A few weeks ago I posted a review on the documentary "La Lista". Said documentary, far from the embellishments of pro Chavez videos such as "The Revolution will not be televised", described in acute details how chavismo established a political apartheid based originally on those who signed to ask for a Recall Election against Chavez in 2003.
Slowly but surely that incredible and disgusting story is getting the attention it deserves. The delay was long because simply put, civilized countries cannot believe that a "democratic" government would blacklist 30% of its citizens (and growing!) Not to mention the incompetence of the opposition in not sensing the advantage they could take from that (and the fear of the victims, well shown on the video, to go for redress to a pro Chavez judicial system).
Now, not only the European Union report on the December 2005 elections in Venezuela addresses specifically the by product of the Tascon list, now become the Maisanta program with all Venezuelan electros and their "political activities", but folks such as the e-zine Hispalibertas asked me to translate my post on "La Lista". This request from which I am greatly honored, forced me to even redo the art work as all had to be in Spanish. But in a way it was fun because now under the captions of Chavez pictures, the reader can see the actual fascistic words that Chavez pronounced at that precise moment in time, recognizing the criminal he is for allowing deliberately such an instrument to be established by his sycophantic followers.
So now you do have the two versions of the reviews to transmit the unbelievers of your choice. I was also told that portions of La Lista are becoming available on the net. Soon you might not even have to buy the video though purchasing it will help the civil liberties actions of Ciudadania Activa.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
What is chavismo smoking?
This is the question that one can ask after more and more days like this last Tuesday. Chavismo never stingy in its displays of intolerance and inanity regaled us yesterday with yet more fodder for “Ripley’s believe it or not”. Let’s look at a few tableaux:
One for self-vilification: Arias Cardenas as UN ambassador
Francisco Arias Cárdenas, ex 1992 conspirator, ex cell mate of Chavez, ex governor of Zulia, ex artifice of the 1998 Chavez victory, ex opponent of Chavez in 2000, ex sworn enemy of the dictator in the making, ex intriguer so desperate to come back to the chavista ranks that he destroyed the political party he built to run against Chavez, ex scorned candidate for chavismo in 2005, has now finally made it back into the fold of chavismo as he becomes the new ambassador to the UN. The undignified way through which Arias came back is worthy of a modern morality play as to how El Supremo breaks the will and honor of his opponents. Assuming of course that Arias had will and honor to start with. I am pretty sure that Chavez must have been beaming inside as he swore in Arias, the more so that many inside chavismo dared to complain about the “good fortune” of Arias. With one Machiavellian stroke, Chavez put all of his sycophants on short notice that he is the sole dispenser of punishment and forgiveness. He is good!
Will Arias write again for El Universal?
One for inanity: Sanmartiniano
Tuesday swearing in was yet another excuse for Chavez to utter an excruciatingly long speech with all of his ministers in attendance (do they ever have time to work?). He was demanding his new ambassadors to propagate the words of the revolution that will free all of LatAm and the world. Or something to that effect. Among the banalities exposed was a list of the heroes but with a twist: they were listed according to the ideology they supposedly represented to the people they freed. Thus adjectives were built to link a liberation theology to the liberator: e.g. Bolivar-iano. We did get sanmartiniano as of San Martin the hero of Argentinean independence (he did stumble at O’Higgins though, not daring to make it an adjective). The only problem is that Chavez got it wrong as San Martin was at least for a while partisan of creating a South American monarchy. Wiser than Bolivar, he eventually left for peaceful exile in Europe rather than dealing with the petty intrigues of folks at home.
Can anyone give Chavez adequate cue cards?
One for freedom of information: reporters banned from Caracas slums
The latest ill aimed attack on freedom of information came when the army expelled the independent press from crumbling Caracas slum. Globovision could not cover the removal of people out of sliding down mountain Gramoven (above the recently collapsed bridge) and RCTV was on his own banned from Tacagua. Of course they wanted to report on how for security reasons the government is trying to “convince” people to leave the area but is not giving them the means to do so in a dignified way. Not good “in the news” for an electoral year.
Does Lara, the new communication minister, send us a clue as to what will come?
One for self delusion: Rodriguez political speech
Jorge Rodriguez departure (?) from the CNE is giving us quite a continuous show. Journalists were curious as preparations were made on Tuesday early at the CNE doors to welcome a “spontaneous” rally to support Rodriguez. The “spontaneous” rally did arrive and Rodriguez did come out to make a political and partisan speech most unbecoming for the head umpire of the electoral system (he is still the head until sometime in May, you know). The positive aspect is that for those that still think Rodriguez was impartial, it will suffice to show them the tape to shut them up. For the rest of us is the realization that only an unstable shrink could have attempted such a double game for so long (though the strain did show during his speech). Interestingly the “spontaneous” supporting crowd did attack the press covering the rally. When journalists tried to seek refuge inside the CNE, the CNE security actually tried to bar them from entry. Thus the CNE, the institution that supposedly belongs to all of us could not help it and showed its support to Chavez, the boss. All as seen on TV.
