The IAEPHC is born. We may finally start understanding something of the twisted mind of Chavez

Hefty, hefty.....

In the "you cannot make up such shit" section, today Maduro signed the decree to open the Instituto de Altos Estudios del Pensamiento de Hugo Chávez, or for you Spanish speaking impaired people, The Institute for Higher Studies of the Thoughts of Hugo Chavez. And no one else but his older brother could be fit enough to direct it.

Let's start by saying that the work is going to be epic. Not because Hugo Chavez left a body of work worth analyzing but because he did not leave anything written except for a few newspaper columns and some letters. What Chavez is leaving are hours and hours and yet more hours of rants. Though "rant" is not a good description of Chavez speeches, the French "déblatérer" would be better, describing abundant and violent speech against something. But I digress.

There are definitely problematic neural connections in the brains of chavistas

These days the mood of chavistas seem to be oscillating dangerously between shit scared and batshit crazy.  If you forgive me the vulgarity.  My S.O. and his co workers of a ministry that shall remain nameless were forced to go to yesterday's April 13 march, which apparently, free subway and all, was not as spectacular as previous editions.  Rain?  Fatigue at the ever repeated rittornello? Public workers diving to escape into the first subway station they could manage to do?  He still managed to send me a few pictures and I chose two that truly represent how out there in space chavismo is navigating.

Supporting Qaddafi

"Murderers of Libya's people, Obama and Clinton"

Paying for a little bit of self promotion

Not me, Eva Golinger. Since the article is in French I will oblige and give you the fun parts below.

Unbelievable!!!! Abject sycophancy at its best!

Three chavista representatives who force voted the University law are now saying that Chavez was right, that he listens to the people in vetoing the University Law!!!  I guess they admit that as representative they never listened to the people that they were supposed to represent....  This one goes for the annals of sycophancy!!!!

De héroes rebajados

Luis Tascon murió. William Lara murió. Guillermo Garcia Ponce murió. ¿Que los une ademas de su lealtad a Chavez?

Of heroes and stuff

Luis Tascon died.  William Lara died.  Guillermo Garcia Ponce died.  What is common among them besides their loyalty to Chavez?

Update on mall closings: when improvisation is a state policy

Today shopping centers and malls were in havoc: the government yesterday gave sign of backtracking from its December decision and nobody knew really what was going on.

Chavez Stone-d in Venice

[Updated] So Chavez took some time off from his visit of the world's tyrants to visit the Venice film festival where his paid accomplice Oliver Stone (1), noted director of movies dedicated to conspiracy theories, was presenting his "South of the Border", an alleged documentary of "progressive" leaders of South America.

Now, I was not planning to write on this silly event. After all, since the in-famous and duly debunked "Revolution shall not be televised", I know that this type of movies is mere propaganda presented in a relatively palatable form. You know, like the movies of Eisenstein, but without the gorgeous scores of Prokofiev or the stunning symbolism of the Odessa staircase.

However watching the news tonight on French TV made me write this note. See, the French are not buying it. They reported of the Venice visit by Chavez in the fluff section at the end of the newscast, right before a report on the world championship of plowing in Slovenia, won this year by a Belgian plower. I am not making this up.

They started by mentioning that "after having visited Ahmadinejad, Qaddafi ... Hugo Chavez stopped in Venice". Clearly, the French viewer is placed in front of the reality, a guy that spends days visiting such creepy leaders cannot be taken seriously. That impression is of course confirmed when we see scenes of Chavez AGAIN taking pictures of the journalists, and the words "il est très fort" which in the context they were say did not mean he is good, but rather he got chutzpah and media manipulation savvy. Then we hear some of the silly words of Stone defending his hero by stating that he was some kind of superhero, you know, comic book like. He said that Chavez was open and tolerant, something I am sure his latest political prisoner would agree with if he is ever shown the movie in his new jail quarters.

The newscast took pain to point out that other progressive presidents of South America were in the show but that the real hero was Chavez (Apparently Bachelet is not glamour enough for Stone to be interviewed as he prefers the colorful kind, like the one looking like the people as he played soccer with his body guards, as seen in the movie).

With some cruelty the newscast mentioned that Stone was there to " redorer le blasondemocratique", refurbish, re-gild, the democratic coat of arms of Chavez. The implication is that if such a coat or arms needs to be refurbished it is because, well, it has been quite tarnished...

At the end the journalist states that opponents of Chavez are not going to pay to watch that movie, which is a delicate way to imply that there is no need to watch it, that it is that bad, a prayer for the believer.

PS: in addition to The Independent review indicated above I suggest the Telegraph one where you will be amused learning that Chavez had 50 body guards for the movie show, and that he did not do the traditional boat arrival at the Lido because he suffers from sea sickness. Some hero....


