It is my understanding that Chavez came into power because the disparity between the very wealthy and the very poor became so great that the small minority of “rich” people could not stop the HUGE majority of poor people from winning even a rigged election. Then the minority party, as a form of protest, did not run any candidates claiming all elections would be rigged. Perhaps they would have been. But with no opposition candidates to oppose them, Chavez became the leader of a political oligarchy through a democratic process. He could have been a great leader, but he chose to be a populist leader and in so doing, became “President for Life”^. Sadly, he has left a legacy of poltical machinery that may or may not serve the people who supported Chavez. His death leaves a vacuum and his leadership leaves an absence of leaders in a nation whose democratic history is filled with abuses.^Mr. Alacaraz’s cartoon reminds us of the adage, One nation’s traitor is another nation’s hero. Chavez and Che helped some people realize their dreams by destroying the dreams of others. It is an object lesson for our own leaders and our party system.^Having two healthy parties with a majority of moderate members prevents any one party from political abuses. Using legislation to protect and empower the very rich while failing to give hope and potential to people in the middle and poor classes is not wise. And failing to respect and include minorities and the disenfranchised is equally unwise. Respectfully,C.
Here the dreams of a scant few are realized while millions of other Americans have seen the glimpse of the middle class American dream slip through their fingers. During mid century was when The USA’s Chicago school of Finance went to South America, took down Democracies and put in place men who would do their particular financial dream of rich capitalists and inflation of milk and bread would cost thousands of what ever type local money they had.
Hugo wanted Venezuela to have 51% control of the country’s oil. Still plenty of profit for the US oil industry….." Previous administrations had sought to privatise this industry, with U.S. corporations having a significant level of control, but the Chávez administration wished to curb this foreign control over the country’s natural resources by nationalising much of it under the state-run oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PdVSA). In 2001, the government introduced a new Hydrocarbons Law through which they sought to gain greater state control over the oil industry: they did this by raising royalty taxes on the oil companies and also by introducing the formation of “mixed companies”, whereby the PdVSA could have joint control with private companies over industry. By 2006, all of the 32 operating agreements signed with private corporations during the 1990s had been converted from being primarily or solely corporate-run to being at least 51% controlled by PdVSA."………
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez#.22Socialism_of_the_21st_century.22……….Raising royalties, maintaining 51% control of mineral wealth = 440% per capita growth in 15 years…… sounds pretty good.
I may not have lived in Venezuela but I have lived and worked over seven years throughout the Carribean, two years in Haiti under Baby Doc, Simone and the Tontons Macoute. Yes, the crime rate, the politics, the healthcare, the inefficiency, it’s all very frustrating but it’s their country. I’m grateful for my time there; say what you will, it was an adventure, never boring and made me appreciate the rights we have here.Jeff, the oil exports have quadrupled since Chavez took control.……….. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/oct/04/venezuela-hugo-chavez-election-data#zoomed-picture
Jeff Kiser: You mean like Koch and the 1% in this country? No one running against these crooks will get an inch or second of corporate media coverage. I, and my party, got on the ballot despite a Dem SLAPP suit, but League of Women Voters were the only ones who had me on their candidate survey, which explains why they are no longer permitted to run the presidential debates. (I filed as a Green against the leader of the Texas State Board of Education, which censors the textbooks of the country.)
chazandru about 11 years ago
It is my understanding that Chavez came into power because the disparity between the very wealthy and the very poor became so great that the small minority of “rich” people could not stop the HUGE majority of poor people from winning even a rigged election. Then the minority party, as a form of protest, did not run any candidates claiming all elections would be rigged. Perhaps they would have been. But with no opposition candidates to oppose them, Chavez became the leader of a political oligarchy through a democratic process. He could have been a great leader, but he chose to be a populist leader and in so doing, became “President for Life”^. Sadly, he has left a legacy of poltical machinery that may or may not serve the people who supported Chavez. His death leaves a vacuum and his leadership leaves an absence of leaders in a nation whose democratic history is filled with abuses.^Mr. Alacaraz’s cartoon reminds us of the adage, One nation’s traitor is another nation’s hero. Chavez and Che helped some people realize their dreams by destroying the dreams of others. It is an object lesson for our own leaders and our party system.^Having two healthy parties with a majority of moderate members prevents any one party from political abuses. Using legislation to protect and empower the very rich while failing to give hope and potential to people in the middle and poor classes is not wise. And failing to respect and include minorities and the disenfranchised is equally unwise. Respectfully,C.
cipactli77 about 11 years ago
Hasta Siempre Comandante!
pam Miner about 11 years ago
Here the dreams of a scant few are realized while millions of other Americans have seen the glimpse of the middle class American dream slip through their fingers. During mid century was when The USA’s Chicago school of Finance went to South America, took down Democracies and put in place men who would do their particular financial dream of rich capitalists and inflation of milk and bread would cost thousands of what ever type local money they had.
feverjr Premium Member about 11 years ago
Hugo wanted Venezuela to have 51% control of the country’s oil. Still plenty of profit for the US oil industry….." Previous administrations had sought to privatise this industry, with U.S. corporations having a significant level of control, but the Chávez administration wished to curb this foreign control over the country’s natural resources by nationalising much of it under the state-run oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PdVSA). In 2001, the government introduced a new Hydrocarbons Law through which they sought to gain greater state control over the oil industry: they did this by raising royalty taxes on the oil companies and also by introducing the formation of “mixed companies”, whereby the PdVSA could have joint control with private companies over industry. By 2006, all of the 32 operating agreements signed with private corporations during the 1990s had been converted from being primarily or solely corporate-run to being at least 51% controlled by PdVSA."………
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez#.22Socialism_of_the_21st_century.22……….Raising royalties, maintaining 51% control of mineral wealth = 440% per capita growth in 15 years…… sounds pretty good.
feverjr Premium Member about 11 years ago
I may not have lived in Venezuela but I have lived and worked over seven years throughout the Carribean, two years in Haiti under Baby Doc, Simone and the Tontons Macoute. Yes, the crime rate, the politics, the healthcare, the inefficiency, it’s all very frustrating but it’s their country. I’m grateful for my time there; say what you will, it was an adventure, never boring and made me appreciate the rights we have here.Jeff, the oil exports have quadrupled since Chavez took control.……….. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/oct/04/venezuela-hugo-chavez-election-data#zoomed-picture
hippogriff about 11 years ago
Jeff Kiser: You mean like Koch and the 1% in this country? No one running against these crooks will get an inch or second of corporate media coverage. I, and my party, got on the ballot despite a Dem SLAPP suit, but League of Women Voters were the only ones who had me on their candidate survey, which explains why they are no longer permitted to run the presidential debates. (I filed as a Green against the leader of the Texas State Board of Education, which censors the textbooks of the country.)