Free and fair elections anyone?
One for self-vilification: Arias Cardenas as UN ambassador
Francisco Arias Cárdenas, ex 1992 conspirator, ex cell mate of Chavez, ex governor of Zulia, ex artifice of the 1998 Chavez victory, ex opponent of Chavez in 2000, ex sworn enemy of the dictator in the making, ex intriguer so desperate to come back to the chavista ranks that he destroyed the political party he built to run against Chavez, ex scorned candidate for chavismo in 2005, has now finally made it back into the fold of chavismo as he becomes the new ambassador to the UN. The undignified way through which Arias came back is worthy of a modern morality play as to how El Supremo breaks the will and honor of his opponents. Assuming of course that Arias had will and honor to start with. I am pretty sure that Chavez must have been beaming inside as he swore in Arias, the more so that many inside chavismo dared to complain about the “good fortune” of Arias. With one Machiavellian stroke, Chavez put all of his sycophants on short notice that he is the sole dispenser of punishment and forgiveness. He is good!
Will Arias write again for El Universal?
One for inanity: Sanmartiniano
Tuesday swearing in was yet another excuse for Chavez to utter an excruciatingly long speech with all of his ministers in attendance (do they ever have time to work?). He was demanding his new ambassadors to propagate the words of the revolution that will free all of LatAm and the world. Or something to that effect. Among the banalities exposed was a list of the heroes but with a twist: they were listed according to the ideology they supposedly represented to the people they freed. Thus adjectives were built to link a liberation theology to the liberator: e.g. Bolivar-iano. We did get sanmartiniano as of San Martin the hero of Argentinean independence (he did stumble at O’Higgins though, not daring to make it an adjective). The only problem is that Chavez got it wrong as San Martin was at least for a while partisan of creating a South American monarchy. Wiser than Bolivar, he eventually left for peaceful exile in Europe rather than dealing with the petty intrigues of folks at home.
Can anyone give Chavez adequate cue cards?
One for freedom of information: reporters banned from Caracas slums
The latest ill aimed attack on freedom of information came when the army expelled the independent press from crumbling Caracas slum. Globovision could not cover the removal of people out of sliding down mountain Gramoven (above the recently collapsed bridge) and RCTV was on his own banned from Tacagua. Of course they wanted to report on how for security reasons the government is trying to “convince” people to leave the area but is not giving them the means to do so in a dignified way. Not good “in the news” for an electoral year.
Does Lara, the new communication minister, send us a clue as to what will come?
One for self delusion: Rodriguez political speech
Jorge Rodriguez departure (?) from the CNE is giving us quite a continuous show. Journalists were curious as preparations were made on Tuesday early at the CNE doors to welcome a “spontaneous” rally to support Rodriguez. The “spontaneous” rally did arrive and Rodriguez did come out to make a political and partisan speech most unbecoming for the head umpire of the electoral system (he is still the head until sometime in May, you know). The positive aspect is that for those that still think Rodriguez was impartial, it will suffice to show them the tape to shut them up. For the rest of us is the realization that only an unstable shrink could have attempted such a double game for so long (though the strain did show during his speech). Interestingly the “spontaneous” supporting crowd did attack the press covering the rally. When journalists tried to seek refuge inside the CNE, the CNE security actually tried to bar them from entry. Thus the CNE, the institution that supposedly belongs to all of us could not help it and showed its support to Chavez, the boss. All as seen on TV.
Free and fair elections anyone?
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Reactionary revolutions
No, the title is not an oxymoron.
I came up with it watching the news from France where for the first time perhaps in its history people are rioting in the streets to make sure that nothing changes. Yes, that is right. In front of a stubborn youth unemployment, in particular at that crucial “first job” period, the government
tries a rather timid and not well timed program. As a result, the people that are supposed to be the ones who would benefit from that initiative are the ones rioting in the streets while supporting students are been manipulated by the left and trade unions that have not been able to have a single good idea in 10 years. They have managed, with the help of the reactionary and nationalistic right, to screw up the European constitution and now they are trying to maintain a timid, shivering France as far away as possible from the world challenges.
