I though that I should point out that the French presidential elections are perhaps the only example of a true world wide election. In fact there are French people voting in possibly all the time zones! Call it the inheritance of a colonial past and that French do not vote by mail so they must go to their embassy to vote, but the French have started voting Saturday and will keep voting today until 8PM Paris time.
I cannot think of any other country who has as many of its citizens voting outside of its mainland area than France. Besides the embassy votes, Saturday there was actual French voting in North America -Saint Pierre et Miquelon, Canada off shore-; in the Caribbean -Guadeloupe and Martinique-; In South America -French Guiana-; In Oceania -Tahiti and its extensive archipelago, New Caledonia-; in Africa -Mayotte and Reunion islands-; only Asia has embassy only voting.
Actually I think I should register to vote in Saint Barts (a French Island, YES!) by buying a mansion there and going the week end to vote. Not even a two hour flight, you know! Now, where did I leave that winning lottery ticket....
-The end-
Sunday, May 06, 2007
The French election Result in Caracas
Well, I should not be saying that but I am going ahead anyway: Sarkozy won in Caracas with 68% (at least from what I have been told). I say that because in the greater scheme of things it is meaningless, Sarkozy had already won Caracas on the first round with 55% so there was no way he would lose at the second round. In fact I can even say that this 68% is not great, that he should have reached 70% to reflect the polls in France, the 15% share he needs to get to overcome Royal.
But things are not looking good for Royal: at noon the turnout was higher than two weeks ago. In other words French folks are voting in even larger numbers than the record first round. The first conclusion is that the Le Pen call for abstention did not work and that his voters are all going out to vote in droves, presumably mostly for Sarkozy (some, perhaps 25% will vote for Royal, hoping that the Front National regains strength under a socialist administration, don't ask!). The Second conclusion is that the Bayrou voters decided to go out and vote and if the poll trends are true this is bad news for Royal too since the Bayrou vote was going more toward Sarkozy than Royal in spite of a clear rapprochement between Bayrou and Royal. In other words, if Sarkozy wins with at least 6 points lead with an even greater turnout than two weeks ago, then Bayrou has not much influence over his voters and his announced new political party is not going to start under the best omens.
Are we in fact witnessing a major redrawing of the French political map and we were not even having a clue? Nobody previewed the drop of Le Pen or the temporary surge of Bayrou. And now if these two characters have their voters decanting for Sarkozy in large numbers, what does it mean? A possible 55% vote for Sarkozy woudl be a true mandate by French standards and could embolden Sarkozy to actually implement some of his controversial changes. We'll see.
-The end-
But things are not looking good for Royal: at noon the turnout was higher than two weeks ago. In other words French folks are voting in even larger numbers than the record first round. The first conclusion is that the Le Pen call for abstention did not work and that his voters are all going out to vote in droves, presumably mostly for Sarkozy (some, perhaps 25% will vote for Royal, hoping that the Front National regains strength under a socialist administration, don't ask!). The Second conclusion is that the Bayrou voters decided to go out and vote and if the poll trends are true this is bad news for Royal too since the Bayrou vote was going more toward Sarkozy than Royal in spite of a clear rapprochement between Bayrou and Royal. In other words, if Sarkozy wins with at least 6 points lead with an even greater turnout than two weeks ago, then Bayrou has not much influence over his voters and his announced new political party is not going to start under the best omens.
Are we in fact witnessing a major redrawing of the French political map and we were not even having a clue? Nobody previewed the drop of Le Pen or the temporary surge of Bayrou. And now if these two characters have their voters decanting for Sarkozy in large numbers, what does it mean? A possible 55% vote for Sarkozy woudl be a true mandate by French standards and could embolden Sarkozy to actually implement some of his controversial changes. We'll see.
-The end-
Food shortages in Venezuela
Before the reader gets exited about the title and the prospective post let me start by the conclusion: there is food in Venezuela, we are far from being starved (I hope, anyway!). What is lacking is choice and variety; and on some cases there are actual shortages of some very basic staples. Short explanation as to the reasons at the end of the post. Click on images to enlarge.
This morning EL Nacional had in its front pages the following title: "Meats, eggs, sugar and milk scarce". So, never one to miss a shot at easy on the ground reporting, I took my digital camera and hit my local Central Madeirense around lunch time. I took the following picture with the adequate captions and comments. You will be able to see how this "scarcity" is lived through in San Felipe. Before you start, Central Madeirense is in San Felipe the "upscale" grocery store, that is the store where people that do not count their pennies go and thus where you find expensive items not found elsewhere in town. The lack of product you observe is thus not due to management not replenishing shelves because the products are "too expensive" and people are not buying.
As you will observe in this first slide, the basic problem is that brand choice has been becoming more and more difficult in Venezuela. Mayonnaise in Venezuelan diet is a basic staple, abundantly used to spread on bread, dress up fish or salads and what not. The two leading brands are Kraft and Mavesa plus an assortment of other brands in general cheaper, of a grayer color and lesser taste. Most of them are missing except for a little bit of Mavesa on one of the "popular" sub-brands, not even in large amounts! And there of course is the perfect illustration on how Central Madeirense tries to hide its "shortages" least customers are tempted to try their lick elsewhere. The gaping hole is filled up by what customers do not buy much: Mexican tortillas...
