Tag Archives: Chavez

Hugo Chavez, rest in peace

File photo of Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez blowing a kiss as he arrives at a rally with supporters in Caracas

Reuters photo

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who democratically was elected as his nation’s leader four times in a row, died today of cancer at age 58. (He is pictured above in February 2012.) I fell in love with Chavez some years ago after I watched the excellent documentary “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised,” which is about the blatantly anti-democratic, treasonous — and, thankfully, short-lived — attempt by fascistic right-wingers in Venezuela to forcibly replace the popularly elected Chavez with an unelected corporatocrat and plutocrat in 2002 — much the way that the fascistic, treasonous right-wingers here at home stole the White House in 2000 against the wishes of the majority of the American voters.

Only plutocrats and fascists have cause to celebrate the death of democratic socialist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, but, unfortunately, most of those in the United States who celebrate his death are poor to middle-class right-wing fucktards who actually would benefit greatly from Chavez-like socioeconomic policies here at home. (No, the corporate-cash-loving-and-corporate-ass-licking U.S. President Barack Obama is no “socialist.”)

Hugo Chavez became widely known as a “dictator” after the unelected Bush regime relentlessly repeatedly called him such even though Chavez repeatedly had been democratically elected by clear majorities of the people of Venezuela (who didn’t vote the way that they were supposed to vote, which is the way that a right-wing American would vote, you see).

Ironically, since George W. Bush never was democratically elected — Al Gore won more than a half-million more votes than Bush did in 2000, and it was the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court, not the majority of the American voters, who put Bush in the White House — Bush was the actual dictator, one who took power without first having earned the majority of the votes of the people.

Hugo Chavez wasn’t perfect — no leader of a nation is — but “dictator” Chavez’s biggest “crime” was that he actually did his job, which was to look out for the interests of the majority of the people of Venezuela and not for the interests of the plutocratic and corporatocratic few — you know, the way that a “good” Latin American leader “should”: sell out his people for whatever it is that the rich and powerful, especially in the U.S., want him or her to (in this case, oil, especially).

Hugo Chavez is dead, but the revolution in Latin America that he has inspired lives on.

The people’s revolution against their — our — anti-democratic, fascistic, treasonous, plutocratic overlords cannot be about one man or woman anyway.

¡Que viva la revolución!

And let’s hope that the Latin American revolution for the people over the plutocratic few spreads north so that we have a truly democratic nation — a nation governed by those who have the interests of the majority of the people at heart, and not the interests of only the comparatively tiny already-super-rich and already-super-powerful minority — here in the U.S. one day.

May Venezuela be the first domino that topples, spreading democratic socialism to even the notoriously anti-democratic, imperialistic United States of America.

P.S. I know that this is the United States of Amnesia, but Chavez-bashers should remind themselves of history: In April 2002, when the democratically elected and very popular Chavez was briefly overthrown by right-wing traitors, the unelected Bush regime at that time immediately recognized the anti-democratic, right-wing usurpers as the legitimate new government of Venezuela — which was not surprising, given that the members of the treasonous Bush regime had had no problem with the fact that Bush wasn’t elected, either. (The members of the right wing support and respect democracy only when elections go their way, and they feel so absolutely correct and superior in their ideology that they are untroubled with stealing office if they can’t win office legitimately, which they often can’t.)

Moreover, the CIA, at the behest of the White House, has had a long history of deposing left-leaning, pro-their-nation’s-own-people, democratically elected leaders in Latin America — and anti-democratically replacing them with unelected, right-wing usurpers who agree to do anything that the power elite of the U.S. ask them to do.

Chile’s Salvador Allende immediately comes to mind; his usurper was the U.S.-backed mass murderer and true dictator Augosto Pinochet, who should have been executed and not allowed to die a natural death. (It was the Nixon White House, natch, that used the CIA to remove Allende from power and install the murderous dictator Pinochet.)

It is likely that the Bush regime similarly had a hand in the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela.

