Having said that, I would suggest that all non-diplomatic guests be asked for their political stance. Professor Hellinger’s was omitted.

Speaking of whom.. Using as his race card comparison two prior presidents of PDVSA (the national oil company), Professor Hellinger said that the face of Chavez was a racial map of Venezuela. Why didn’t the professor compare Chavez’ face to the darker Raúl Leoni (Vz president from 1964-69). I suppose that using the race card to compare apples to apples (national president to national president) would destroy a leftist theory.. To me, it smacked of intellectual dishonesty from someone who professes expertise on a country’s political fabric.

Next… Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez soft-pedalled the Cuban link by stating that “Cubans btw are very appreciated by the Venezuelan population”. No, Ambassador Alvarez, the majority of Venezuelans are very uncomfortable with the lack of sovereignty, which has been force-fed in Venezuela by the regime you represent. In fact, the majority of Venezuelans are very uncomfortable with your regime, period. Part of that truth was revealed on December 4, 2005 at the polls with only 15% in favor of president Chávez and 10% of the votes nullified by those who were forced to vote (does the December 2, 2005 letter from CASA and the Ministerio de Alimentacion, exhorting employees to vote ring a bell?)

When Chris asked Ambassador Alvarez twice what Americans should know about Venezuela, the ambassador declared that the Venezuelan government ‘wishes to be left alone’. That’s funny when the Vz government doesn’t waste a minute, trying to rub its nose into US government affairs. That is, while maintaining business as usual – just don’t tell the leftists whom you depend upon to continue destabilizing the country) . On this account, witness the Venezuelan ‘charitable act’ of delivering low-cost heating oil to housing projects in Boston and the Bronx. That is, when there has been a FIFTY PERCENT (50%) rise in poverty in Venezuela during the 7 years of Chavez’ rule in office. This fact emanates from the government’s own statistics. Oh, wait! Ambassador Alvarez wishes us to believe that social programs take a long time to implement. What – at an INCREASE in poverty levels? In SEVEN years?

When Chris asked Ambassador Alvarez what have been the results in 6-8 years of these social projects, we were regaled to 3 accomplishments: (1) the Unesco ‘free of illiteracy’ designation. What ambassador Alvarez does not say is that Venezuela already had in 2002 – prior to the Mision Robinson illiteracy campaign, which was spearheaded by Cuban educators – a 97% literacy rate, as per UNDP statistics; (2) the Barrio Adentro clinics. What ambassador Alvarez won’t mention is that while public hospitals with operating facilities, which Barrio Adentro clinics cannot provide, are a model of abandonment – a disgrace; (3) an increase in enrollment in education. I guess that must mean the 12 new grade schools, zero new high schools, and a very poorly administrated public university of unreliable operations. All this in SEVEN years. Finally, Ambassador Alvarez wishes to have listeners believe that “the problem is that people look at Venezuela through the lens of the Cold War.” I have no idea what Ambassador Alvarez meant by that, but I would love to have some explanation of that analogy. Besides its use as a distracting mechanism.

That is the power of having organized groups (like the Venezuelan Information Office) re-writing history, and Wikipedia is specially susceptive to that.

Professor Hellinger, you accuse Miguel of being selective while you are extremely selective yourself. The sentence on the coup above could also be applied to Chavez. Remember, Chavez was the FIRST coupster of the democratic era and only after his coup failed he decided to have a try at democracy. This guy is no democrat, he is a military man with military instincts. It is only because he declares himself anti-Bush and uses the cliches that appeal to liberal americans that people like you have a sympathy for this regime.

Chavez’s IS a totalitarian regime. He is the classical populist that uses a bandaid politics, handing out goodies to gain votes. He has been extremely lucky. He says that “Maisanta” (a colorful ancestor) gives him luck, and we must believe it. Never in the history of Venezuela oil revenues have been so high.

Concerning fairness in reporting the OAS and EU report, I recommend that readers visit the page of Alex Beech

http://www.alexbeech.blogspot.com/

With respect to your knowledge of racism in Venezuela, let me tell you that I find your approach a little bit arrogant. How many years have you lived in Venezuela? Do you have Venezuelan ancestors of mixed race like I do? Chavez was extremely clever, he appealed to the anglo-saxon politically correctness to sell you a picture that corresponds to the North American reality but has nothing to do with the Venezuelan reality.

Venezuelan society is, by nature, unpolitically correct. Men whisper to pretty women in the streets and women dress seductively and do not pay attention to them, fat people are called fat, and thin people are called “flaco”, the blackest sibling in the family is usually called “negro” or “negra” and the fairest one “catire” or “catira”, foreigners are called “musius” and americans are called “gringos”, people with one eye are called “tuertos” and people with one hand are called “mancos”…and you know what? Nobody gets offended because that is the basic fabric of what it means being Venezuelan.

That is one of the most remarkable things that Venezuelans have. That ability of not taking themselves too seriously, in race matter, or in sex matters or even in handicap matters.

Now, people like you come to Venezuela with the same attitude the Spanish priests had when they came to Venezuela : there was only one truth, one pattern to follow. The indians had to be converted!

So, in the end, Professor Hellinger, yours is another form of american imperialism. Not the one that deals with money and oil, but one that is even more incisive and yet more subtle because it destroys the very fabric of the Venezuelan society.

And Chavez knows it.

Nope. Just look at Russia – and Putin is a personal friend of Bush.

On the OAS and EU reports, they repeated _all_ of what the opposition has been complaining about for the last few elections, how much worse can it be?. They said in no uncertain terms that the use of ‘morochas’ was unconstitutional (though the Venezuelan supreme court ruled otherwise) though it might seem ‘legal’. And they also said, in no uncertain terms, that the CNE directive has to be changed to people that can gain Venezuelan’s trust. Among many other things, the positive points in which the press seems to concentrate is that the machines seem accurate (in this election), and that the CNE was _technically_ and _administratively_ well prepared (though it violated a couple of laws in the way…)

And on links to the FARC I have to point out the political incident of a few months past in which a FARC commander was captured inside Venezuela by Colombian intelligence (after multiple denials of his presence by Venezuelan officials) and he was not only comfortably living there and had a Venezuelan ID card, but was also registered to vote in the RR. Just a simple example…