A guest post from Alek Boyd.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
The New York Times Venezuela correspondent, Simon Romero, ought to be commended for shedding light upon the world’s favorite revolutionary chic destination. Hordes of foreigners, infatuated with Che Guevara, or Pendejos Sin Fronteras as they’re locally known, are commonplace nowadays in the country, eager to witness Chavez’s XXI century socialism at work. As Romero stresses, the fact is compounded by an unprecedented oil bonanza that has allowed its sole administrator, Chavez that is, to spare nothing on the goal of constructing reality. “A revolution that doesn’t invent his own writing has failed,” expressed once Severo Sarduy, and Chavez’s is desperately trying not to be an exception. Problem with this proposition is that almost the entire collectivity of Venezuelan intellectuals, if there is such a thing, are in complete opposition to Chavez. Moreover, in the breeding ground of intellectuality, universities, Chavez’s candidates have not won one single election, for voting is carried out in traditional ways and not by the ministry of elections.
Bolivarian cultural Akelarres seek to promote a revisionist version of our reality, invented much before the failed putschist reached power via democratic elections in 1998. The guests invariably share a characteristic: that of projecting its own failed utopias on the gentle savages of a country, which is leading an experiment of Marxist and Gramscian doctrines in the XXI century. Sporting “Birkenstocks and guayaberas,” the lot of leftists glosses over Chavez’s militarism, and aren’t bothered in the slightest by the source of funds that allow them to live, albeit briefly, Chavez’s fascist revolution: i.e. the de facto free trade agreement between the evil Empire and Venezuela. Instead, they happily wonder out of the hotel-conference center to spend per diems on revolutionary paraphernalia, such as T-Shirts of terrorist Carlos the Jackal, admittedly a highly esteemed compatriot of the president.
Chavez, however, can’t be faulted for hiding his intentions. For if there’s one leader that has abused its powers to commandeer all media to advance his ideals and announce with surgical precision what he would do, how and why, that is Chavez. His revolution is on radio, on TV, online 24/7. Therefore, as irony would have it, gatherings serve to witness the shrinking number of ‘thinkers’ that think that allowing the existence of only one, official, version of reality is morally justified, freedom of opinion and expression be damned. Fellow travelers accepting Chavez’s hospitality expose a breed of ‘intellectuals’ at the service of the revolution, a concept popping straight out of Havana’s ‘cultural congress.’ More tellingly, Chavez’s Gramscian construct, despite the enormous amount of resources lavished to achieve it, is an absolute failure. Hundreds of community and national TV and radio stations, Chinese satellite and continental TV networks notwithstanding, it has failed to produce or inspire a literary/artistic movement of the sort seen during the boom years of the 60ies and 70ies. On the contrary, if there are notorious elements that have characterized Chavez’s pet project these are its mediocrity, mendacity, lack of creativity and originality, owing to the very Dadaist nature of it. For it is unthinkable that stuff produced by members of the Miranda Centre, such as Eva Golinger, would become subject of respected academic study in years to come.
Although one must never underestimate the militancy of the radical Left, Chavez’s “Salon of the Left” success is rooted on his ability to pay for the services rendered by useful idiots. A cultural revolution it is not.
Alek Boyd
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Notes from the editor:
'pendejos sin fronteras' coined by Teodoro Petkoff on doctors without borders where the word doctro is replaced by 'pendejo' which is a concept word meaning useful idiot to pubic hair. Context is all.
Akelarre, word of Basque origin that can be translated as "witches sabbat".
-The end-
Showing posts with label pro chavez conferences. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pro chavez conferences. Show all posts
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
Friday's comic relief: El Troudi on Venezuela's magical finances
[Updated] Haiman El Troudi, our director of national economy, affectionately known in this blog as Haiman 
el Trou-du-cul ('true duh kuh') for his naiveté and for ideologically simplistic mental make up had provided us yesterday with one of those rare but precious comic reliefs from the government. Well, let's say that I decided to laugh at his antics because in reality we should cry over such people directing the future of our wallets....