After the mayonnaise rack it is suitable to move on to the oil rack. There is no cooking oil available. None. No peanut oil or corn oil or sunflower oil or canola. The gaping hole was filled up by olive oil (too expensive for the average Venezuela, the amount of oil in the picture is probably the usual stock held back in the storage rooms of the store). but since olive oil was not enough, well, some flavored water was also added. I suppose it is a heath warning that Venezuela should shift from fired foods to boiled ones? By the way, I have NEVER seen so much olive oil in a Venezuelan grocery store!!!
This next slide is very simple: the bread racks. It is rather empty and even more so considering that some of the holes are filled up by crackers that are not stored there usually. Not only the store brand is missing but even the fancier whole grain varieties of bread are also missing.
The meat section was pathetic. On the large meat stand where cuts are made to order, there were only turkey and some low cuts of red meat and pork. Not appetizing at all. The turkey was in good shape although it was only composed of drumsticks and wings offerings, not breast meat. No picture because the plexyglass front reflected the flash. However the pre-packed aisle is shown on the picture above. No meat choice. Thus we can say that unless you love meat stews, there was no open air grill this week end in San Felipe.
White sugar has been missing for months now. At least the supply of brown sugar has regularized some and usually you can get it. Beans have not been missing as much lately but today there were only two types of beans and not much of them anyway.
And we come to the milk problem. In the fresh produce section you can observe by yourself how little milk is left. No whole milk at all, only some 1 % milk Mi Vaca, and not for long (luckily for me this is my favorite brand so I was in luck, but quite often on week ends I have to come back home with the other brands that have a weird taste). Yogurt is also becoming very scarce although "suero" a by product of cheese making popular in Venezuela is not as affected.
And when you go tot he powder milk section, well, you only get one brand, and an unknown one at that. All powder milk is now imported in Venezuela as we do not produce enough for our cheese and fresh milk needs. In fact, some of the cheese we eat is made from powder milk!!! Even the UHT long duration milk is becoming scarce. In the picture you can see only one brand on the left, Zulimilk, and a few boxes from other brands which are not the best ones.
WHY?
The reasons are very complex but of a very simple origin: the price control policies and the currency exchange regulation. These have been greatly aggravated by an increased purchasing power from the lower classes. Note that of course I am delighted to know that through diverse grants and public pseudo jobs many have access to enough food, but the problem is that not only production has not followed but in many areas it has dropped as consumption increased!!!! Such as the milk and meat sectors for example.
The case of meat and milk is particularly clear: price controls and land invasions without adequate compensation while the new "owners" lack the skills and resources to take over the seized land has created a diminution of the number of cow heads in Venezuela. Thus less meat and milk as nobody wants to invest in farms whose security is threatened, from where you can be abducted for ransom, to produce things over which you might not be able to make any money, when you are lucky enough to actually not lose your shirt. Is there a mystery why producers are not investing, not expanding their flocks, letting it dwindle slowly?
The currency exchange control shows in the lack of other items such as Mayonnaise or cooking oil. Some of the additives cannot be imported because CADIVI, the control agency is not emitting on time foreign exchange requests. Delays in importing additives and supplies and grains are so long that this scarcity is an artificial creation for the governmental incapacity. Or is it? Well, the foreign reserves are dropping precipitously these past months. As Chavez is embarking on a totally unnecessary shopping spree of private concerns that are working very well, thank you, for political reasons Chavez must pay his bills first and too bad if the hoi polloi is out of cooking oil. Because of course, the increased resources of the lower sectors are not enough for them to buy olive oil, which they do not know how to use or are not used to anyway since olive oil is not for frying "empanadas". Otherwise there would not be olive oil either.
Sugar scarcity is a pure product of the land seizure policies: many of those, such in Yaracuy, were taken out of sugar cane production to produce who knows what. With ethanol production increase, well, you know, sugar is so expensive that even Mercal subsidies balk at buying it. Because see, white sugar is also under price control whereas brown sugar is not. So why refine the little bit of sugar produce here when you get a better profit by selling it semi raw?
I could go on, after all I do work in the agribusiness sector. Or I could go and look for numbers, and statistics and what not. But see, the pictures of this Saturday morning shopping are there. If you can figure out better reasons for the scarcity, please, do share them in the comment section.
However there is one sobering thought: when you go to a grocery store and there is no more choice, then the supply of your food items becomes very endangered. What if the only brand around has a problem? What about if there workers go on strike? Or their provider are tired to wait for CADIVI dollars? Today there is only one brand of powder milk. Will it still be there next week? And will Central Madeirense have enough stuff to keep filling up the gaping holes?
Until when for rationing cards and empty food shelves?