Meanwhile, there is the UK, which has long gone through the painful changes, that keeps forging ahead. Across the border Germany slowly digests East Germany while it sees all of Eastern Europe opening to its economy with their crazed dash to modernity certainly stirring in Germany the changes it has to do to become again the main motor of Europe. Yes, all of these changes are giving Germany and the UK the edge over any other countries in Europe while a scared France remains frozen in place and will even be caught up by Spain who had no problems voting for Europe (if Spain holds together which is another story).
Yes, it is more complex than that but France is showing more and more that it is unable to tinker with a social system that has run its course, a social system that is leaving France with a class structure that bars immigrant’s children from integrating its society, a system where the youth from more established groups are seeking to validate entitlements instead of seeking adventure. That is why France voted against Europe, why last falls thousands of cars where burned in the streets and why now students are marching so as to make sure that nothing changes. Those are reactionary times and the only surprise is that the reaction is now coming from the left. At least in 1789 street rioting came from people that wanted bread.
But is this a unique phenomenon? No, it is also up to a point what is happening in Venezuela. It might not be as obvious in our case, but chavismo is very much a reactionary movement, a look to our past and a desire to go back to “halcyon” days that were never halcyon. In Chavez we
have a caudillo, just as those who gave peace to Venezuela by imposing their will. In those days if you did not do politics and followed all the dictates you were assured sustenance. Or so some want to think. With Chavez controlling oil personally many also think that it will be like good days of old where proximity to the leader ensured that you to receive the occasional gift. Democracy? What a crazy idea! Back to the Cacique rule!
Still not convinced? I realized this reaction to its full impact and implications when Maria Lourdes Urbaneja was Health Minister. Then she was in charge of establishing a new pension plan in agreement with the 1999 constitution (we are still waiting for it and 2 ministers have rotated in the chair since Urbaneja). She was interviewed then as to the great plan her office was coming up with. But the interviewer managed to have her say that her wonderful plan would not apply to the Central University professors, from where she came. They would keep their own plan, much better of course “they have acquired these benefits and cannot surrender them” were more or less her words. Change is good for the others, not for the ones that managed UNDER the old regime to get privileges and that intend to write them in stone under the new regime.
And this is what many in the chavista “elite” fight for, to enshrine their privileges, past of present, regardless of the ability of the country to afford it. That is why they are preparing themselves to go back to old and antiquated labor laws that were modified in the mid 90ies because the State was unable to fulfill its commitment to its own workers. It failed to do so but the people in charge now think they know better than the laws of economics. Thus why the chavista elite forges ahead in re-creating a welfare state that only existed in the imaginary before Chavez came to power, a welfare state that failed in spite of oil money because of inefficiency and corruption just as chavismo is outdoing any form of incompetence and corruption that we have ever seen in our rich past on that matter. And to make sure that the world will not force on us the necessary changes we are giving money away to other countries to create a Latin Block that will revolt against the Imperial US, perceived justly or wrongly as the harbinger of changes. Revolutionary Autarchy lead by our benevolent caudillo can only be better, while the same caudillo sends to the US all the oil it can to gain the dollars he needs to fight the US.
Yes, chavismo is quite a reactionary movement who looks to the past be it to add as tar in its flag or to dream of a rural world that never existed in Venezuela. It is a movement that denies individual freedom and initiative to put it all under the “collective” will enshrined into a single man. We are back to the XIX century and just a step away from colonial times where the ruler lived in Spain deciding what social class was allowed to wear a coat in Caracas.
Post Data:
These ideas of modern “reactionary revolutions” are not that novel. I have considered chavismo as a reactionary movement long ago and even wrote on it on my blog somewhere.
In an interview in El Nacional de Oteyza from the UCAB expressed such views as early as April 2003 (and held them earlier). I have sought that interview and posted it in my document blog. In there she states a few pearls such as:
Now that I reread my post I can supplement it with these two pieces that show that I am not the only one thinking along those lines, fortunately. Be them neo liberal thinkers as Romero or liberals like this blogger (US sense, just in case). The failure of a certain left to get on with world changes is pathetic to see for many of us.
I came up with it watching the news from France where for the first time perhaps in its history people are rioting in the streets to make sure that nothing changes. Yes, that is right. In front of a stubborn youth unemployment, in particular at that crucial “first job” period, the government
tries a rather timid and not well timed program. As a result, the people that are supposed to be the ones who would benefit from that initiative are the ones rioting in the streets while supporting students are been manipulated by the left and trade unions that have not been able to have a single good idea in 10 years. They have managed, with the help of the reactionary and nationalistic right, to screw up the European constitution and now they are trying to maintain a timid, shivering France as far away as possible from the world challenges.Meanwhile, there is the UK, which has long gone through the painful changes, that keeps forging ahead. Across the border Germany slowly digests East Germany while it sees all of Eastern Europe opening to its economy with their crazed dash to modernity certainly stirring in Germany the changes it has to do to become again the main motor of Europe. Yes, all of these changes are giving Germany and the UK the edge over any other countries in Europe while a scared France remains frozen in place and will even be caught up by Spain who had no problems voting for Europe (if Spain holds together which is another story).