1) I have of course no way to know for sure whether Oliver Stone gets a direct stipend from Chavez. He probably does not need it anyway however he does need funding for his movies. In addition he has been wined and dined by Chavez for days in a row, notably during the "Emmanuel" episode of FARC hostage release. Considering the qualities of the man offering that money, considering how Oliver Stone is willing to disregard all the abuses of Chavez, even if Oliver Stone does not get direct cash we can consider him to be on Chavez payroll anyway.

By the way, Stone did criticize Obama while praising Chavez. 'nuf said.

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

UPDATE: Petkoff mini editorial on Oliver Stone

Oliver Stone

One might even be sympathetic to people like Noam Chomsky or Oliver Stone. They are part of a left so very, very powerless in their own country, that every time they see a Third World military such as Chávez or a guerrilla, even one of papier-mache as the ineffable Marcos, who sticks his finger in the eye to gringos - verbally, of course - they cling to their epaulets and live, then, vicariously, the "revolution" for which they feel that there's no room in [North] America.

So there we must offer a bit of indulgence with the political idiocy that characterizes them. Only political cretinism, because, on the other hand, these are people whose talent can not be ignored. And this is why their behavior is so damaging.

They are not mercenaries or bought. Unlike rabble like Ignacio Ramonet, for example, who everyone knows is a cynic who charges Chavez for writing in his favor, Stone and Chomsky are honest people who believe in what they say and who are also outstanding in their specific fields of knowledge. Would we not have discovered faster the treachery that was the Soviet Union had it not not been for hundreds and hundreds of some of the brightest intellectuals of the world singing the praises of daddy Stalin and his successors ? Now we have Oliver Stone to sell the world the image of Chacumbele [Chavez], based on lot the tall tales he sold him and that Stone bought without even making an inventory, not even bothering to compare them against some piece of the Venezuelan reality.

You read that immense and river like book that Neruda's Canto General is and when you stumble on the "Song of Stalin", yet one wonders how could Neruda, with all his genius, could write such a great stupidity. One wonders if this Oliver Stone of "South of the Border" is the same as the one of "Platoon".

-The end-

Chomsky in Venezuela: may we have a word with you?

Mr. Chomsky

I am going straight to the point: your timing for visiting Chavez sucks. I know that you have expressed your support often enough but visiting now as he is becoming a bona fide dictator is really not your best move. Then again in the past you have had your share of controversies and we should not be surprised that you decided to show your face in Caracas once Hugo Chavez decided to become a radical, to do things you would never put up with in the US. At any rate it would be a nice change from your Pol Pot linking, remember?

But your sense of timing is even worse than what I imply above: there has been live on TV, two Sundays in a row, a set of lies and manipulations by Chavez himself, from the situation of the country to his self proclaimed love for peace. So, in the spirit of trying to help you I will give you a chance to redeem yourself and prove once and for all that you do understand the media really, and not the media you like only. As a bonus you can also prove that you are a democrat and a humanist.

Two weeks ago there was a scandal in the press regarding poor humble women that were seeking help for delivering their babies. Public hospitals in Venezuela are in such shambles that they were sent from one place to the other as no one was in any shape to receive them. "ruleteo" we call it, as in rolling the ball, though the image of Russian roulette comes to mind in this case.

Well, what did Hugo Chavez do? He made it a a-morality play into his Sunday show two weeks ago. There was a woman, duly clad in red, happening to be passing by and seeking help from Chavez directly, saying that her sister was passed along many hospitals. Chavez, grand seigneur, was shocked, shocked!, about such things still happening, justifying along the way the latest purge in his cabinet, while offering his personal surgeon to help the sister in question. His personal surgeon, nothing less.

I trust that just from these words describing the scene you will be smart enough to smell a rat in the Chavez show, you know, media manipulation and obscene control and brain washing and what not. You wrote the books on how single men influence public opinion through controlled media. Did you not? Are you aware that no one in Venezuela's history has been a media mogul the way Chavez is today?

You can find in this link the article on this subject that Milagros Socorro wrote for El Nacional, a newspaper that supported the Chavez election in 1998, a newspaper with a historical leftist reputation since its foundation, and who now sternly opposes Chavez. Food for thought right there.

The article of Ms. Socorro is in Spanish but a linguist like you should have no trouble finding some one to translate it. Heck, if you call Milagros she will probably ask you out for a cup of coffee and enlighten you some. She might not be a world known "intellectual" like you are but I can assure you that she can hold her own with you, even at an advantage because unlike you she is a true humanist, truly and deeply concerned with all human rights, unlike you who seem to pick and chose among them. At any rate she is much more of an intellectual than the military lout you chose to suck up yesterday, she is one fo the finest intellectuals Venezuela has to offer today even though her trade is journalism and writing.