The guy yesterday was at some sort of event where he declared some of the following:
The IMF is the cause of everything and if it were not for Venezuela getting out of the IMF on time we would be in trouble. Well, the first part might be partially true although I fail to see what the IMF has to do with the fall of Lehman Brothers and the Fanie/Fredie combo. However the second part is just ridiculous. Countries with a steady income without the need to do much work about it have no need of the IMF to begin with. The last time Venezuela had dealings of any magnitude with the IMF was during the Caldera years when oil price went for a while below the 10 USD per barrel. In fact Chavez carried for a long time a very small debt with the IMF that he could have paid long ago but that he paid when it was politically convenient for him. Since at least 2003 Venezuela has had absolutely no need whatsoever of the IMF financial assistance though its budgetary advice should have been sought as we will learn soon at our expense.
So what is the goal of El Trou-du-cul with such blatant misinformation? Endear himself to the great leader before this one uses him as a scape goat when the going gets rough. After all El Trou-du-cul has been in office long enough to have figured out what was coming our way and taken some preliminary measures. But ideology has a way to put blinders on people that should know much better.
He stated that Venezuela today is safe from the crisis because of its financial policies, including currency exchange control, and that we refused FTA like treaties, we are in better shape and we can weather the crisis. Strictly on a numerological approach some might agree with El Trou-du cul. Except that dear Haiman has no concept that the only reason that a country has to get into some FTA arrangement is that it has manufactured goods and agricultural surpluses that it needs to place in the US or European markets. Venezuela only produces oil, a fungible by excellence that will always find a client, trade barrier or not. Venezuela has nothing to sell otherwise, not even tourism. In fact, Venezuela could have allowed itself the luxury to have a protectionist economy and today instead of the 40 billion USD in reserves that Trou-du-cul claims we have, we could easily have two or three times that amount and be called by Washington with their hat in hand to help them solve the crisis. Imagine Chavez buying a US bank "in solidarity with the financial world crisis"!!!
He added, for good measure, that the third world countries demanded that the IMF be dissolved and that tall debt should erased. Just like that, as if you had a bad mortgage, because people obliged these countries to go into debt and to join the IMF once they were not able to pay them. Ah! You gotta love that! Socialist irresponsibility! Capitalists forced me to go into debt, in the US or in Venezuela, same difference, and thus it is not my fault that my credit cards are maxed!
To be of such bad faith reflects either ignorance or ideological "gringolas" or both. Astounding! The only charitable thing to say about it is that Haiman knows the Supremo is going to get after his ass when he realizes the coffers are emptying fast.
He told Venezuelans who have USD accounts in the US to repatriate their funds to Venezuela because here their money will be safe. I mean, this is so unbelievably ridiculous that one must wonder if Trou-du-cul was high on something. Then again he was attending some international "socialist" bash and maybe the hot air generated by these international nincompoops leeching on Venezuelan funds got to him. How should we start with this one? That people specialized in fraud, extortion, kidnapping and the like in Venezuela will have better knowledge of your worth? Or by a dry calculation of how much you will be worth once you bring your money back?
Yours truly from his years as a student in the US kept a little saving account where today he has 10,000 USD. Just in case he wants to get a nice vacation or something; it is far from being a nest egg of any value. Well, let's see what would happen in one year were I to leave my money there or bring it back to Venezuela.
In the US. I somewhat manage to place it at 5%. I get at the end 10,500. Inflation is 6%. In reality at constant dollars I get 9870 at the end. I lost in fact 130 USD. Normal for a time of crisis.
In Venezuela. I bring the money back and I have now 21,500 VB. I place them at 17%. I get 25,155 at the end of the year. But inflation has been at least 25% so in real purchasing power I have now 18,866. At current exchange rate that means 8,775 USD. My net loss is 1,225 USD when in fact it would have been only 130 USD had I left my money in a secured FDIC. And if in the mean time there has been a devaluation, say a modest 2.15 to 2.5, my real USD value is now 7,546 for a net loss of 2,454 USD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And this guy is the one that controls the nation's balance sheets? Who is he kidding?