-The end-
This morning EL Nacional had in its front pages the following title: "Meats, eggs, sugar and milk scarce". So, never one to miss a shot at easy on the ground reporting, I took my digital camera and hit my local Central Madeirense around lunch time. I took the following picture with the adequate captions and comments. You will be able to see how this "scarcity" is lived through in San Felipe. Before you start, Central Madeirense is in San Felipe the "upscale" grocery store, that is the store where people that do not count their pennies go and thus where you find expensive items not found elsewhere in town. The lack of product you observe is thus not due to management not replenishing shelves because the products are "too expensive" and people are not buying.
As you will observe in this first slide, the basic problem is that brand choice has been becoming more and more difficult in Venezuela. Mayonnaise in Venezuelan diet is a basic staple, abundantly used to spread on bread, dress up fish or salads and what not. The two leading brands are Kraft and Mavesa plus an assortment of other brands in general cheaper, of a grayer color and lesser taste. Most of them are missing except for a little bit of Mavesa on one of the "popular" sub-brands, not even in large amounts! And there of course is the perfect illustration on how Central Madeirense tries to hide its "shortages" least customers are tempted to try their lick elsewhere. The gaping hole is filled up by what customers do not buy much: Mexican tortillas...
After the mayonnaise rack it is suitable to move on to the oil rack. There is no cooking oil available. None. No peanut oil or corn oil or sunflower oil or canola. The gaping hole was filled up by olive oil (too expensive for the average Venezuela, the amount of oil in the picture is probably the usual stock held back in the storage rooms of the store). but since olive oil was not enough, well, some flavored water was also added. I suppose it is a heath warning that Venezuela should shift from fired foods to boiled ones? By the way, I have NEVER seen so much olive oil in a Venezuelan grocery store!!!
This next slide is very simple: the bread racks. It is rather empty and even more so considering that some of the holes are filled up by crackers that are not stored there usually. Not only the store brand is missing but even the fancier whole grain varieties of bread are also missing.
The meat section was pathetic. On the large meat stand where cuts are made to order, there were only turkey and some low cuts of red meat and pork. Not appetizing at all. The turkey was in good shape although it was only composed of drumsticks and wings offerings, not breast meat. No picture because the plexyglass front reflected the flash. However the pre-packed aisle is shown on the picture above. No meat choice. Thus we can say that unless you love meat stews, there was no open air grill this week end in San Felipe.
White sugar has been missing for months now. At least the supply of brown sugar has regularized some and usually you can get it. Beans have not been missing as much lately but today there were only two types of beans and not much of them anyway.
And we come to the milk problem. In the fresh produce section you can observe by yourself how little milk is left. No whole milk at all, only some 1 % milk Mi Vaca, and not for long (luckily for me this is my favorite brand so I was in luck, but quite often on week ends I have to come back home with the other brands that have a weird taste). Yogurt is also becoming very scarce although "suero" a by product of cheese making popular in Venezuela is not as affected.
And when you go tot he powder milk section, well, you only get one brand, and an unknown one at that. All powder milk is now imported in Venezuela as we do not produce enough for our cheese and fresh milk needs. In fact, some of the cheese we eat is made from powder milk!!! Even the UHT long duration milk is becoming scarce. In the picture you can see only one brand on the left, Zulimilk, and a few boxes from other brands which are not the best ones.
WHY?
The reasons are very complex but of a very simple origin: the price control policies and the currency exchange regulation. These have been greatly aggravated by an increased purchasing power from the lower classes. Note that of course I am delighted to know that through diverse grants and public pseudo jobs many have access to enough food, but the problem is that not only production has not followed but in many areas it has dropped as consumption increased!!!! Such as the milk and meat sectors for example.
The case of meat and milk is particularly clear: price controls and land invasions without adequate compensation while the new "owners" lack the skills and resources to take over the seized land has created a diminution of the number of cow heads in Venezuela. Thus less meat and milk as nobody wants to invest in farms whose security is threatened, from where you can be abducted for ransom, to produce things over which you might not be able to make any money, when you are lucky enough to actually not lose your shirt. Is there a mystery why producers are not investing, not expanding their flocks, letting it dwindle slowly?
The currency exchange control shows in the lack of other items such as Mayonnaise or cooking oil. Some of the additives cannot be imported because CADIVI, the control agency is not emitting on time foreign exchange requests. Delays in importing additives and supplies and grains are so long that this scarcity is an artificial creation for the governmental incapacity. Or is it? Well, the foreign reserves are dropping precipitously these past months. As Chavez is embarking on a totally unnecessary shopping spree of private concerns that are working very well, thank you, for political reasons Chavez must pay his bills first and too bad if the hoi polloi is out of cooking oil. Because of course, the increased resources of the lower sectors are not enough for them to buy olive oil, which they do not know how to use or are not used to anyway since olive oil is not for frying "empanadas". Otherwise there would not be olive oil either.
Sugar scarcity is a pure product of the land seizure policies: many of those, such in Yaracuy, were taken out of sugar cane production to produce who knows what. With ethanol production increase, well, you know, sugar is so expensive that even Mercal subsidies balk at buying it. Because see, white sugar is also under price control whereas brown sugar is not. So why refine the little bit of sugar produce here when you get a better profit by selling it semi raw?