So there you have it, a chance for you to dig where it matters, to prove that you are what you say you are. Either that or you can keep slipping into further disregard as more and more only a loony fringe worships you. And be aware that all that Chavez touches turns into crap, his own reverse Midas touch. It can get much worse for your reputation. You have been warned.

Sincerely

Daniel Duquenal,
humble blogger of humble truths on naked emperors

-The end-

Lula knows he screwed on Venezuela and Chavez

I was watching today an interview of Brazil's president Lula da Silva on CNN, conducted by Fareed Zakaria (1). The interview was very interesting. Lula has answers to everything and rather thoughtful answers (for example his thoughts about expanding the UN security membership and its role). He might be an union worker in origin but that has not stopped him from learning a lot along the way. However all his self assurance was sorely tested when Mr. Zakaria asked him on Chavez. The approximate transcript first, click on pics to enlarge (2).

Zakaria: You are regarded as a great symbol of democracy in the Americas [more flattering comments follow] And yet some people say that you have been quiet as Hugo Chavez has hollowed out and destroyed democracy in Venezuela. You have greeted him as a friend, you have not really criticized the complete reversal of democracy in Venezuela. Why not speak out about it if Brazil wants to take a greater role in the world? Would that not be a part of it, to stand for certain values?

Lula: [during the question it was fascinating to watch Lula's face: from dead serious he put up a laughing grimace without noise, something clearly designed to hide his real thoughts and trying to ridicule the question which coming from that kind of interviewer is simply not possible to do and demeans Lula more than anything he could do to demean Zakaria] Maybe we cannot agree with Venezuela democracy. But no one can say that there is no democracy in Venezuela. [some strange and irrelevant mumblings follow about him having less years than Chavez in office and that Chavez went through so many elections while he himself went through only two]

Zakaria: Wouldn't you like to have had the advantages he has when running with the opposition muzzled, his gangs out in the streets. This is not real democracy.

Lula: We have to respect the local cultures of each country. The political traditions of each country. The political cultures of each country. Brazil has made a lot of investments in Venezuela and I believe that the US needs to get closer to Venezuela. Why so? Because I think that it would be beneficial to the US and to Venezuela.

Zakaria: How we would do that? [reminders of Chavez insults to the US follow]

Lula: [he goes on with a lot of bullshit totally irrelevant to the previous questions. Then there is a talk about generosity] With an economy the size of Brazil we have to make gestures of generosity to our neighbors because otherwise they will have the right to think that Brazil is an imperialist power, that the US is an imperialist power, because there is development in our countries and there is underdevelopment in their countries. I believe the results that we have managed to achieve are good ones, I would say for Brazil, for Latin America and for the rest of the world.

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

How can we possibly put a good spin on this section of the interview? Even Zakaria looked surprised, and more than once. After all, the idiocies of Chavez are simply public knowledge and glossing over them would have actually been better for Lula than to try to skip the questions outright as he did.

So this is my story to try to make sense of this rather pathetic moment. Let's start with the salient points.

First, of course, Lula might have learned a lot in his career but not as much as he should have on Venezuela. His demeaning comment on Political Culture (repeated, incredibly, three times) simply tell us that all that he knows about Venezuela comes from Chavez. He might have received accurate reports form his foreign office but clearly, he has been very selective about what he chose to use. And pray, do tell us, when was it Venezuelan political culture to insult the opposition from a position where this one cannot reply to you? This is so offensive that I rather stop now on this part.

Second, there is that mercenary aspect to him: he cites the Brazilian investments as an excuse; which is not and excuse, otherwise we could excuse the US and many other countries of a few crimes because, well, you know, they invested. And this is made even worse when unprompted he excuses himself about Brazilian imperialistic tendencies. Truly Chavez brought the worse in Lula and made him blabber.

And third there are clear escape attempts at not replying at all to Zakaria questions. At some point Lula must have realized that he did not convince Zakaria, and perhaps not even himself. This last picture on the right is a witness about some strange brief pauses taken by Lula then, with shifty, impatient looks, images that we do not get from Lula at any other point in the interview.

I am not going to detail why Lula is so wrong because not only the abuses of Chavez are public knowledge, but this blog is a whole narrative of those abuses and to top it off, the CIDH has just published last Friday a lengthy report where Chavez electoral abuses are detailed, a report by the way that Zakaria did not need to make his statement (3). I rather speculate on what is going on with Lula.

First, Lula comes from the hard left that got educated to reality with time. That is why he had to run three times before he was finally elected. As such he might never have managed to reconcile fully his lefty militant heart to what he knows is the reality that has brought him success and keeps him high in polls. He knows he has betrayed some of his youth tenets but he is not going back because he is smart enough to understand that this way is the one that does bring some success.