Oh dear! I am afraid that with such Mickey Mouse characters at the helm our economic crisis will end up being much worse than what we anticipated at first!!!! If you ever needed a reason to send your savings away at any cost out, Haiman gave it to you yesterday!
Update: I have to add the words of another of those luminaries that preside over the Venezuelan mess. The name is Victor Alvarez and he used to be one of the many ministers that went through the musical chairs that are Chavez ministerial cabinet. Well, yesterday at that same silly socialist event he said without any shame that the nationalization of CANTV and EDC/EAS were ways into which Venezuela had protected itself against the crisis. That if it were not for the nationalization of these companies (along SIDOR and CEMEX) their stock values would have plummeted.
Where to start, dear, oh dear? That the poor deluded man confuses finances and production? That he might not be aware that viable production concerns are significantly less affected than the financial sector? That even if nationalized these companies lost value anyway, in case Venezuela decide to sell them tomorrow?
Or should we just point out to him that the noticeable decrease in service quality by CANTV (the telecom) in one year has been noteworthy and that since EDC/EAS (Caracas electric utility) has been taken over by the government the power outages have become more frequent, and last longer? Should we let him know that the nationalization and pillaging of these companies for political purposes cost them a much greater loss of value than any Wall Street Crash?
No. Let's not waste time enlightening such individual as Victor Alvarez, because what he said, he said it in the hope that his words will reach Chavez ears like a balm and thus effect his return to the ministry.
-The end-
el Trou-du-cul ('true duh kuh') for his naiveté and for ideologically simplistic mental make up had provided us yesterday with one of those rare but precious comic reliefs from the government. Well, let's say that I decided to laugh at his antics because in reality we should cry over such people directing the future of our wallets....The guy yesterday was at some sort of event where he declared some of the following:
The IMF is the cause of everything and if it were not for Venezuela getting out of the IMF on time we would be in trouble. Well, the first part might be partially true although I fail to see what the IMF has to do with the fall of Lehman Brothers and the Fanie/Fredie combo. However the second part is just ridiculous. Countries with a steady income without the need to do much work about it have no need of the IMF to begin with. The last time Venezuela had dealings of any magnitude with the IMF was during the Caldera years when oil price went for a while below the 10 USD per barrel. In fact Chavez carried for a long time a very small debt with the IMF that he could have paid long ago but that he paid when it was politically convenient for him. Since at least 2003 Venezuela has had absolutely no need whatsoever of the IMF financial assistance though its budgetary advice should have been sought as we will learn soon at our expense.
So what is the goal of El Trou-du-cul with such blatant misinformation? Endear himself to the great leader before this one uses him as a scape goat when the going gets rough. After all El Trou-du-cul has been in office long enough to have figured out what was coming our way and taken some preliminary measures. But ideology has a way to put blinders on people that should know much better.
He stated that Venezuela today is safe from the crisis because of its financial policies, including currency exchange control, and that we refused FTA like treaties, we are in better shape and we can weather the crisis. Strictly on a numerological approach some might agree with El Trou-du cul. Except that dear Haiman has no concept that the only reason that a country has to get into some FTA arrangement is that it has manufactured goods and agricultural surpluses that it needs to place in the US or European markets. Venezuela only produces oil, a fungible by excellence that will always find a client, trade barrier or not. Venezuela has nothing to sell otherwise, not even tourism. In fact, Venezuela could have allowed itself the luxury to have a protectionist economy and today instead of the 40 billion USD in reserves that Trou-du-cul claims we have, we could easily have two or three times that amount and be called by Washington with their hat in hand to help them solve the crisis. Imagine Chavez buying a US bank "in solidarity with the financial world crisis"!!!
He added, for good measure, that the third world countries demanded that the IMF be dissolved and that tall debt should erased. Just like that, as if you had a bad mortgage, because people obliged these countries to go into debt and to join the IMF once they were not able to pay them. Ah! You gotta love that! Socialist irresponsibility! Capitalists forced me to go into debt, in the US or in Venezuela, same difference, and thus it is not my fault that my credit cards are maxed!