I could go on, after all I do work in the agribusiness sector. Or I could go and look for numbers, and statistics and what not. But see, the pictures of this Saturday morning shopping are there. If you can figure out better reasons for the scarcity, please, do share them in the comment section.
However there is one sobering thought: when you go to a grocery store and there is no more choice, then the supply of your food items becomes very endangered. What if the only brand around has a problem? What about if there workers go on strike? Or their provider are tired to wait for CADIVI dollars? Today there is only one brand of powder milk. Will it still be there next week? And will Central Madeirense have enough stuff to keep filling up the gaping holes?
Until when for rationing cards and empty food shelves?
-The end-
Friday, May 04, 2007
A blogger's mission: impossible
A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post reflecting on the implications of a particularly offensive speech by Chavez "Nuremberg at El Poliedro: how can dialogue be possible in Venezuela?". The title is rather self explanatory. Let's say to save time that the basic point of the post was that Chavez was making any dialogue impossible within Venezuela.
This post got me a reply from Alek Boyd who on occasion comes out of retirement for a post on Vcrisis. In his open letter Alek chided me for thinking that dialogue was possible, although I thought that my post was clear on it, that dialogue was likely dead, and certainly not revived by Chavez. I did not know quite well what to reply to Alek at the time (open letters are at least acknowledged, and after all Alek included flattery since he considers me too civilized).
And then yesterday I got a comment from a German reader, Christian, a comment where the reader says that even if he likes my blog and learned a lot form it, he would like to see the point view from both sides.
In other words, one reader thinks that I am a fool and another one that I am not enough of a fool.
But it gave me the idea for a reply, a reply based in part on Venezuelan reality and in part based on what I consider should be the role of a blogger that respects himself enough to try to establish a consistent editorial line. Thus the rather indulgent post below.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Dialogue is almost impossible in Venezuela because Chavez has willed it so. He does not reply to real press questions. He avoids as much as possible to be exposed to real press questions. He dodges difficult questions by rambling for hours on any topic but the question. He mocks, chides, threatens journalists that ask tough and needed questions.
His ministers and assorted lackeys have taken a cue from their master and behave pretty much the same. Yesterday for example, on international press freedom day, the interior ministry had the press evacuated form what was a public audience. Another minister, the one of communication, has become a consistent, public and notorious liar, if anything by ignoring information screamed aloud all around him, while accusing anyone bringing such annoying data of manipulators, liars and coup mongers, when he is in a good mood.
And when Chavez is alone on the podium, the most frequent case, that there is no need whatsoever to account for his words, that he knows no one will be able to ask him a question, then he gets unhinged, as in the video of the Poliedro speech.
Thus we reach the first part of my reply: why would I want at this point to even try to dialogue with chavismo when this one has clearly expressed that it wants nothing to do with me? Or even better, to reply to Christian more directly, what incentive is in there for me to report anything good from the government? Would I get an ounce of thanks if I reported, say, 50% good and 50% bad?
I suppose that sometimes it is difficult for people living outside of Venezuela to understand how tense things have become, how high are the walls between the different sectors of society. Walls between chavismo and opposition for sure, but also new walls around people that do not want to hear anything anymore about the Chavez anti Chavez battles, people that just want to collect some benefit and are tired of years of misery and warfare which are not leading anywhere and show no sign of ever abetting, even after Chavez gets, supposedly, 63% of the vote.
And this leads me to the second part of my reply: is there anything good to report about Chavez? Oh, surely I could report on some good stuff, such as empowering social sectors that were outcast for decades, though their new empowerment does not seem to bring them much benefits... But the question is: is the "good" of Chavez enough to compensate for the "bad", or even "evil" of Chavez. Is it not the price we pay too high for the meager good we get? Is the Tascon list worth Barrio Adentro? Is the near civil war situation of the country worth Mercal? Is the moral degradation, the hallucinating crime rate worth any of Chavez supposed achievements?
My answer is no, but then again Alek might be right, I am perhaps "too civilised, too educated, too refined for [my ]own good". I value too much education, civil restraint, dialogue, culture, and I believe also that this could be passed to all citizens of a country who would be willing to receive it. Thus free aspirin or discounted corn flour will never be enough for me to balance the loss of civil rights such as freedom of information or my right to sign a petition without becoming a new state sponsored political apartheid victim.
So, where does this observation leave my work as a blogger emeritus of sort, if anything for the consistency of my years at it, with more than 1500 posts under my belt (at least a book!), enough to have even unwillingly attracted some media attention?
After last December my outlook has changed. I decided that now the blog was for the long run, that Chavez would only leave through undemocratic means. Thus my blog should become a resistance of sorts, geared to offer a place where anti chavistas could gather an exchange ideas. There was no room any more for the few chavistas that ventured: after all, they controlled everything else and there was no need to let them try to control the comment section of the blog. When they refused to accept the proper rules of debate, I had to discourage them from visiting again. But I am not bitter at it: after all they only take their clues from their master even if they apply it at the small underworld of blogging. And the quality of the comment section, reasonably free now of personal attacks that lead to nowhere, has improved.