As such Lula has always looked at Chavez as the kind of leader he might have wanted to be if he had a smaller country to rule and more means. Federal Brazil does not have the easy riches of Venezuela. Brazil is such a world in itself that a Chavez like clown is simply not possible anymore there (Qadros might have been the last specimen of the sort and Brazilians might have learned their lesson for good then). It is simple quite possible that Lula lives vicariously through Chavez the leftist experience he will never live himself, blinded enough by Chavez charisma and showmanship to overlook the fascist and military tendencies of Chavez that someone like Lula should know better have having suffered for the lengthy Brazilian military regime (other leftists that suffered repression are not fooled by Chavez, for example Chile's Bachelet or Uruguay Vasquez).

But as I have already written in this blog Brazil is an Imperialist country by tradition and perhaps even by vocation (Bandeirantes anyone?). Lula might try to pretend it is not but he fools no one. However we cannot blame him much on him applying imperialism on Venezuela: after all Chavez is serving to him the country on a silver platter and why would not Brazil industrialists benefit from the Venezuelan piñata? If there is one that should be judged harshly by history, and hopefully by judges, on this matter it is Chavez, not Lula who after all behaves as the president of a great country, serving his country interests before he serves his own ones (well, in general at least).

Still, after this interview it should be extremely clear to anyone that Lula has helped Chavez as much as he could, that he has been an active accomplice in the destruction of Venezuelan democracy. In fact we could go as far as to say that Lula has only disdain for the Venezuelan people and that he thinks that Chavez is actually a redeemer that got a bum rap and thus deserved his help. As such when history books will be written Lula will be pointed as having some Venezuelan blood on his hand because at no point we can show a Lula berating Chavez for his abuses, even in private (read again that part where he thinks he has been achieving great things in Latin America!). In fact we can even think of occasions where some of his comments were perceived as indirect criticism of Chavez only to see Lula a few days later backpedal fast and embrace Chavez again. And let's not forget that Lula visited Chavez at least twice in important electoral times endorsing him.

The funny thing for me here is that Venezuela and Brazil are probably the two countries closer ethnically in Latin America, with a similar racial make up and mix, a similar way to conceive of life. And yet Venezuela is fast becoming a failed state while Brazil is threatening to become a world power. In a way a take over of Venezuela by Brazil would not be such a bad thing, you know.... I wonder how much of that subconscious thinking might have operated in Brazilian ruling class as they contributed to the demise of Venezuela (they will put the blame on Lula but too many went along this complacency toward Venezuela). Meanwhile woe is us in Venezuela because while Chavez squandered our possibly last historical opportunity Colombia and Brazil grew in strength. In a post Chavez Venezuela Bogota and Brasilia will fight over taking Venezuela under their area of influence.

Remember, ten years from now, you read it here first.

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

1) I get the CNN from London bureau, not the direct one from Atlanta, ask my Cable company why.... Fareed Zakaria GPS. Thanks to my new Direct TV decoder that allows me to record on command and examine such an interview in detail. I shall use it on Chavez in the future!

2) I do not have the transcript, what I quote is what I lifted from replaying the interview. Since Lula spoke in Portuguese, CNN gave us a simultaneous translation, with the risks that this implies on finer points.

3) Not on line yet, sorry. I guess it will come up Monday. CIDH = IACHR, by the way.

-The end-

Lula tells Venezuelans how worhtless they are; Viña del Mar confirms it.

During the campaign for the eternal reelection of February 15 2009, at some event Lula declared that he was not keen on reelection but that if Venezuelan wanted it it was their right. Or something to that effect that people are free to chose what they want and that eternal reelection was not that bad. Heck k, even some people took that as a message that maybe Lula was considering getting access to a third term himself through some constitutional change.

Well, today there is a small ruckus in Venezuela press rooms as Lula this time in a more serious forum is stating point blank that more than two terms in office is simply bad for democracy, and we assume this would be true in Lula's mind in Brasilia, Washington, Harare or Caracas. Well, he said again that maybe Caracas was different but Brazil would be changing president even if Lula's ratings are above those of Chavez, that democracy was best served by true alternation. Do not be fooled by what he really meant even if he did not express it: Venezuelans are a stupid and silly people reelecting the same clown over and over while he keeps wrecking his country and giving juicy contracts to Brazilian companies. Lula could not possibly care less for Venezuelans.

You do not believe me? Read the roster of the "summit" being held in Chile, at Viña del Mar. A select group of progressive leaders is gathering to discuss ways to get out of the crisis that is besotting the world. Who is invited: Chile as the chair, the UK, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Norway with, hold tight, the US of A. They are going to attend the closing and summary of a think tank gathering for the previous days where intellectuals, politicians, economists, etc, associated with social democracy and democratic left gathered to offer proposals to the G20 summit coming soon.