To be of such bad faith reflects either ignorance or ideological "gringolas" or both. Astounding! The only charitable thing to say about it is that Haiman knows the Supremo is going to get after his ass when he realizes the coffers are emptying fast.
He told Venezuelans who have USD accounts in the US to repatriate their funds to Venezuela because here their money will be safe. I mean, this is so unbelievably ridiculous that one must wonder if Trou-du-cul was high on something. Then again he was attending some international "socialist" bash and maybe the hot air generated by these international nincompoops leeching on Venezuelan funds got to him. How should we start with this one? That people specialized in fraud, extortion, kidnapping and the like in Venezuela will have better knowledge of your worth? Or by a dry calculation of how much you will be worth once you bring your money back?
Yours truly from his years as a student in the US kept a little saving account where today he has 10,000 USD. Just in case he wants to get a nice vacation or something; it is far from being a nest egg of any value. Well, let's see what would happen in one year were I to leave my money there or bring it back to Venezuela.
In the US. I somewhat manage to place it at 5%. I get at the end 10,500. Inflation is 6%. In reality at constant dollars I get 9870 at the end. I lost in fact 130 USD. Normal for a time of crisis.
In Venezuela. I bring the money back and I have now 21,500 VB. I place them at 17%. I get 25,155 at the end of the year. But inflation has been at least 25% so in real purchasing power I have now 18,866. At current exchange rate that means 8,775 USD. My net loss is 1,225 USD when in fact it would have been only 130 USD had I left my money in a secured FDIC. And if in the mean time there has been a devaluation, say a modest 2.15 to 2.5, my real USD value is now 7,546 for a net loss of 2,454 USD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And this guy is the one that controls the nation's balance sheets? Who is he kidding?
Oh dear! I am afraid that with such Mickey Mouse characters at the helm our economic crisis will end up being much worse than what we anticipated at first!!!! If you ever needed a reason to send your savings away at any cost out, Haiman gave it to you yesterday!
Update: I have to add the words of another of those luminaries that preside over the Venezuelan mess. The name is Victor Alvarez and he used to be one of the many ministers that went through the musical chairs that are Chavez ministerial cabinet. Well, yesterday at that same silly socialist event he said without any shame that the nationalization of CANTV and EDC/EAS were ways into which Venezuela had protected itself against the crisis. That if it were not for the nationalization of these companies (along SIDOR and CEMEX) their stock values would have plummeted.
Where to start, dear, oh dear? That the poor deluded man confuses finances and production? That he might not be aware that viable production concerns are significantly less affected than the financial sector? That even if nationalized these companies lost value anyway, in case Venezuela decide to sell them tomorrow?
Or should we just point out to him that the noticeable decrease in service quality by CANTV (the telecom) in one year has been noteworthy and that since EDC/EAS (Caracas electric utility) has been taken over by the government the power outages have become more frequent, and last longer? Should we let him know that the nationalization and pillaging of these companies for political purposes cost them a much greater loss of value than any Wall Street Crash?
No. Let's not waste time enlightening such individual as Victor Alvarez, because what he said, he said it in the hope that his words will reach Chavez ears like a balm and thus effect his return to the ministry.
-The end-
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Alek Boyd writes to this blog
Alek Boyd, from Vcrisis, did write me a letter somewhat related to the preceding post, as to how these conferences on Venezuela are often planned. I thought that it would be interesting to publish it as a Sunday free thread of sorts.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Dear Daniel, following up on your recent story I would like to share with you (and your readers?) this bit:
The thing about these events, IMHO, is that in the current format they are utterly useless. Good to spread propaganda at campuses worldwide though. In these events one would find the typical lefty crowd pretending, without the slightest remorse, that they know better than Venezuelans what's in their best interest. It’s racism at its crudest.