There is also another thing, now I feel free to write about whatever I want. I have no more obligation to report in detail the daily happening of Venezuela or all of Chavez buffooneries. Now I can include on writing on French elections, for example. And with time, who knows, I might even write on US politics.
The point is that now blogging under the established revolutionary regime is not anymore a matter of exposing Chavez. I firmly believe that the people that matter in the world know exactly what Chavez is all about: a XXI century new style of dictatorship, using media and personal contacts with the masses to create at the very least an autocracy. Only fools, or people benefiting from Chavez directly, can "support" such a monstrosity. It is a little bit like having a fundamentalist group in front: talking to them is a waste of time.
Blogging for me is now a recreation, something I do on occasion, sharing insights, looking at the symbols of chavismo moral decay. A place where I try to retain with the readers a sense of perspective, a place to wait for better days. Christian also asks why I do not write about what should be done in Venezuela. Why would I write on that? Who would be interested? What are the chances that any of my proposals would be considered by even the opposition leadership whose incompetence and lack of imagination is also amply established? Would it be useful to discuss why I think Venezuela should try a parliamentarian system? If I wrote about that in Spanish, does anyone think, honestly, that it would make the faintest dent in the type and quality of support Chavez gets?
I am not a guru. Nor I am an investigative reporter. Nor I am paid to be one of these two things. People should not get the idea that a blogger will explain it all, show the way out. At best a blogger can write insightful OpEd pieces, maybe on occasion talk about a personal experience and document it, as close of investigative journalism a blogger will ever come close to. If by Christian standards I can only but fail, I certainly cannot succeed by Alek standards either. To write a blog such as I do requires a certain knowledge of history, of communication, of politics. And their understanding beyond the plain knowledge easily found in Wikipedai like encyclopedic ersatz. And such knowledge can only but civilize me, make me overly critical but also give me an unending faith that well, someday there might be someone who I could exchange ideas with in the chavista camp. I do not think there is such a person but my own nature stops me from ever closing the door.
So I will go along the way I go, not worrying whether I have 5, 50 or 500 readers. Writing on France one day, on a Chavez infamous video another day, and perhaps even someday writing about what should be done about Venezuela, whenever I think that actually something can be done. When you look at the destruction done by Chavez this week, you know that the moment is getting farther and farther in time. But I can still explain and illustrate why Venezuela is passing away. That is what scares chavistas away the most from this blog.
-The end-
This post got me a reply from Alek Boyd who on occasion comes out of retirement for a post on Vcrisis. In his open letter Alek chided me for thinking that dialogue was possible, although I thought that my post was clear on it, that dialogue was likely dead, and certainly not revived by Chavez. I did not know quite well what to reply to Alek at the time (open letters are at least acknowledged, and after all Alek included flattery since he considers me too civilized).
And then yesterday I got a comment from a German reader, Christian, a comment where the reader says that even if he likes my blog and learned a lot form it, he would like to see the point view from both sides.
In other words, one reader thinks that I am a fool and another one that I am not enough of a fool.
But it gave me the idea for a reply, a reply based in part on Venezuelan reality and in part based on what I consider should be the role of a blogger that respects himself enough to try to establish a consistent editorial line. Thus the rather indulgent post below.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Dialogue is almost impossible in Venezuela because Chavez has willed it so. He does not reply to real press questions. He avoids as much as possible to be exposed to real press questions. He dodges difficult questions by rambling for hours on any topic but the question. He mocks, chides, threatens journalists that ask tough and needed questions.
His ministers and assorted lackeys have taken a cue from their master and behave pretty much the same. Yesterday for example, on international press freedom day, the interior ministry had the press evacuated form what was a public audience. Another minister, the one of communication, has become a consistent, public and notorious liar, if anything by ignoring information screamed aloud all around him, while accusing anyone bringing such annoying data of manipulators, liars and coup mongers, when he is in a good mood.
And when Chavez is alone on the podium, the most frequent case, that there is no need whatsoever to account for his words, that he knows no one will be able to ask him a question, then he gets unhinged, as in the video of the Poliedro speech.
Thus we reach the first part of my reply: why would I want at this point to even try to dialogue with chavismo when this one has clearly expressed that it wants nothing to do with me? Or even better, to reply to Christian more directly, what incentive is in there for me to report anything good from the government? Would I get an ounce of thanks if I reported, say, 50% good and 50% bad?
I suppose that sometimes it is difficult for people living outside of Venezuela to understand how tense things have become, how high are the walls between the different sectors of society. Walls between chavismo and opposition for sure, but also new walls around people that do not want to hear anything anymore about the Chavez anti Chavez battles, people that just want to collect some benefit and are tired of years of misery and warfare which are not leading anywhere and show no sign of ever abetting, even after Chavez gets, supposedly, 63% of the vote.
