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…

Actually, there are many people that would like to see “some” chavistas intitiatives work out. You would be surprised, even if we oppose him with all our heart. A country cannot be based on permanent confrontation. Look at what is happening to the US. Multiply this 20 times and it is pretty much what we experience here.

In fact, a neutral CNE would do wonders to restore confidence in Venezuelan politics. As soon as Venezuelan will sense that whenever they want to get rid of Chavez they will be abel to do so, I can assure that we will much more civil to each other. In the US YOU KNOW that it will not last more than 4 years. Or perhaps 8. But that is that. It does give you a great psychological advantage.

But look at what happened yesterday! With barely 25% folks voting chavismo is already announcing a constitutional change to ensure that Chavez can stay in office until 2030. Do you expect the country to grow serene? He is making it every day harder and harder for us to even consider a collaboration with him.

To the OS team, Chris for opening the door to examining Latin America in more depth.

To Dan Helliger for participating in this comments section after the show. Excellent!

To Caracasbbq for an excellent and helpful comment.

To phraluang for this :

“Wealth is created by human labor and for some to have more than others they will have had to take a little of everyone elses labor. simple as this is people don’t ever realize that we are always paying up a ladder to a few at the top.”

If the few at the top could only recognize what hold them up ( beyond the occasional lip service) we all would be better off everywhere.

Also, I agree with Professor Hellliger’s remark above:

“Chavez did work to strengthen OPEC and bring down oil production when prices were on the floor near the end of 1998. Is that anti-American? Only if you think we have the right to blow cheap hydrocarbons out our automobile butts as long as we want.”

Nicely put.

Well, lot’s to digest here. First, thanks to everyone who listened and commented, espcecially those who disagree but remain civil about it. I was impressed by Daniel’s comments, giving his perspective from Yaracuy. He struck me as someone who would like to see some of Chavez’s iniatives succeed, but has seen too many of the shortcomings to be optimistic. Hhis opposition to Chavez is based upon a desire to see changes come in a better way. His critique is based on experience. When I raised an example of a positive experience in building cooperatives, he did not just dismiss it. I’ve been in that part of Venezuela, and I would like to meet him someday. I met and talked to Venezuelans who have had different experiences, but I can’t say that makes his less valid than theirs. (Also, from what I’ve read, Yaracuy may be governed by a particularly opportunistic governor.)

I didn’t have enough time to respond to many of the critiques of the recent election. I know this will catch flak from people like venezolano here, but I think the Election Council, at least Jorge Rodriguez, the chair, tried excpetionally hard to ensure fairness. The OAS and European observers agree. However, there is evidence to back the claim that mistrust is growing anyway. I’ve looked at survey data from before the Aug. 2004 recall and data taken by the same pollster just before this recent election. The comparison shows pretty convincingly that mistrust has spread to neutral and even to some of the Chavez supporters. I think the black list of those who signed petitions (it is not a list of anti-Chavez voters) is partly responsible for this. So also is a relentless, and in my view, unreasonable opposition campaign.

Remember, this is a country where the opposition has tried to take down Chavez by coup and by a “strike” that was at least as much based on sabotage of the oil industry. Only after those methods failed did they try the legal method of the recall (wouldn’t we like to have a chance to vote on a recall of Bush!).

I you want a fair-minded perspective on rights in Venezuela, I recommend you visit the web site of PROVEA, the most important human rights group (but you’ll need Spanish to read its reports). You’ll see a complex rights picture in Venezuela. In my view, given the polarization and the violent and illegal attempts to overthrow Chavez, its amazing that the rigths situation isn’t much worse. Aslo, you see that many supporters of Chavez have been victimized as well.

The low turnout shows the chavistas they must do better, but this was a legitimate election, as the international observors stated. Miguel, in my view, selectively cites and interprets the OAS and EU report on his blog. Read his view of the OAS report, then read the entire report and see if you think his summary is fair.

I wish I could have responded to the caller who tried to paint Chavez as aligned with terrorism. Chavez supporters have sympathy for FARC (Colombian guerrillas), but no independent evidence of Venezuela harboring FARC guerrillas has surfaced. There are problems with right wing death squads coming across. Right now, Chavez has a good relationship with Colombian President Uribe, a conservative, and he has little to gain by disturbing that. Chavez did meet with Saddam Hussein, but that was on a general trip through the Mideast (Rumsfeld, of course, met with Hussein under much worse conditions for much less valid reasons of state). It’s true that he refuses to allow U.S. military flights, flights intended to persecute the drug war in Colombia. More power to Chavez on that one.

Chavez did work to strengthen OPEC and bring down oil production when prices were on the floor near the end of 1998. Is that anti-American? Only if you think we have the right to blow cheap hydrocarbons out our automobile butts as long as we want.