Having said that I find heartening that Duke did find the time to invite Lander to cheer for Chavez, at least he is Venezuelan, but failed to do as much to find a voice representative of the opposition, for McCoy is certainly no expert in Venezuelan matters nor will she provide a balance to Lander's views.
Some UK universities have tried to organize similar events, although they have miserably failed at finding speakers who can present chavismo coherently. While I was in Venezuela, John Greenwood from Sheffield University sent the following message:
I was directed to your site by David Munk, Deputy Foreign Editor of The Guardian, and am attempting to contact Aleksander Boyd. I am a member of the University of Sheffield Debating Society committee and we are organising a debate on the re-election of Hugo Chavez. We will have a speaker from Venezuela Information Centre to argue for the proposition \"This house would re-elect Hugo Chavez\" and would like to secure a person with similar levels of knowledge to put the opposing case.
The debate is likely to be on Monday the 27th of November (so that it is close to the elections) here at the University of Sheffield and we will be able to cover travel expenses if necessary.
The debate itself will consist of a main speech by the proposition and opposition (roughly 12 minutes each), comments and questions from the floor (lasting approximately half an hour), and a closing summary speech by each side (around 3 minutes in length).
If you can think of anyone that would be willing to speak at such an event please do contact me either by email or telephone…
Naturally I was taken aback by Greenwood’s attempt at securing a person with “similar levels of knowledge to put the opposing case” as if any of the propagandist of the Venezuela Information Centre had any knowledge beyond spitting pure and unadulterated propaganda. Therefore I reply, as politely as I could, with the following message:
Many thanks for your message and invitation, which I will have to decline given that I am in Venezuela shadowing presidential candidate Manuel Rosales and won't be returning to the UK till year end. It would have been a good opportunity to debate issues pertaining to my country and I'm afraid I can not recommend any other person since I do not know anyone in the UK -safe Venezuelan Ambassador Toro Hardy- as knowledgeable of Venezuelan contemporary politics as myself.
Having said that I find odd your choice of speaker to argue in favour of Chavez for the Venezuela Information Centre is nothing but a propaganda outlet composed by English radical leftists who have never lived in Venezuela and whose knowledge of Venezuelan affairs is superficial, to say the least. Fortunately for our country's democracy none of the international apologists of Hugo Chavez vote in our elections, ergo their opinions are entirely irrelevant.
In any case I feel obliged to thank you again for the invitation and should you wish to organize another debate amongst opposing views held by Venezuelans residing in the UK in the future do not hesitate in contacting me.
Latter developments proved some of us right and so Mr. Greenwood reissued the invitation, sending the following message:
Dear Aleksander,
I am contacting you with reference to an email that I sent to you regarding a debate that we were attempting to on the subject of Hugo Chavez back in November. I hope that you had a good trip to Venezuela in the intervening period despite Chavez's re- election. At the time of my last email you replied promptly and helpfully but unfortunately we were unable to find anyone willing to speak against the motion "This house re-elect Hugo Chavez". As such we are now hoping to host a debate on the subject in early March instead (hopefully the week of the 5th) and I am contacting you to establish whether you would be willing to oppose the motion "This house would endorse the Chavez revolution in Venezuela"
I appreciate the comments that you made in your reply to my email regarding our choice of proposition speaker (from the Venezuela Information Centre) and motion (worded in a pro-Chavez manner) and I would like to assure you that Sheffield Debating does not intend to host a partisan, pro-CHavez event. As part of our brief as debaters we are required to put motions that challenge the status quo and in this instance we believe that the general feeling in the UK would be to oppose a radical left-wing leader such as Chavez. In that light we have tabled a motion that appears to support him. Crucially, the motion is only intended to act as a provocative opening sentiment to the debate, which will then continue to allow both sides identical time and privileges in order to put their case.
Obviously, we have approached a group that are strongly in favour of Hugo Chavez to put the case for the proposition and in the interests of neutrality we would like to secure a speaker with equally strong feelings of opposition to argue against the motion. As such I am approaching you again to invite you to speak at our debate in the hope that you are free at the time and willing to do so. On the side of practicalities we would be able to pay for any travel and accommodation expenses that you incur so please do not let those factors prejudice your decision.