Yes, it is more complex than that but France is showing more and more that it is unable to tinker with a social system that has run its course, a social system that is leaving France with a class structure that bars immigrant’s children from integrating its society, a system where the youth from more established groups are seeking to validate entitlements instead of seeking adventure. That is why France voted against Europe, why last falls thousands of cars where burned in the streets and why now students are marching so as to make sure that nothing changes. Those are reactionary times and the only surprise is that the reaction is now coming from the left. At least in 1789 street rioting came from people that wanted bread.
But is this a unique phenomenon? No, it is also up to a point what is happening in Venezuela. It might not be as obvious in our case, but chavismo is very much a reactionary movement, a look to our past and a desire to go back to “halcyon” days that were never halcyon. In Chavez we
have a caudillo, just as those who gave peace to Venezuela by imposing their will. In those days if you did not do politics and followed all the dictates you were assured sustenance. Or so some want to think. With Chavez controlling oil personally many also think that it will be like good days of old where proximity to the leader ensured that you to receive the occasional gift. Democracy? What a crazy idea! Back to the Cacique rule!Still not convinced? I realized this reaction to its full impact and implications when Maria Lourdes Urbaneja was Health Minister. Then she was in charge of establishing a new pension plan in agreement with the 1999 constitution (we are still waiting for it and 2 ministers have rotated in the chair since Urbaneja). She was interviewed then as to the great plan her office was coming up with. But the interviewer managed to have her say that her wonderful plan would not apply to the Central University professors, from where she came. They would keep their own plan, much better of course “they have acquired these benefits and cannot surrender them” were more or less her words. Change is good for the others, not for the ones that managed UNDER the old regime to get privileges and that intend to write them in stone under the new regime.
And this is what many in the chavista “elite” fight for, to enshrine their privileges, past of present, regardless of the ability of the country to afford it. That is why they are preparing themselves to go back to old and antiquated labor laws that were modified in the mid 90ies because the State was unable to fulfill its commitment to its own workers. It failed to do so but the people in charge now think they know better than the laws of economics. Thus why the chavista elite forges ahead in re-creating a welfare state that only existed in the imaginary before Chavez came to power, a welfare state that failed in spite of oil money because of inefficiency and corruption just as chavismo is outdoing any form of incompetence and corruption that we have ever seen in our rich past on that matter. And to make sure that the world will not force on us the necessary changes we are giving money away to other countries to create a Latin Block that will revolt against the Imperial US, perceived justly or wrongly as the harbinger of changes. Revolutionary Autarchy lead by our benevolent caudillo can only be better, while the same caudillo sends to the US all the oil it can to gain the dollars he needs to fight the US.
Yes, chavismo is quite a reactionary movement who looks to the past be it to add as tar in its flag or to dream of a rural world that never existed in Venezuela. It is a movement that denies individual freedom and initiative to put it all under the “collective” will enshrined into a single man. We are back to the XIX century and just a step away from colonial times where the ruler lived in Spain deciding what social class was allowed to wear a coat in Caracas.
Post Data:
These ideas of modern “reactionary revolutions” are not that novel. I have considered chavismo as a reactionary movement long ago and even wrote on it on my blog somewhere.
In an interview in El Nacional de Oteyza from the UCAB expressed such views as early as April 2003 (and held them earlier). I have sought that interview and posted it in my document blog. In there she states a few pearls such as:
The project of Chavez is conservative to the hilt, reactionary; the revolution is only a decoration.I did forget while I was writing this post to recognize the great article from Anibal Romero in El Nacional last Wednesday. In fact it is that article that prodded me to write on this to tie the two reactionary movements described above. His article is aptly titled “Tin foil Robespierre” as an unwanted homage to what a real revolutionary would do. Reposted here and worth very much reading.
This return to a rural life is very close to fundamentalism, because it is a confrontation between the oriental and western cultures and between modernization and tradition.
Deep inside [Chavez] it is a political reaction to political modernization, that is implied in decentralization, the election of governors, getting the citizen closer to power.