Finally, I pointed to the last two presidents of the oil company, before Chavez, not all of them. Bruni is, however, right about Ramirez, the current president and minister. There is a vigorous debate and re-examination of racism in Latin America. Most serious students of Latin American culture acknowledge that in many ways racism has been less virulent there. But we also can see now that it has been hidden by a national culture of mestizaje. In Venezuela, it takes the form of “cafe con leche” myth. Are pro-chavista whites? Yes. Are their anti-chavista afro or “pardo” Venezuelans? Yes. But is their a “faux debate” about race in Venezuela? Am I “banalizing racism” and perpetuating a myth. No. Bruni says this is “offensive forthe peole that really had to live in a racist society.” OK, I’ll leave it to you folks to look up the report of a TransAfrica team that visited Venezuela and corroborates my perspective. These are people that know racism and help fight apartheid. See if they think I’m banalizing or perpetrating a myth.

I will read responses, but if I respond again, it probably won’t be for a few days.

I found, however, that Professor Hellinger was presenting the tipical bias towards Chavism and repeating some classical stereotypes and cliches that the Chavistas have inculcated in naif foreigners.

Even though he rightly stated that Venezuelans were of mixed races and that Chavez’s face represented all the races of the Venezuelan people, he tried to imply that somehow race was a factor in political success in Venezuela. He wrongly stated that until Chavez came to power, all the presidents of PDVSA were European looking.

Well, professor Hellinger should have a look at Rafael Ramirez, the 6′5″ blond blue eyed current president of PDVSA and minister of oil .He should have also a look at the current (before January) composition of the National Assembly and try to figure out, from the photos, who is a chavista and who is not.

He will then realize that, in Venezuela, it is impossible to equate political beliefs with race because that is a “faux debat” introduced by the Chavistas. That is a cliche invented by Chavez to divide and conquer and to gain simpathy abroad because that sounds and looks well in countries were real racism existed in the past. It is simply untrue in Venezuela where siblings in the same family are very often of different races. A real melting pot society.

I personally think that perpetuating the chavista message that there has been racism in Venezuela prior to Chavez’s arrival is offensive for the people that really had to live in a racist society, like the Indians or the African Americans in the US. It banalizes racism while playing Chavez’s game.

“wealth is created by human labor and for some to have more than others they will have had to take a little of everyone elses labor. simple as this is people don’t ever realize that we are always paying up a ladder to a few at the top. The US has been doing this since it took over the post colonial world through a means of military might and destabilizing techniques made possible by a historical thread most recently known as colonialization.”

This is just Marxist dogma. I want specifics not predictable but false comments about US imperialism.

The US was a wealthy country long before “it took over” the so called “post colonial” world.

In fact ever since the 1990’s when the US had become a superpower the wealth of the average American has gone down. This means that our taking over the “world” hasn’t made us wealth.

What creates wealth, my friend, is labor along with intellectual know how, along with superior organization, etc. The idea that because we are richer than Venezuela is no proof that we have been robbing that country.

South America has always been a basket case.

Blame it on your colonial past and on the socio-economic and culture you inherited from that period which you still haven’t been able to shed.

It’s not our fault that you are poor and Chavez will make things worse because he is still trapped in the old South American socio cultural paradigm which would rather blame others than look at itself in the mirror.

Venezuela’s future is for Venezuelans to fix, but some international pressure is needed to ‘grease’ change, and international media seems to just want to be part of the problem. Just read the reports at PMB’s site ( http://pmbcomments.blogspot.com/2005/12/dec0605-oas-not-impressed-with-regimes.html and http://pmbcomments.blogspot.com/2005/12/dec-0605-eu-has-more-concerns-than.html ), and then do a search for ‘Venezuela’ in Google news to see what I mean.

If America falls apart )like most our enemies want as to), because of internal disent, we will deserve it…

Wealth is created by human labor and for some to have more than others they will have had to take a little of everyone elses labor. simple as this is people don’t ever realize that we are always paying up a ladder to a few at the top. The US has been doing this since it took over the post colonial world through a means of military might and destabilizing techniques made possible by a historical thread most recently known as colonialization.

How does one answer such nonsense?

I’ll start by asking for proof. Got any proof phraluang?

“OK, Little Yellow bird. I would suggest you go to Venezuela & after you get yourself settled for about 2-4 weeks, start speaking against the government.”

Oh, but Venezolano, you forget, al pajaro amarillo no le gusta la politica.

The guy does’t like politics. He would love to live in a country that’s like a behive without politics.

To me political life is part of civic life. Is what makes civil society, civil.

Please, do not be naive. Did we forget how we tolerated Hitler?. Where did that take the world?. Chavez is no longer a little fish

It seems that there is something more primitive here…fear on all sides, of a change that will affect one adversly. If the venezualans are headed in any direction, than we should give them the benefit of the doubt that this is a good direction, who are we to decide it is or it is not. espeically if our decisions usually appear to be detrimnental .

Though I get that with a topic as complicated as Chávez it will take quite a bit to get up to speed with.

You may learn what fear is….

If I were little bird all yellow I would move to Venezuela right away. The fact that he doesn’t means that he knows he is lying.