I very much hope that you can speak at the debate as we think it is important and worthwhile holding. I look forward to your response.
Please note the quote “in this instance we believe that the general feeling in the UK would be to oppose a radical left-wing leader such as Chavez” (sic). Now that Congress has enabled Chavez to rule by decree and do with Venezuela and its citizens pretty much as he wishes for the next 18 months the tide has finally turned. A quick review of the most important news outlets around the world shows a shared consensus about the damaging effects that such a move has for our country, whose system of governance can no longer be defined as democratic. It is a dictatorship in the literal sense, as officially announced by the all-chavista Assembly in Plaza Bolivar a few days ago. As ever, not one to shy away from meaningful exchanges, I replied Greenwood with the following message:
Dear Joe,
many thanks for your email and invitation. It is quite refreshing to read you arguing that the general feeling in the UK would be to oppose a radical left-wing leader such as Chavez. Indeed this week's new ministerial appointments -whereby more military coup companions were strategically placed- points to a radicalization of the 'process'. However my stance with regards to participating in a debate where Chavez's so called Bolivarian revolution will be defended by English fellows that are not authoritative sources in anything to do with Venezuela, beyond the propaganda they are constantly fed, remains.
Should you be able to find a Venezuelan citizen living in the UK knowledgeable and willing to take on the responsibility of speaking in favour of Chavez please do let me know for it would please me to debate with a fellow countrymen in your university's setting. As commented earlier I do not wish to waste my time, or that of the audience present in your debating event for that matter, with others whose superficial knowledge of this country's politics will undermine what could be an otherwise interesting and enriching experience.
Unfortunately my last message –sent 6 January- went unanswered...
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Dear Daniel, following up on your recent story I would like to share with you (and your readers?) this bit:
The thing about these events, IMHO, is that in the current format they are utterly useless. Good to spread propaganda at campuses worldwide though. In these events one would find the typical lefty crowd pretending, without the slightest remorse, that they know better than Venezuelans what's in their best interest. It’s racism at its crudest.
Having said that I find heartening that Duke did find the time to invite Lander to cheer for Chavez, at least he is Venezuelan, but failed to do as much to find a voice representative of the opposition, for McCoy is certainly no expert in Venezuelan matters nor will she provide a balance to Lander's views.
Some UK universities have tried to organize similar events, although they have miserably failed at finding speakers who can present chavismo coherently. While I was in Venezuela, John Greenwood from Sheffield University sent the following message:
I was directed to your site by David Munk, Deputy Foreign Editor of The Guardian, and am attempting to contact Aleksander Boyd. I am a member of the University of Sheffield Debating Society committee and we are organising a debate on the re-election of Hugo Chavez. We will have a speaker from Venezuela Information Centre to argue for the proposition \"This house would re-elect Hugo Chavez\" and would like to secure a person with similar levels of knowledge to put the opposing case.
The debate is likely to be on Monday the 27th of November (so that it is close to the elections) here at the University of Sheffield and we will be able to cover travel expenses if necessary.
The debate itself will consist of a main speech by the proposition and opposition (roughly 12 minutes each), comments and questions from the floor (lasting approximately half an hour), and a closing summary speech by each side (around 3 minutes in length).
If you can think of anyone that would be willing to speak at such an event please do contact me either by email or telephone…
Naturally I was taken aback by Greenwood’s attempt at securing a person with “similar levels of knowledge to put the opposing case” as if any of the propagandist of the Venezuela Information Centre had any knowledge beyond spitting pure and unadulterated propaganda. Therefore I reply, as politely as I could, with the following message:
Many thanks for your message and invitation, which I will have to decline given that I am in Venezuela shadowing presidential candidate Manuel Rosales and won't be returning to the UK till year end. It would have been a good opportunity to debate issues pertaining to my country and I'm afraid I can not recommend any other person since I do not know anyone in the UK -safe Venezuelan Ambassador Toro Hardy- as knowledgeable of Venezuelan contemporary politics as myself.