As you can see it is a serious summit, with serious people, even if some of you might not agree with their ideas. And the meeting is the more serious that mickey mouse regimes not interested in dialogue, in global solutions or in real democracy offering real solutions for the people and not for their leaders, were not invited. So there was no Ecuador, or Bolivia or Nicaragua and best of all, no Chavez. In fact the Brazilian envoy said that other leftist regime ideas were to be respected which is a very diplomatic way to say "we need to work to solve the crisis and we have no time to put up with showmen coming over for temper tantrums; learn to behave and next time we might respect you enough to invite you over".

We, Venezuelans are a weak and miserable people and we are treated just as we deserve. We are the laughing stock of the world and our stupid leader still thinks that smiles when he places a purchase order are actual smiles of political support.

-The end-

On Venezuela becoming a “Salon of the Left”

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-

"only" 22% of the drug traffic goes through Venezuela?

In what has to be another great moment in sycophantic mediocrity, VEA, the official newspaper of the Chavez regime, had published this front page.

Yes, that is right, VEA says that 78% of the drugs shipped DO NOT go through Venezuela. Does that mean that 22% of the world shipments indeed do go through Venezuela? Or are we talking about local shipments? Of what drugs? Is this good enough a result to write home about?

Truly, in their desperate quest to ingratiate themselves with the government the low life sycophants of Chavez some times do real dodoos... (hat tip Tal Cual, "por mi madre")

By the way observe now the general paraphernalia that accompanies any public official event as the vice president and top brass must sit behind a red cloth covered table, red shirts and all. Only the army and those coming from it seem to escape that now dreary red. I suggest that they start drinking rosé wine instead of water, it would be a better color match and at the same time it will probably help along uttering the inanities now routine at such events.

-The end-

Chavez Olympic failure (bis repetita non placent)

Last Monday I posted on the dismal role of Venezuela at the Olympics. Not the athletes, mind you, 109 of them managed to qualify and did, at least most of them, their very best. No, the failure as usual is the Venezuelan state, a system aggravated under chavismo where sports have become a political flag, something that never happened before, or at least nowhere close to the obscene propaganda we were subjected to before Beijing. But some readers did not like my post and thus in an unusual step I am posting a complement to that previous post, not a fun one as the title of this post indicate. It will take the single graph below and a few extra lines.

In this graph you have three lines. First, the blue line is the size of the Venezuelan team since 1948 when a single athlete was dispatched. As you can see, the amount of Venezuelan athletes that manage to qualify has been rather consistent since 1952 (when the latest dictator in search of popularity managed to rise the delegation from 1 to 38 athlete, a feat that Chavez could only hope to do one day; but then dictators were efficient whereas today, well, you know...) We thus go from a low of 16 in Tokyo 1964 to a maximum of 51 in Sidney in 2000. It is interesting to note at this point that this 2000 result is the last one that can be attributed to past administrations, the positive trend that Chavez inherited when he came to power on February 1999. It is also worth noting that in 2004, the first year Chavez policies can take some credit (they certainly will never accept the blame), that number dropped slightly to 48 athletes.

The second line in red, chavi-reality, is the one that chavista propaganda has tried to present us before Beijing. It is deeply flawed for one main reason: it curiously omits 2000 and 2004 from its announced years as you can still see on the Quick Time video at the Propaganda Ministry. If it is true that we jumped above 100 athletes it is also true that for the first time we qualified three teams. If you remove these athletes and their backbenchers, well, we would fall back to our usual 40-50. No word of that on any chavista page anywhere. So yes, let's be, as Venezuelans, happy that we now can have teams qualifying, even if they did almost dead last at Beijing: at least they will have gained experience and in four years they should do better (well, not Softball who will be out).

The rest is just the marker medal, with a maximum of three medals at Los Angeles in 1984. Truly, there is nothing worth writing home after ten years of chavista bureaucracy directing sorts: we are equally good or equally mediocre depending on your half glass of life philosophy.

The orange circle is just to stress the two missing years in the "official" story. But chavismo is already erasing people from pictures, public places and so, in the good commie tradition. I leave you with yet another example of the pre-Beijing propaganda. It comes from the day Chavez gave the flag to the team: look at it for a while, it is a shor 2 minutest, observe that the 109 athletes were not at hand (some knew better?) and how he wastes their time for his glory. Nothing new, really, the same tasteless to vulgar abuse of power we have been used to for the last 10 years with the lack of constructive results attached to such type of messy rule.

-The end-

Do we need more Thomas More?

Since I am not watching the Olympics I got to watch the second season of the very fantasist series the Tudors. Tonight they beheaded Thomas More.