Even if the Bush regime didn’t (but it probably did), the fact that the Bush regime wasted no time in recognizing the illegal and unelected “new” “government” of Venezuela by itself was plenty of reason for Hugo Chavez to feel animosity toward the U.S. government at least throughout Bush’s unelected and thus illegitimate tenure.

(And there is a big distinction between the U.S. government and the people of the United States; Chavez’s problem was with the members of the Washington establishment who believe that Latin America exists solely to do the U.S.’s bidding. He never attacked the American people as a whole, although the wingnuts [who still call him a “dictator” after he won four presidential elections in a row with international elections observers present] worked hard to paint Chavez as an enemy of every American, and their propaganda campaign worked to an impressive degree on the bleating American sheeple.)

One of Chavez’s most (in)famous acts was in September 2006, when he remarked of George W. Bush, who had appeared at the same podium before the United Nations General Assembly in New York City the day before: “The devil came here yesterday. And it smells of sulfur still today.”

Bush indeed is one of the most evil entities still stalking the planet, a mass-murdering war criminal who still goes wholly unpunished for his crimes against humanity. (Chavez, despite being called a murdering dictator by the wingnuts, wholly unlike Pinochet and other U.S.-backed actual dictators, never had any of his political opponents killed. In fact, I know of not one confirmed murder or even one confirmed case of torture that Chavez as president of Venezuela was responsible for, when Bush was responsible for the confirmed murder and the confirmed torture of thousands and thousands of human beings.)

Chavez said something else at the UN that day in September 2006, something that strikes me as prophetic: “The Soviet Union collapsed. The United States empire is on the way down and it will be finished in the near future, for the good of all mankind.” (Note that he’s criticizing the idea of empire, of one highly militarized nation calling all of the shots for the entire globe. Also during his September 2006 UN appearance, Chavez correctly stated that the UN headquarters should be moved to another nation. It seems to me that for fairness, UN headquarters should move to different nations around the globe, say, once every decade. It’s fucked up for it to permanently be anchored in the U.S.)

You know, if Hugo Chavez had been just flat-out wrong, I think that Americans would have just ignored him. But they haven’t. A good chunk of them have hated his guts intensely, which, to me, is evidence of two things: (1) that right-wing politicians’ relentless pro-plutocratic propaganda (aided and abetted by the corporately owned and controlled media, the bosses of which certainly disagree with Chavez’s business model of nationalizing the media) can be very effective; and (2) that Chavez’s biggest “crime” was being right and being vocal about it, which certainly are two big no-nos here at home, where telling certain awful (but obvious) truths is considered to be a much larger crime than telling even the biggest lies.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Thoughts on this Labor Day

A nationwide Gallup poll taken last month on the state of labor in the United States is dismal but not surprising.

When asked, “Do you approve or disapprove of labor unions?”, 48 percent of the respondents said they approve, 45 percent said they disapprove, and 7 percent said they weren’t sure.

Only about one in five of the poll respondents reported having someone in their household who is a member of a labor union.

When asked whether they believe that in the future labor unions will become stronger, will become weaker, or will remain the same as they are today, 48 percent said weaker, 24 percent said stronger, 24 percent said the same, and 4 percent said they were unsure.

I’m a member of a union, albeit a weak one, so I guess that makes me one of the one in five Americans or so who are a member of a labor union. That number should be much higher.

I’m no expert on the history of labor unions, but it seems to me that labor unions took several hits over several decades.

From 1981 to 1989 were the Reagan years, and then from 1989 to 1993 were the George Bush I years — 12 years of anti-labor sentiment in the White House. Then from 1993 to 2001 were the Clinton years, and centrist Clinton was weak on supporting labor, to put it mildly. Then from 2001 to 2009 were eight more years of a Repugnican in the White House. So for almost 30 years, labor unions haven’t had a strong ally in the White House.

No wonder labor unions are on life support.

