you for having been able to reinvent yourself and gone on to bigger things than Chavez.


-The end-

Where is the outrage?

Today we got evidence that Chavez is just your average imperialist.

A Venezuelan helicopter falls in Bolivia and 4 Venezuelan military died

OK, so shit happens.

It can be a bomb in Iraq or a soldier passing with a heat induced heart attack at a military parade anywhere in the world, including Venezuela. But what happened in Bolivia Monday cannot be justified. A Venezuelan helicopter crashed killing its 5 occupants, 4 of them military personnel from Venezuela. Apparently that helicopter was on permanent service to Evo Morales, to jump all around the country for his political activities.

There is so much wrong with all of that.....

How come a Venezuelan helicopter is at the permanent disposal of Evo Morales? How come there was only one Bolivian in it? Who allowed for that? What was the justification? Could we not have made a "loan" for Morales to buy his own flying machine with his own people? Is Morales so short of personnel he can trust? How many more questions like that do I have to ask before a PSF finally mutters something?

Does the Venezuelan military realize how poor an image they have already with all the graft and corruption they allow, to add now that 4 of our boys died for a cause we do not know, do not share, do not relate with? Truly, when we get out of this nightmare we will have to consider the future role of the Venezuelan army and think about a Costa Rican solution. Personally my militant anti militarism has long made me dislike deeply the Venezuelan army but now I hope that this feeling is going to percolate more in the population as they are dragged into the reality of what the Venezuelan Army has become.

Because let's face it: the Venezuelan army is allowing the president to use its material, its boys, to help a political campaign in a foreign country. These boys were killed NOT on a humanitarian mission, NOT defending the country, NOT rescuing people from a natural disaster, they were killed to satisfy Chavez international megalomania.

The Venezuelan army is accountable for that, NOT really Chavez. He is just using the pusillanimity of military officers that are getting rich and fat. The real murderers are at the defense ministry, not at Miraflores. I beg to disagree with a retired generals that today tried to put the blame only on Chavez. NO, the blame is on the current army chiefs of staff, they are the one allowing their boys being manipulated. They could have said NO to Chavez, asked him to send the helicopter after a fake sale if necessary. But no, they wanted to be seen in the glory of political activism, with excuses for junket trips to drink and whore around in Bolivia, when they cannot even carry troops to the Colombian border.

140 cars for the Venezuelan embassy in La Paz

To add insult to injury we also got another piece of news. The Venezuelan government received an authorization by the Bolivian government to import duty free 140 cars for the use of the Venezuelan embassy in La Paz. 140 f*****g cars!

How can the Bolivian government deprive itself from the revenue of this imported cars? Is Bolivia that rich suddenly? And what the f***k the Venezuelan embassy needs 140 cars for? Does ANY embassy in Caracas has 140 cars at its disposition? Even in Washington DC? And guess what? After a while Venezuela will give these cars to Bolivians NGO!!!!!! What criteria will be chosen to select the benefited NGO? And will Venezuelan petty tyrants in La Paz get new cars every year?

But you know what? Last time a country did such type of things it was the US in Latin America, although they did it with more tact and discretion than the loud Venezuelans who we are told are increasingly hated for their arrogance in Bolivia. The US did learn its lesson eventually, Chavez never will.

At least there was a good piece of news today: justice eventually comes. War criminal Radovan Karadzic has finally been arrested.

-The end-