I have had some qualms about the reconstruction of Tudor England: much too clean; a king Henry the VIII well too thin (but sexy) and a Spanish queen whose Spanish is just terrible. Did they have to make her speak Spanish to the fake Spanish ambassador? But still, it is quite dramatic, quite entertaining, quite visual, and best, it is an excuse to revisit an exciting historical period, which I was musing resembles curiously many aspects of our contemporary problems, from justification of light totalitarianism, to free will in an age of political correctness.

And today we beheaded Thomas More. As the movie glosses lightly over the large moral questions that Thomas Moore faced and that led him to the scaffold, one could not help but wonder why was he made a saint. After all, he had no problem sending Lutherans to the pyre, he was not alien to censorship and his most famous work, Utopia, is considered as a commie book by some. No wonder his historical berth made him the patron saint of all politicians, who are certainly in need of role models.

Is thus Thomas More relevant today when he himself was far from blameless? I think he is because of all his qualities constancy and duty to the greater good ranked higher, and led him to the scaffold, a scaffold he could have easily avoided had he wanted to. True, under Henry VIII, a sexually obsessed totalitarian who had no problem destroying the shrine of yet another saint Thomas that run into trouble with a King, maybe More knew he was doomed and he might have decided to get it over with and become a martyr. The Zeitgeist then was about martyrdom and deep public shows of faith. Today Thomas More might accept an easier exit.

As I was watching Thomas More on TV I thought briefly of Leopoldo Lopez. I mean, there is nothing in the imagery of the movie nor in the discourse of the people and even less in the looks of the actors that could possibly remind me of Leopoldo. Why I thought about him is that even though he might be one of the most principled politicians of Venezuela today, he falls way short of the standards of a Thomas More. Never mind the rest of our local pols....

In Venezuela we do have today our own Henry VIII version. He might not be marrying around but he is equally single minded in pursuing his own self interest and pleasures. In an age of mass media we have invented new pleasures and who is to know what good king Henry would have done. After all, with in vitro techniques and antibiotics the succession problem would have been solved with less chopped heads.

Our King Hugo in a way effects the same mood on Venezuela as Henry did on England. You think I am kidding? Venezuela, a country that was deeply attached to the US and its way of life is breaking away in as painful a process, and lasting as long, as the break up of England with Rome. King Hugo suffers as much from his rejection by the US presidents than King Henry suffered from Rome's refusal to oblige him. And the people under them suffer equally form having to take sides. It took two centuries for England to finally settle its religious problems. In this respect it did not do them any good to have Thomas More and watch him beheaded. Henry VIII moved along and the Tudors lasted for over half a century more. Poor Thomas had to wait 4 centuries to become a saint. Justice arrives, but it has no timetable.

Do we have at least the hope of a Thomas More in Venezuela? I am afraid that the days are not favorable to Thomas Mores anywhere, at the Beijing Olympics, in Georgia, flying over Khartoum, negotiating in Harare or visiting Arab country summits. Upright attitudes are actually frown upon today: on TV such people look arrogant, insensitive to "different" cultures and people whose "peculiarities" are too often allowed to rank above basic ethical principles (only the Taliban seem to have missed such defense in the West, not because of what they killed but because of the burkha, a tad too much even for the most P.C. airheads of the world).

In Venezuela in front of our most psychotic president in recent history we have had the bad luck to be totally devoid of a principled great leader, if not political at least moral or cultural. I mean, we do have a whole bunch of luminaries that we should not be ashamed of, such as Padre Ugalde or journalists like Milagros Soccorro who daily stick their necks for us. Even among politicians there are some principled ones such as Teodoro Petkoff. They are all good but I am not sure what it would take for them to walk steadily to the scaffold when the time comes. Not that King Hugo can do a literal scaffold, at least not yet: he contents himself with executions from Alo Presidente.

Should we blame them? Certainly not. After all we saw what we did to the failed leaders of 2002 and 2004. Who talks or cares today about Juan Fernandez, one of the most palatable of the lot? Who is risking his or her career to defend Venezuelan political prisoners? Most are too worried about getting elected mayor of Tucusiapon. True, we should also get elected there, I am all in for that, we need every nook and cranny to build strength against Chavez, but there is something missing somewhere and that is someone who is willing to compromise it all for a political cause that we all know is right, even if many will not agree with it. On this respect the Venezuela people do resemble a lot the English of the XVI century. They all knew in London that it was wrong to behead Thomas More but they all watched and moved on.