And this leads me to the second part of my reply: is there anything good to report about Chavez? Oh, surely I could report on some good stuff, such as empowering social sectors that were outcast for decades, though their new empowerment does not seem to bring them much benefits... But the question is: is the "good" of Chavez enough to compensate for the "bad", or even "evil" of Chavez. Is it not the price we pay too high for the meager good we get? Is the Tascon list worth Barrio Adentro? Is the near civil war situation of the country worth Mercal? Is the moral degradation, the hallucinating crime rate worth any of Chavez supposed achievements?
My answer is no, but then again Alek might be right, I am perhaps "too civilised, too educated, too refined for [my ]own good". I value too much education, civil restraint, dialogue, culture, and I believe also that this could be passed to all citizens of a country who would be willing to receive it. Thus free aspirin or discounted corn flour will never be enough for me to balance the loss of civil rights such as freedom of information or my right to sign a petition without becoming a new state sponsored political apartheid victim.
So, where does this observation leave my work as a blogger emeritus of sort, if anything for the consistency of my years at it, with more than 1500 posts under my belt (at least a book!), enough to have even unwillingly attracted some media attention?
After last December my outlook has changed. I decided that now the blog was for the long run, that Chavez would only leave through undemocratic means. Thus my blog should become a resistance of sorts, geared to offer a place where anti chavistas could gather an exchange ideas. There was no room any more for the few chavistas that ventured: after all, they controlled everything else and there was no need to let them try to control the comment section of the blog. When they refused to accept the proper rules of debate, I had to discourage them from visiting again. But I am not bitter at it: after all they only take their clues from their master even if they apply it at the small underworld of blogging. And the quality of the comment section, reasonably free now of personal attacks that lead to nowhere, has improved.
There is also another thing, now I feel free to write about whatever I want. I have no more obligation to report in detail the daily happening of Venezuela or all of Chavez buffooneries. Now I can include on writing on French elections, for example. And with time, who knows, I might even write on US politics.
The point is that now blogging under the established revolutionary regime is not anymore a matter of exposing Chavez. I firmly believe that the people that matter in the world know exactly what Chavez is all about: a XXI century new style of dictatorship, using media and personal contacts with the masses to create at the very least an autocracy. Only fools, or people benefiting from Chavez directly, can "support" such a monstrosity. It is a little bit like having a fundamentalist group in front: talking to them is a waste of time.
Blogging for me is now a recreation, something I do on occasion, sharing insights, looking at the symbols of chavismo moral decay. A place where I try to retain with the readers a sense of perspective, a place to wait for better days. Christian also asks why I do not write about what should be done in Venezuela. Why would I write on that? Who would be interested? What are the chances that any of my proposals would be considered by even the opposition leadership whose incompetence and lack of imagination is also amply established? Would it be useful to discuss why I think Venezuela should try a parliamentarian system? If I wrote about that in Spanish, does anyone think, honestly, that it would make the faintest dent in the type and quality of support Chavez gets?
I am not a guru. Nor I am an investigative reporter. Nor I am paid to be one of these two things. People should not get the idea that a blogger will explain it all, show the way out. At best a blogger can write insightful OpEd pieces, maybe on occasion talk about a personal experience and document it, as close of investigative journalism a blogger will ever come close to. If by Christian standards I can only but fail, I certainly cannot succeed by Alek standards either. To write a blog such as I do requires a certain knowledge of history, of communication, of politics. And their understanding beyond the plain knowledge easily found in Wikipedai like encyclopedic ersatz. And such knowledge can only but civilize me, make me overly critical but also give me an unending faith that well, someday there might be someone who I could exchange ideas with in the chavista camp. I do not think there is such a person but my own nature stops me from ever closing the door.
So I will go along the way I go, not worrying whether I have 5, 50 or 500 readers. Writing on France one day, on a Chavez infamous video another day, and perhaps even someday writing about what should be done about Venezuela, whenever I think that actually something can be done. When you look at the destruction done by Chavez this week, you know that the moment is getting farther and farther in time. But I can still explain and illustrate why Venezuela is passing away. That is what scares chavistas away the most from this blog.
-The end-
Sarkozy Royal to the finish line
The second round vote campaign has not been disappointing, and unusually rich in "péripéties".
As the interested reader might remember, we had left the hero of the first round, François Bayrou, courted by all sides. Well, he seems to have gone for the charms of Ségolène but it seems that his voters are not. Polls have been stubborn: Sarkozy has kept a 4 to 8 points lead for the past two weeks, even after the presidential debate of Wednesday. In fact, as I thought it would be the case, the debate seems to have helped Sarkozy even if he did not win outright.
I missed the first 2/3 of the debate. But the last third was enough for me: Segolene Royal came across as the school marm that would be berating France for the next 5 years whereas Sarkozy came much softer than what the Socialist attacks wanted us to believe he is. If Segolene could show that she could hold her own on a debate of such importance, Nicolas was definitely the guy you wanted to go out for "un verre au bistro" after the said debate. And that was all that Sarkozy needed. Royal needed more.
The debate was in fact good (I watched part of the earlier part in a rebroadcast). It lasted over two hours and contrary to stuffy US presidential debates, the two candidates were allowed to talk to each other, to actually attack (with all polite forms respected) each other. It was quite refreshing to see them expose themselves to such a democratic exercise, something that is not seen in the US except in early primary rounds, and that is never seen in Venezuela (and unthinkable with Chavez!).