Having said that I find odd your choice of speaker to argue in favour of Chavez for the Venezuela Information Centre is nothing but a propaganda outlet composed by English radical leftists who have never lived in Venezuela and whose knowledge of Venezuelan affairs is superficial, to say the least. Fortunately for our country's democracy none of the international apologists of Hugo Chavez vote in our elections, ergo their opinions are entirely irrelevant.
In any case I feel obliged to thank you again for the invitation and should you wish to organize another debate amongst opposing views held by Venezuelans residing in the UK in the future do not hesitate in contacting me.
Latter developments proved some of us right and so Mr. Greenwood reissued the invitation, sending the following message:
Dear Aleksander,
I am contacting you with reference to an email that I sent to you regarding a debate that we were attempting to on the subject of Hugo Chavez back in November. I hope that you had a good trip to Venezuela in the intervening period despite Chavez's re- election. At the time of my last email you replied promptly and helpfully but unfortunately we were unable to find anyone willing to speak against the motion "This house re-elect Hugo Chavez". As such we are now hoping to host a debate on the subject in early March instead (hopefully the week of the 5th) and I am contacting you to establish whether you would be willing to oppose the motion "This house would endorse the Chavez revolution in Venezuela"
I appreciate the comments that you made in your reply to my email regarding our choice of proposition speaker (from the Venezuela Information Centre) and motion (worded in a pro-Chavez manner) and I would like to assure you that Sheffield Debating does not intend to host a partisan, pro-CHavez event. As part of our brief as debaters we are required to put motions that challenge the status quo and in this instance we believe that the general feeling in the UK would be to oppose a radical left-wing leader such as Chavez. In that light we have tabled a motion that appears to support him. Crucially, the motion is only intended to act as a provocative opening sentiment to the debate, which will then continue to allow both sides identical time and privileges in order to put their case.
Obviously, we have approached a group that are strongly in favour of Hugo Chavez to put the case for the proposition and in the interests of neutrality we would like to secure a speaker with equally strong feelings of opposition to argue against the motion. As such I am approaching you again to invite you to speak at our debate in the hope that you are free at the time and willing to do so. On the side of practicalities we would be able to pay for any travel and accommodation expenses that you incur so please do not let those factors prejudice your decision.
I very much hope that you can speak at the debate as we think it is important and worthwhile holding. I look forward to your response.
Please note the quote “in this instance we believe that the general feeling in the UK would be to oppose a radical left-wing leader such as Chavez” (sic). Now that Congress has enabled Chavez to rule by decree and do with Venezuela and its citizens pretty much as he wishes for the next 18 months the tide has finally turned. A quick review of the most important news outlets around the world shows a shared consensus about the damaging effects that such a move has for our country, whose system of governance can no longer be defined as democratic. It is a dictatorship in the literal sense, as officially announced by the all-chavista Assembly in Plaza Bolivar a few days ago. As ever, not one to shy away from meaningful exchanges, I replied Greenwood with the following message:
Dear Joe,
many thanks for your email and invitation. It is quite refreshing to read you arguing that the general feeling in the UK would be to oppose a radical left-wing leader such as Chavez. Indeed this week's new ministerial appointments -whereby more military coup companions were strategically placed- points to a radicalization of the 'process'. However my stance with regards to participating in a debate where Chavez's so called Bolivarian revolution will be defended by English fellows that are not authoritative sources in anything to do with Venezuela, beyond the propaganda they are constantly fed, remains.
Should you be able to find a Venezuelan citizen living in the UK knowledgeable and willing to take on the responsibility of speaking in favour of Chavez please do let me know for it would please me to debate with a fellow countrymen in your university's setting. As commented earlier I do not wish to waste my time, or that of the audience present in your debating event for that matter, with others whose superficial knowledge of this country's politics will undermine what could be an otherwise interesting and enriching experience.
Unfortunately my last message –sent 6 January- went unanswered...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)