Now that I reread my post I can supplement it with these two pieces that show that I am not the only one thinking along those lines, fortunately. Be them neo liberal thinkers as Romero or liberals like this blogger (US sense, just in case). The failure of a certain left to get on with world changes is pathetic to see for many of us.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Corruption free for all in Venezuela
This blogger was busy with family obligations these days. Which left a lot of stuff on the docket as suddenly corruption in Venezuela becomes an even hotter issue. Why! With chavistas now attacking each other on corruption, one wonders what is going on under the surface, to the point that some already state that the recent "attack on corruption" might just be an electoral strategy as the numbers supporting Chavez are failing to reach the stratospheric levels of 10 million votes sought.
And speaking of stratospheric, in his Sunday babble show Alo Presidente, Chavez announced that he would not put up with the stratospheric real estate prices that come as a reaction of people speculating on their secondary home values now that the government is forced to buy them due to its sheer, spectacular, incompetence at building subsidized housing (apparently chavismo in 7 years has not been able to build half the subsidized housing Caldera built in the preceding 5 years with an oil price less than half of what Chavez benefited). In English here. I can see that as a new source of corruption: a house is worth 50, the "speculator" wants 80, the government wants to pay 40, the public official discreetly offers to sign the contract for 55 but 10 going to his own pocket, everyone is happy as the owner did not get completely expropriated, the state does look good "finding" houses at tax payer expenses and the corrupt public official gets a nice down payment for a car or a vacation in Miami (it seems that chavista servants much prefer Miami to Havana when they go on vacation).
But let’s worry only about the recent cases. Fortunately this blogger found a nice field guide to corruption in Venezuela written by Gustavo Coronel this week end. No need for me to elaborate, good thing I enjoyed my week end as procrastination pays once more.
But if truth be told, I did not want to discuss the misery of the Barinas case or the Velazquez Alvaray incredibly pathetic case. Let's observe first that Velazquez Alvaray former career as a representative in the National Assembly, until 2004, made him one of those who gladly ratified the "gag" law, one of those that had no qualms criticizing the "biased" coverage of Globovision, our 24 hours news channel. Then he became a high court Justice as his prize for all that servility which included offering a constitutional amendment to allow for unlimited reelection to his boss, El Supremo. Well, imagine that, Velazquez Alvaray seems to be camping at Globovision these days as he is trying desperately to justify his actions while chavismo seems to have thrown him to the wolves (show? real corruption? revenge? does it matter?). When one sees Velazquez Alvaray on Globovision one cannot but harbor an ironic smile (VTV and other pro Chavez media are not receiving him, nor other suspects such as Alabaran the recently sacked agriculture minister over the Barinas fiasco, but Globovision receives all, no wonder chavismo wants it shut down).
But the real question is: when one sees Velazquez Alvaray declaring on Globovision, in all luxury of details, how come someone as incompetent, as ill educated, as incoherent as he is made it to Venezuela's Highest Court of Justice? How come? What about the other justices? Into what hands Venezuela has fallen?
And speaking of stratospheric, in his Sunday babble show Alo Presidente, Chavez announced that he would not put up with the stratospheric real estate prices that come as a reaction of people speculating on their secondary home values now that the government is forced to buy them due to its sheer, spectacular, incompetence at building subsidized housing (apparently chavismo in 7 years has not been able to build half the subsidized housing Caldera built in the preceding 5 years with an oil price less than half of what Chavez benefited). In English here. I can see that as a new source of corruption: a house is worth 50, the "speculator" wants 80, the government wants to pay 40, the public official discreetly offers to sign the contract for 55 but 10 going to his own pocket, everyone is happy as the owner did not get completely expropriated, the state does look good "finding" houses at tax payer expenses and the corrupt public official gets a nice down payment for a car or a vacation in Miami (it seems that chavista servants much prefer Miami to Havana when they go on vacation).
But let’s worry only about the recent cases. Fortunately this blogger found a nice field guide to corruption in Venezuela written by Gustavo Coronel this week end. No need for me to elaborate, good thing I enjoyed my week end as procrastination pays once more.
But if truth be told, I did not want to discuss the misery of the Barinas case or the Velazquez Alvaray incredibly pathetic case. Let's observe first that Velazquez Alvaray former career as a representative in the National Assembly, until 2004, made him one of those who gladly ratified the "gag" law, one of those that had no qualms criticizing the "biased" coverage of Globovision, our 24 hours news channel. Then he became a high court Justice as his prize for all that servility which included offering a constitutional amendment to allow for unlimited reelection to his boss, El Supremo. Well, imagine that, Velazquez Alvaray seems to be camping at Globovision these days as he is trying desperately to justify his actions while chavismo seems to have thrown him to the wolves (show? real corruption? revenge? does it matter?). When one sees Velazquez Alvaray on Globovision one cannot but harbor an ironic smile (VTV and other pro Chavez media are not receiving him, nor other suspects such as Alabaran the recently sacked agriculture minister over the Barinas fiasco, but Globovision receives all, no wonder chavismo wants it shut down).