Perhaps the most pathetic example today of what I am saying is Leopoldo Lopez. He refused to prepare a Plan B for when he would be barred form running for Caracas mayor. Once he was barred then he decided that he would not support anyone (a me or else moment?). Now he comes up with a second run, an opposition primary to replace him, which we assume that he will manage, and which will also ensure an exit for his protegé in Chacao town hall. I cannot tell you how underwhelmed by Leopoldo Lopez I am now. I cannot think of a faster switch from wanna-be martyr to cheap survivor! One week!

Curiously in the same week we got a new candidate for the Thomas More award. Oh, he is certainly not close to win it but at least he is the one politician that is taking steps towards a productive martyrdom: Ismael Garcia. Yes, that is right. He might have accompanied King Hugo to depths that are unjustifiable, but so did Thomas with Henry for a while. And just like Thomas, when all fell to the King's feet something made him pull back. Ismael showed that in the deepest of him there was still something worth fighting for. Now, alone and still shunned by most folks he does his work, not recoiling in front of anything, going as far as marching in the streets next to Leopoldo Lopez just before this one blew his chance. And guess what? Ismael did not sign up to become Caracas mayor even though many thought he should do it. Maybe that "omission" is part of the strategy, but it was also a dignified gamble.


-The end-

Power Grab in Venezuela

[erratum] It is not me saying it, it is the Washington Post in today's editorial. Do not miss it, as complete in a few paragraphs as it gets.

The last line is just great:
His power grab is a backhanded tribute to the strength of Venezuela's democratic opposition -- proof that this tribune of the people actually fears them.

But there is an interesting detail for which I will ask the collaboration of the readers of this blog. Read the comments on this editorial and you will read a collection of PSF old and tired clichés. I mean, really old and really tired. You must know that there is concerted effort by the Venezuelan government to discredit the WaPo, all started by a letter from Izarrita (a.k.a. Andres Izarra the on and off communications minister). If you read the comments you will quickly realize this, by the lack of originality, the repetitive tone, etc... No point of course in rebutting these people, do not waste a minute of your precious time. However if you could drop a simple note of support it would be great (you need to register, sorry, but it is for a good cause and the Post does not send spam). The note could be simply "Excellent editorial! Great to see that the Washington Post sees clearly the situation in Venezuela." Let's see if this blog by itself can place as many positive notes as the negatives Izarrita is trying to send.

And in case you wondered who are the people besides the comment handles, one of them is probably Greg Wilpert at Venezuelanalysis. His descent into pro Chavez sycophancy is making him a strange version of a XXI century Tokyo Rose. It is amazing that someone would put his pen so easily at the service of justifying the disqualification of folks for political motives. He goes as far as writing that Primero Justicia was a political party in 1998 when it was just an NGO, becoming a party two years later, I believe. He also forgets, conveniently, that the real accusation was to use some budget money to pay employees instead of something else of the budget, due to Chavez not sending the funds owed to Chacao. But Chavez does fund shifting all the time and Ruffian is blind to it, hence Wilpert accomplice silence?. That Leopoldo Lopez did not profit himself of a single penny does not seem to bother Greg Wilpert either. Then again the Tascon list does not seem to have deprived him of sleep in its days.

[erratum] I put the wrong link for the editorial. Sorry. It is corrected now.

-The end-

Chavez cannot get good help: the Centro Internacional Miranda

One of the dramas of regimes that range between autocratic to totalitarian is that the big leaders have a hard time in getting good help. I mean, they can easily attract through power, money, or both, people capable of doing all the nasty things required for the beloved Supremo to remain in office. But that is all. Professional people, experienced people, people aware of their own value, have a hard time putting up with the tantrums and bad manners of the leaders of such regimes and prefer to exile themselves or to stick to some low management job and spend their lives in discretion, waiting for better days. In general the result is countries that on the surface seem to work well enough but who are in fact very fragile and with time simply start crumbling. Nobody cares enough for things to be done as they should be, or worse, nobody in charge has an idea what to do. When that last situation occurs, these deficient bureaucrats manage to survive by doing the only thing that really matters: praise and suck up to the beloved Father so it really does not matter much whether trains run on time or not.

Chavez and Fidel Castro as watermarks

Tal Cual published today the medical prescription from one of the Barrio Adentro clinics. The water mark of the paper shows an image of Castro and Chavez leaning toward him.

Words fail me.


-The end-

How to deal with chavismo: taking them at their word

Considering that us, poor souls of the opposition seem to be condemned to have to bear Chavez, chavismo and chavistas for quite a while, I have been musing on how to write some form of post, manual, handbook or even field guide, to help the readers of this blog to deal with that cross on our shoulders. Today reading Milagros Socorro latest article I found the format I wanted: one item at a time. That is I will start a new feature such as the one I started sometime in December “What Venezuelans voted for”. Each time I will try to help people by suggesting a way to make the dark night of chavismo more bearable. I hope it helps.