My main problem with the labor movement and labor unions is that their approach has been to beg for scraps from the rich.

Wrong approach.

The right approach is for the people to own the means of production — not to beg the rich who own the means of production for a few more crumbs.

Which, of course, makes me a communist or socialist.

Proud of it!

Speaking of anti-capitalism, the wingnuts are going to go even more ape shit shortly with the release of two anti-capitalist films.

First and foremost, of course, is Michael Moore’sCapitalism: A Love Story,” set for release on October 2. I’m so there on opening day.

In case you have been living in a cave with Osama bin Laden and don’t know Moore’s stance on capitalism, he says this about it: “Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil. You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that’s good for all people, and that something is called democracy.”

I wholeheartedly concur. An economic system that is based upon greed can’t be good. To get filthy rich, you have to pay your employees much less than the fair value of their labor, and you have to charge your customers much more than the fair value of the good or service that you provide.

Whom would Jesus screw over? Funny how the wingnuts equate capitalism with Christianity when surely Jesus would have none of capitalism’s obvious evils.

Further, as Moore indicates, we no longer have democracy in the United States, because democracy is rule by the people. We have corporatocracy — rule by the corporations, which need to be contained. And democracy needs to be restored.

I also read today that Oliver Stone has made a film about Venezuela President Hugo Chavez, whom for eight years the unelected, mass-murdering Bush regime called a “dictator,” even though Chavez, unlike the Bush regime, never stole a single fucking election and never killed a bunch of innocent people.

Reuters reports that Stone’s new film about Chavez, titled “South of the Border,” is “a sympathetic portrait of the leader, casting him as a champion of the poor who has stood up to Washington.” (Reuters calls the film a “documentary,” not a “docudrama” or the like.)

It sounds like Stone’s is a much different picture of Chavez than the Bush regime’s propagandists relentlessly painted, so Stone’s film, should it get a wide audience in the United States, should generate an interesting reaction among the fucktards who think that the capitalists and the corporations wuv them so much.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hugo Chavez: ‘Dictator for life’?

Updated Tuesday, February 17, 2009 (see below)

A photo released by the Venezuelan Presidential press office ...

AFP photo

Seeing red: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez celebrates his win at the polls yesterday that will allow him to seek re-election in 2012.

Socialist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez yesterday won a vote that by amending the nation’s constitution scraps term limits for all elected officials in Venezuela.

Anti-Chavistas are saying that Chavez wants to be a “dictator for life.” Some of Chavez’s detractors are recognizing the fact that dictators — like George W. Bush was not elected by a majority of the people in 2000 (and thus could not legitimately have won “re”-election in 2004) — by definition are not actually elected, but that Chavez has been democratically elected fairly and squarely by the long-oppressed and impoverished people of Venezuela time and again, and therefore they are saying, at least a little more correctly, that Chavez wants to be “president for life.”

But since Chavez won yesterday’s vote that scraps term limits, it seems to me that the majority of the Venezuelan people, at least for now, are OK with Chavez being “president for life,” if it comes to that.

That this obvious fact is being overlooked (mostly by the Western corporately owned and controlled media and those who are mind slaves to these media) demonstrates the long-standing problem for Venezuela: Western nations, especially the United States of America, have long ignored the wishes of the people of Venezuela and have seen Venezuela only for what they can get from Venezuela, most notably, of course, oil.

The majority of the people of Venezuela have shown, time and again at the voting booth — under international elections surveillance — that they want Chavez, who has redistributed Venezuela’s wealth from the plutocratic thieves who used to run the nation of Venezuela to the people of Venezuela, to whom the nation’s wealth belongs.

It’s those who think that Venezuela exists only for the benefit of the richer nations and who don’t give a flying fuck about the poverty that their excesses create for others who oppose Chavez, who does care above the poverty of his people, as a president of a nation is supposed to do.