But the real question is: when one sees Velazquez Alvaray declaring on Globovision, in all luxury of details, how come someone as incompetent, as ill educated, as incoherent as he is made it to Venezuela's Highest Court of Justice? How come? What about the other justices? Into what hands Venezuela has fallen?
Friday, March 24, 2006
Jorge Rodriguez will not "run" for the CNE again
In yet another act of hypocrisy and utter self aggrandizement, Jorge Rodriguez announced a little while ago that the would not ask to be named to the new CNE in preparation.
[Brief break to shed a few crocodile tears, sniff, sniff...]
Let's be serious now, this does not change anything. The way the National Assembly is proceeding to name a new CNE does not allow us to hope for an improvement on that front. That is, the reasons why 50% of Venezuela does not trust the electoral system and are not planning to vote are still there and will not be changed no matter who they put to direct the CNE. In fact, even if by some disconcerting fluke the NA were to put a non or even anti Chavez person to lead the CNE, the result would be that the 50% chavistas would stop trusting the vote, plus a few on the other side not easily swayed by a cosmetic change.
No, the trust in the electoral system is too damaged by simply removing Jorge Rodriguez, no matter what a disgusting character he has come to be. Much, much more is needed.
But the interesting thing of today announcement by Jorgito the shrink is that he showed again that he is in bad need of a shrink himself. The tone of his announcement, the spiteful things he said were telling of his utter moral bankruptcy. It gives pena ajena(1) to read his words of self sufficiency and out of control ego.
And more that I have no stomach to detail.
The only thing that worries me is that he is rumored to become the next Vice President. Oh dear! But he does posses the cynicism of Jose Vicente Rangel, though not his craft.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1) pena ajena is used in Venezuela when we want to say that what someone did is so embarrassing that we are actually personally embarrassed for that person.
2) resentido social is how we describe in Venezuela people who hold a grudge against society and seek all their lives redress. It is a social resentment that defies logic, compassion, reconciliation. Chavismo is plagued by such people, just as chavismo is creating a new class of the same people in the opposition ranks.
[Brief break to shed a few crocodile tears, sniff, sniff...]
Let's be serious now, this does not change anything. The way the National Assembly is proceeding to name a new CNE does not allow us to hope for an improvement on that front. That is, the reasons why 50% of Venezuela does not trust the electoral system and are not planning to vote are still there and will not be changed no matter who they put to direct the CNE. In fact, even if by some disconcerting fluke the NA were to put a non or even anti Chavez person to lead the CNE, the result would be that the 50% chavistas would stop trusting the vote, plus a few on the other side not easily swayed by a cosmetic change.
No, the trust in the electoral system is too damaged by simply removing Jorge Rodriguez, no matter what a disgusting character he has come to be. Much, much more is needed.
But the interesting thing of today announcement by Jorgito the shrink is that he showed again that he is in bad need of a shrink himself. The tone of his announcement, the spiteful things he said were telling of his utter moral bankruptcy. It gives pena ajena(1) to read his words of self sufficiency and out of control ego.
“now it will take away the opposition excuses not to run” (as if he were the sole responsible party! The nerve!
“this exercise closes with great satisfaction, we met out goals in spite of adversity, the vilification and the most truant campaign against a public institution without being able to respond”. Well, besides the fact that he is responding with such a statement, he has gained his notorious infamous reputation on all the responses he gave during his contested tenure. But Rodriguez is a resentido social(2) and such people are never satisfied no matter how many opportunity to respond they are provided with.
And more that I have no stomach to detail.
The only thing that worries me is that he is rumored to become the next Vice President. Oh dear! But he does posses the cynicism of Jose Vicente Rangel, though not his craft.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1) pena ajena is used in Venezuela when we want to say that what someone did is so embarrassing that we are actually personally embarrassed for that person.
2) resentido social is how we describe in Venezuela people who hold a grudge against society and seek all their lives redress. It is a social resentment that defies logic, compassion, reconciliation. Chavismo is plagued by such people, just as chavismo is creating a new class of the same people in the opposition ranks.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Morning reading
Since I am leaving on a short trip, I thought that instead of discussing the latest scandal, the alleged corruption of Luis Velazquez Alvaray (the assemblyman that proposed unlimited reelection and that as a prize became one in the new batch of "objective" high court justices) I would leave the blog with a reading list based on what I saw this morning while drinking my tea.
Are Super Power needed?