The issues were the same, Royal more principled, Sarkozy more innovative. But where Royal sort of lost the debate, and me, was on a certain dogmatism from her part. Sarkozy came surprising as more statesman than Royal (gender considerations taken, of course). Royal would do a great Prime Minister but Sarkozy showed more presidential timber (though not much, I am still weary of his adventurer side).
In my case it was not necessary Royal faults that made me decide for Sarkozy, but Chavez. Poor Ségolène started using words such as changing institutions, a 6th Republic, participatory democracy and that was the end. That she used that in a presidential debate instead of campaign trail fodder showed that she believed too much this crap and I have seen the result of this crap in Venezuela. Oh, yes, France political culture is way more sophisticated than Venezuela and institutions infinitely sturdier, but such words these days give me eczema. Eventually it came down to this: the only reason I was still thinking about voting for Royal was to have a French female president. Call it sexism in reverse if you please. Thus when characters are considered and proposal feasibility assessed, the choice for me became Sarkozy. Just as I had expected for weeks: the debate for me would be the deciding point. There is a difference however: whichever of the two candidates win I will be OK.
And the prospects? I am not too confident of polls anyway.
Bayrou has all but called his people to vote for Royal. His sneaky maneuvering and his carelessly advanced pseudo indecision might have hurt him a lot! I do not know what his followers will end up doing anyway, even if they decide to vote. And Le Pen call for a "massive abstention" is his sloppy way to be present at the second round vote by dropping on his own participation by at least 10 points. I think both were wrong in their strategy and both will get out diminished. If Sarkozy wins, Bayrou people would have gone to the right above their leader head, a very bad way to start a new political party.... If 80% of French vote then Le Pen would have failed even more and Sarkozy would be a shoo in.
But if participation drops below 80% all bets are off and no matter what the polls say Royal could win with the narrowest of margins, just to lose the legislative vote a month after and become Bayrou hostage for 5 years. The behaviour of the Bayrou voters is just too unpredictable and they will really decide the election. Their effect will be felt more if many Le Pen and Bayrou voters abstain.
At any rate, it seems that Sarkozy should win. I think he will beat Royal by 6 points, 53 to 47. That is an excellent result in France.
-The end-
As the interested reader might remember, we had left the hero of the first round, François Bayrou, courted by all sides. Well, he seems to have gone for the charms of Ségolène but it seems that his voters are not. Polls have been stubborn: Sarkozy has kept a 4 to 8 points lead for the past two weeks, even after the presidential debate of Wednesday. In fact, as I thought it would be the case, the debate seems to have helped Sarkozy even if he did not win outright.
I missed the first 2/3 of the debate. But the last third was enough for me: Segolene Royal came across as the school marm that would be berating France for the next 5 years whereas Sarkozy came much softer than what the Socialist attacks wanted us to believe he is. If Segolene could show that she could hold her own on a debate of such importance, Nicolas was definitely the guy you wanted to go out for "un verre au bistro" after the said debate. And that was all that Sarkozy needed. Royal needed more.
The debate was in fact good (I watched part of the earlier part in a rebroadcast). It lasted over two hours and contrary to stuffy US presidential debates, the two candidates were allowed to talk to each other, to actually attack (with all polite forms respected) each other. It was quite refreshing to see them expose themselves to such a democratic exercise, something that is not seen in the US except in early primary rounds, and that is never seen in Venezuela (and unthinkable with Chavez!).
The issues were the same, Royal more principled, Sarkozy more innovative. But where Royal sort of lost the debate, and me, was on a certain dogmatism from her part. Sarkozy came surprising as more statesman than Royal (gender considerations taken, of course). Royal would do a great Prime Minister but Sarkozy showed more presidential timber (though not much, I am still weary of his adventurer side).
In my case it was not necessary Royal faults that made me decide for Sarkozy, but Chavez. Poor Ségolène started using words such as changing institutions, a 6th Republic, participatory democracy and that was the end. That she used that in a presidential debate instead of campaign trail fodder showed that she believed too much this crap and I have seen the result of this crap in Venezuela. Oh, yes, France political culture is way more sophisticated than Venezuela and institutions infinitely sturdier, but such words these days give me eczema. Eventually it came down to this: the only reason I was still thinking about voting for Royal was to have a French female president. Call it sexism in reverse if you please. Thus when characters are considered and proposal feasibility assessed, the choice for me became Sarkozy. Just as I had expected for weeks: the debate for me would be the deciding point. There is a difference however: whichever of the two candidates win I will be OK.
And the prospects? I am not too confident of polls anyway.
Bayrou has all but called his people to vote for Royal. His sneaky maneuvering and his carelessly advanced pseudo indecision might have hurt him a lot! I do not know what his followers will end up doing anyway, even if they decide to vote. And Le Pen call for a "massive abstention" is his sloppy way to be present at the second round vote by dropping on his own participation by at least 10 points. I think both were wrong in their strategy and both will get out diminished. If Sarkozy wins, Bayrou people would have gone to the right above their leader head, a very bad way to start a new political party.... If 80% of French vote then Le Pen would have failed even more and Sarkozy would be a shoo in.