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

In today’s OpEd piece Ms. Socorro takes a shot at Maria de Queipo, assembly woman from Zulia state. In this state, the current governor Rosales, will be out one way or the other within two years. With a bought out country and a biased electoral system it is all but certain that a chavista will replace Rosales as elections will be a mere formality to ratify Chavez choice. Thus the wanna-be governors are already lining up and sucking up to the Beloved Great Leader to get the nod, the only vote that really matters. Maria’s latest occurrence as placed up quite well in that race and Milagros Socorro makes great fun of it today [my comments when necessary to clarify since it is a humoristic piece that might not be easy to get for the non Venezuelan]. Original in Spanish here, translation below.

We want this program, now
El Nacional, Sunday March 4, 2007

I propose that we take seriously the project of Maria de Queipo, president of the Education Commission of the National Assembly, “to study the thought of Chavez in the schools, the universities, the misiones”. I have taken it very seriously, because if representative Queipo had formulated her initiative to include the philosophical corpus of president Chavez in the programs of formation of the young people of the Republic without the real intention to make reality this purpose, then we would be before a case of flagrant flattery, a vice that is characterized to flatter a person with the objective of receiving in return some benefit, as it could be the one of receiving backing for a possible candidacy to the governorship of Zulia.

And that is discarded, because in the same interview in which Queipo deputy staggered the country with her motion, she defined herself like as a seraphic creature, born in a homestead and vaccinated against the neoliberal model by her “closeness to nature”. In addition, professor Queipo drives a 350 truck [Ford semi heavy duty trucks in Venezuela], as we were told in February of 2005, when an explosive device burst in front of the seat of the MVR in Maracaibo, and hit against this truck, of her property, that was parked there. Who could imagine that an individual who gets her hair wind messed in a 350 will incur in flatteries with the purpose of obtaining some privilege from the flattered person?

The other thing is that university professor Queipo uses the familiar you with president Chavez [in Spanish there are two forms for you, the polite/formal Usted and the familiar Tú], as witness the transcript of the Alo, Presidente N° 182, of the 15 of February of 2004, in that the Chief of State called on her to confirm that his government has been fabulous in Zulia, which she ratifies, underlining her words with “como tú dices” [as you say ]; and hastening to assure to him that the State House of that state is a done deal, that already general Gutierrez could start moving into the Palacio de las Aguilas, since it would not be “very difficult to take the governor seat of Zulia, because we are in front of a coup monger” (she refers to Manuel Rosales, not to the one, undeniably, she has in front of her).

Such friendly treatment annuls the possibility that the professor is going to incur flattery and with it to suggest, God forbid, that in Venezuela ascent in the political scale could depend on the support of a single person, in a this case such a key thinker for the national instruction. Even less that the flattery is effective because the flattered personage demands the protocol of crawling to accede to his favors. It is not conceivable that somebody believes, simultaneously, that the chief executive is source of a thinking of unavoidable debate in the classrooms and also that his will could vary through a good obsequiousness at the right time.

With complete certainty, Maria de Queipo, who has gone ahead to her possible competitors exhibiting her expertise in wise people matters, knows the reflections of smaller figures such as Locke, who established that flattery is a kind of breach of trust, in that the flatterer induces the self deceit of the flattered one, attributing to him capacities or virtues which he lacks with the purpose of gaining some advantage. Of course Locke, who at the end is no more than a smart boy in comparison with the scholar whom we are dealing with, centered his considerations on a political regime with limited and separate powers, in contrast with an absolute regime, where the flattery is a line of business because “those that aspire to obtain excessive power” are susceptible to flattery as flatterers come to stoke up their passion for absolute power.

But let’s leave this. The obsequiousness only finds ground to grow where reigns so excessive a pride and so susceptible to flatteries that then it is unable to detect the ridicule to which the flatterer exposes its recipient. And there is no reason to think this in the case of professor Queipo and, by all means, of the supreme thinker to be studied.

Nevertheless, there is not lack of malicious minds that have insinuated that with her proposal assemblywoman Queipo has put herself, in equestrian terms, in forbidden thirds; that is to say, she has placed an unbridgeable advance from the pack of flatterers. There is only one way to end the giggles and the murmurings. Professor Queipo must stop the commentaries respecting the casualness of her proposal and the rumors that give her a covert will to garner sponsorships through lies.

And this will only happen when professor Queipo presents to the country a complete plan, where the contents of the study program of the thoughts of president Chavez are presented. Well detailed. Of course, for this she will have to read all texts of the luminary. Absolutely all of them, no one knows where may be the luminous phrase, the founding concept, the enlightening notion.

And she must do it herself, she cannot delegate the search and, by the way, the honor. When we have that document, our apprehensions will be over.