Well, that article of the WSJ should indeed make more than one think about the need to have a super power, preferably the US, Iraq notwithstanding. "Hobbes in Sudan" is too close for comfort. When Chavez is backing up Iran, how close is he to back up the Khartoum rulers? Does he even know where the Darfur is, by the way?
Looking back to India
Peggy Noonan has je ne sais quoi very irking about her personality. Then again I have had always some problems with the self confident Reaganites, in particular when they tend to be more often right than wrong. Her thoughts about how India became independent and how distanced from reality elites become is worth while reading. note that she is not afraid to write a book review on a 30 year old book, the kind of thing that few can pull out as convincingly as she can. In "what nobody knows", Ms. Noonan rereads "Freedom at Midnight" where she points out how power create elites which lose touch with the common people. Exactly what is going on with Chavez these days as he tells his own supporters to shut up when they become to demanding in his Alo Presidente. A bolivarian elite of power has been created and it is following the road that all elites have followed.
And the small people against the elites
The WSJ now reviews the Glen Reynolds book, An Army of Davids (this blogger has had the honor to be cited more than once by Instapundit). It is certainly not a rousing endorsement, but a very favorable review anyway, by the WSJ (after all, blogs are a competition). Still, it is one of the best assessment of the just range that blogs can achieve. Not a real danger to newspapers (after all bloggers in general will never dispose of the investigative possibilities of a major paper) but rather an interesting complement as both learn to feed from each other.
And yes, I start my day reading the free articles that the WSJ sends to my mail box, being too expensive for me to subscribe too (currency control exchange, you know!), and having broken with the NYT years ago over Forero inane coverage of LatAm. It is also nicer to start the day in Venezuela with eh WSJ than with a Venezuelan newspaper: one needs that slow decompression time from a night of rest.
And while we look at the power of blogs
I have found a very nice article, very well written and very comprehensive on Venezuela. I highly recommend folks to go and visit Slaves of Academe where Oso Raro will regale you with an article even longer than what you find in these pages but much better written: "We don't need another hero".
Are Super Power needed?
Well, that article of the WSJ should indeed make more than one think about the need to have a super power, preferably the US, Iraq notwithstanding. "Hobbes in Sudan" is too close for comfort. When Chavez is backing up Iran, how close is he to back up the Khartoum rulers? Does he even know where the Darfur is, by the way?
Looking back to India
Peggy Noonan has je ne sais quoi very irking about her personality. Then again I have had always some problems with the self confident Reaganites, in particular when they tend to be more often right than wrong. Her thoughts about how India became independent and how distanced from reality elites become is worth while reading. note that she is not afraid to write a book review on a 30 year old book, the kind of thing that few can pull out as convincingly as she can. In "what nobody knows", Ms. Noonan rereads "Freedom at Midnight" where she points out how power create elites which lose touch with the common people. Exactly what is going on with Chavez these days as he tells his own supporters to shut up when they become to demanding in his Alo Presidente. A bolivarian elite of power has been created and it is following the road that all elites have followed.
And the small people against the elites
The WSJ now reviews the Glen Reynolds book, An Army of Davids (this blogger has had the honor to be cited more than once by Instapundit). It is certainly not a rousing endorsement, but a very favorable review anyway, by the WSJ (after all, blogs are a competition). Still, it is one of the best assessment of the just range that blogs can achieve. Not a real danger to newspapers (after all bloggers in general will never dispose of the investigative possibilities of a major paper) but rather an interesting complement as both learn to feed from each other.
And yes, I start my day reading the free articles that the WSJ sends to my mail box, being too expensive for me to subscribe too (currency control exchange, you know!), and having broken with the NYT years ago over Forero inane coverage of LatAm. It is also nicer to start the day in Venezuela with eh WSJ than with a Venezuelan newspaper: one needs that slow decompression time from a night of rest.
And while we look at the power of blogs
I have found a very nice article, very well written and very comprehensive on Venezuela. I highly recommend folks to go and visit Slaves of Academe where Oso Raro will regale you with an article even longer than what you find in these pages but much better written: "We don't need another hero".
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
The vulgarity of Chavez
There was a little but important item that I was wondering how to cover. Last Sunday, in his freak show Alo Presidente, Chavez insulted Bush. Grossly.
Mr.Deinyer = Mr. Danger = G.W.Bush in the chavista collective. Gross (and on purpose) mispronunciation of Chavez, based on a character of Doña Barbara. Translation (for those who do not get it at first, the worst insult possible that Chavez coudl say) : Mr. Bush, you are just a Hugo Chavez.