But if participation drops below 80% all bets are off and no matter what the polls say Royal could win with the narrowest of margins, just to lose the legislative vote a month after and become Bayrou hostage for 5 years. The behaviour of the Bayrou voters is just too unpredictable and they will really decide the election. Their effect will be felt more if many Le Pen and Bayrou voters abstain.
At any rate, it seems that Sarkozy should win. I think he will beat Royal by 6 points, 53 to 47. That is an excellent result in France.
-The end-
TV battles in Venezuela, according to Weil
Weil, the Tal Cual cartoon editorialist, surprises us with two back to back cartoons that say it all about Venezuelan TV. First the quality of state TV. The anthropomorphic consequences of watching frequently VTV, ViVe, ANTV or TelSur: you turn into a gorilla, the appellation for the military thugs that used to rule over us and that we thought we had overcome 50 years ago.
The next cartoon is as precise. Only Globovision and RCTV stand to Chavez military regime. RCTV has the gun pointed to shoot on May 28. Venevision, Televen and other private or public networks have long caved in to the will of Chavez to support him non stop or at least to stay moot on governmental abuses and failures (when not in open collusion as Venevision chief, Bardasano, has been exposed though a delicious sound track that he tries to claim was a "montage", the same word and the same vehemence that chavistas use when caught red handed). Globovision is of course next.
-The end-
The next cartoon is as precise. Only Globovision and RCTV stand to Chavez military regime. RCTV has the gun pointed to shoot on May 28. Venevision, Televen and other private or public networks have long caved in to the will of Chavez to support him non stop or at least to stay moot on governmental abuses and failures (when not in open collusion as Venevision chief, Bardasano, has been exposed though a delicious sound track that he tries to claim was a "montage", the same word and the same vehemence that chavistas use when caught red handed). Globovision is of course next.
-The end-
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
From Athens to Caracas
I did take advantage of the May 1 holiday falling on a Tuesday and skipped work for a long weekend in the middle of nowhere, no Internet included. The mental rest has been wonderful even through a distant echo I heard that Chavez has again being hurling insults and taking credit for things he should not. So, what else is new? Did I really miss anything? Bozo in his usual vulgar splendor.
It was a good opportunity to catch up some with reading. In between long walks in the woods, dodging snakes and “bachacos”, and some rustic gastronomical activities I went for Thomas Cahill: “Sailing the wine-dark sea”. The book is subtitled “why the Greek matters” and indeed they do matter more today than they did perhaps a century ago. I will spare the reader an angry tirade on how is it possible that Cahill does not mention the naval battle of Salamis, equally ignored by the rather infamous movie “300”. However the book is perfect reading for a restful week end and even gave me the opportunity to write this post by quoting form page 112 of the soft cover edition in my hands. No comment will be needed for the enlightened reader.
Jump a couple of millennia, do the necessary adjustments, and images of a certain country and its tyrannos will come to mind.
And chavistas think they have invented even sliced bread…
-The end-
It was a good opportunity to catch up some with reading. In between long walks in the woods, dodging snakes and “bachacos”, and some rustic gastronomical activities I went for Thomas Cahill: “Sailing the wine-dark sea”. The book is subtitled “why the Greek matters” and indeed they do matter more today than they did perhaps a century ago. I will spare the reader an angry tirade on how is it possible that Cahill does not mention the naval battle of Salamis, equally ignored by the rather infamous movie “300”. However the book is perfect reading for a restful week end and even gave me the opportunity to write this post by quoting form page 112 of the soft cover edition in my hands. No comment will be needed for the enlightened reader.
Pisistratus [last tyrant of Athens] staged an attempt on his own life and in the ensuing chaos pushed the Assembly into voting him a bodyguard which he then used […] to seize the Acropolis, the lofty citadel that loomed over the city. Declaring himself tyrant, [a word without the same connotation then as today, milder, more like autocrat?] Pisistratus was subsequently driven out by a temporary alliance of Coastmen and Plainsmen [2 of the 3 sort of political parties of the time], an alliance that frayed soon enough, plunging Athens into tumult once more. Here was Pisitratus’s opportunity. He made a sensational return in a golden chariot accompanied by an extraordinary tall and beautiful young woman dressed in full battle armor, who he announced was the goddess Athena come to restore order to her city. Simple people knelt along Pisistratus’s parade, raised their arms, and gave thanks in the streets. Though only the most credulous members of the Assembly could be counted on to swallow such nonsense, there were, as there often are, quite enough of them to ensure initial political victory to an unscrupulous liar who piously invoked the powers of heaven. Only later, when the damage is done, do such dodos of democracy regret allowing themselves to be so easily taken in.
Jump a couple of millennia, do the necessary adjustments, and images of a certain country and its tyrannos will come to mind.
And chavistas think they have invented even sliced bread…
-The end-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)