Now, there are indeed many reasons that one might push forward to criticize Bush, but as far as I know it is not for the president of any nation to insult the president of another nation. I mean, they might have to seat down at some point to negotiate something. After all, Chavez has Jose Vicente Rangel, his creepy vice president, that can do the job for him. So why did Chavez felt the urge to so grossly insult Bush? Though I kept this thought in mind I did not have time to seek for an explanation (viaduct, polls, work, personal travails). But procrastination pays and yesterday's Tal Cual editorial and Weil cartoon did the job for me. A simple translation will suffice.
Good and bad words
Simon Boccanegra
What is remarkable is that Teodoro Petkoff and Tulio Hernadez have never been characterized as hard core opposition, trying whenever they could to build bridges to chavismo. That they are concurring to such an interpretation is disturbing.
PS: I cannot fail to observe that this is exactly what happens in the comment section of opposition blogs, where many a chavista supporter goes for the character assassination or to link any opposition attitude to Bush loving. Birds of a feather.
PS2: And today Tal Cual cover carries this very non ambiguous picture supplemented with the ad hoc editorial of which I extract the following line: Each declaration from a gringo [sic] bureacrat or from Bush himself is heavenly music for Chavez.
PS3: Amazingly chavismo seems to be proud of Chavez utter vulgarity. Aporea is posting the snippet where Chavez insults Bush (click below the title of the article "escuche al presidente Chavez"). Now, some of these insults might meet the approval of many readers, but that is not the point. You need to focus on the tone of Chavez as he speaks, the deliberate provocation, the thoughtful rabble raising. Chilling!!! [hat tip Virginia]
Mr.Deinyer = Mr. Danger = G.W.Bush in the chavista collective. Gross (and on purpose) mispronunciation of Chavez, based on a character of Doña Barbara. Translation (for those who do not get it at first, the worst insult possible that Chavez coudl say) : Mr. Bush, you are just a Hugo Chavez.
Now, there are indeed many reasons that one might push forward to criticize Bush, but as far as I know it is not for the president of any nation to insult the president of another nation. I mean, they might have to seat down at some point to negotiate something. After all, Chavez has Jose Vicente Rangel, his creepy vice president, that can do the job for him. So why did Chavez felt the urge to so grossly insult Bush? Though I kept this thought in mind I did not have time to seek for an explanation (viaduct, polls, work, personal travails). But procrastination pays and yesterday's Tal Cual editorial and Weil cartoon did the job for me. A simple translation will suffice.
Good and bad words
Simon Boccanegra
Can one imagine the amazement and stupefaction of some kid that would have listened to the President last Sunday in his weekly show? A worse example of bad manners, intolerance and aggressiveness would be difficult to remember from the already abundant harvest of vulgarities that have characterized the language of the President. That the President replies to Bush is normal since this one had criticized him a few days earlier. But courtesy does not distract from courage. Any justified argument that Chavez might have had to retort to his colleague is lost when arguments and reasoning are replaced by personal insults. However we must not fool ourselves. The foul language that Chavez uses so abundantly cannot be seen as a mere explosion f his temperament. To the contrary, it is a perfectly calculated attitude, to reduce politics to an emission of personal attacks, removing any trace of debate and rational arguing. The same behavior applies to his internal adversaries. Tulio Hernadez in his excellent article of El Nacional last Sunday writes: “we are in front of an operation […] that expresses openly the will not to live together, not to dialogue, and to bring society to the maximum atmosphere of tension to justify the imminent steps to be taken to control over daily life.” In this case there is also an electoral objective extremely perverse: to create a state of such confrontation (verbal, by the way) that it will allow for a false dilemma “Chavez or Bush”. Any who opposes Chavez would be a Bush lackey. Will that be the tone of the electoral campaign?
What is remarkable is that Teodoro Petkoff and Tulio Hernadez have never been characterized as hard core opposition, trying whenever they could to build bridges to chavismo. That they are concurring to such an interpretation is disturbing.
PS: I cannot fail to observe that this is exactly what happens in the comment section of opposition blogs, where many a chavista supporter goes for the character assassination or to link any opposition attitude to Bush loving. Birds of a feather.
PS2: And today Tal Cual cover carries this very non ambiguous picture supplemented with the ad hoc editorial of which I extract the following line: Each declaration from a gringo [sic] bureacrat or from Bush himself is heavenly music for Chavez.
PS3: Amazingly chavismo seems to be proud of Chavez utter vulgarity. Aporea is posting the snippet where Chavez insults Bush (click below the title of the article "escuche al presidente Chavez"). Now, some of these insults might meet the approval of many readers, but that is not the point. You need to focus on the tone of Chavez as he speaks, the deliberate provocation, the thoughtful rabble raising. Chilling!!! [hat tip Virginia]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)