On that note: The number of homeless people whom I see in my neighborhood has increased every single fucking year since I moved into my current apartment in Sacramento in 2001, which was George W. Bush’s first year in office, and I was amused to note that 65 historians recently ranked Abraham Lincoln as the United States’ best president and ranked George W. Bush at No. 36 out of 42 presidents. (I’m surprised that King George II ranked that highly…)

Fuck; I wish that Hugo Chavez were my president. Surely over the past several years I’d have seen a decrease, rather than an increase, in homelessness. And at least Chavez always has been fairly democratically elected and re-elected, whereas although George W. Bush blatantly stole office in late 2000, the members of the Bush regime — master right-wing propagandists — routinely insanely hypocritically referred to Chavez as a “dictator.”

Hugo Chavez has not committed any atrocities such as the Vietraq War, which has resulted in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians; the Abu Ghraib House of Horrors; or even a Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp.

He has been democratically elected over and over again by the majority of the Venezuelan people.

Yet he is the “dictator.”

No, Hugo Chavez’s only “crime” — aside from refusing to kiss U.S. ass, like a “good” Latin American leader “should” — is fighting the rich, whose riches come at the expense of the common Venezuelan.

It is the rich — and the dupes of the rich, such as those who consume the right-wing propaganda that is financed by the rich — who call the democratically elected Chavez a “dictator” while they support actual mass-murdering dictators, such as George W. Bush.

I hope that Chavez’s revolution one day comes to my nation.

Update (Tuesday, February 17, 2009): This interesting short news article from The Associated Press today speaks volumes:

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration says the referendum that cleared the way for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to run for re-election was democratic. It was rare praise for a U.S. antagonist after years of criticism from the Bush administration.

U.S. State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid noted “troubling reports of intimidation.” But he added [today] that “for the most part this was a process that was fully consistent with democratic process.”

Chavez captured more than 54 percent of the vote, according to preliminary tallies of 94 percent of results. The win allows him to run for a third term.

Asked whether that was a result the United States welcomes, Duguid said the issue “was a matter for the Venezuelan people [to decide].”

What a huge difference a change in White House administration from unelected Repugnican to duly elected Democrat makes, at least in terms of U.S. relations with Venezuela!

Just last month, according to the Bush-occupied White House, Hugo Chavez was a “dictator.”

Today, the White House, now in sane(r) hands that were actually fucking elected, acknowledges the reality that Chavez, who calls himself a democratic socialist, actually is democratic.

“Reports of intimidation” in Venezuela may be accurate or may be right-wing fabrications or a mixture of both. But even if they are accurate, you can’t fairly hold Chavez accountable for the actions of all of his supporters, many if not most of whom are quite passionate about maintaining the populist change that Chavez initiated in Venezuela after years of rule by aristocratic right-wing kleptocrats.

And it’s not like the United States, after the presidential election debacles of 2000 and 2004, is in the moral position to lecture any other nation about up-and-up elections in the first fucking place. The fact alone that in 2000 George W. Bush “won” the pivotal state of Florida while Florida’s chief elections officer, fellow Repugnican Katherine Harris, had sat on the state’s committee to elect Bush, and that in 2004 Bush “won” “re”-election by “winning” the pivotal state of Ohio while Ohio’s chief elections officer, fellow Repugnican Kenneth Blackwell, had sat on the state’s committee to “re”-elect Bush — fuck, if that doesn’t have “banana republic” written all over it, I don’t know what does.

But it’s never “election fraud” or “terrorism” when a stupid white man commits it.

But I digress…

Again, it’s nice to see the White House finally fucking acknowledge that the rule of Venezuela is actually up to the people of Venezuela and not up to the stupid white men (such as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney) who have been trying to run the entire fucking planet for their own benefit at the expense of the majority of the planet’s population — or up to the stupid rich white men’s millions of dumbfuck dupes who actually believe that these stupid rich white men have the common person’s interests at heart.

Still, just as pro-Israel  propaganda is so ubiquitous that the majority of Americans (who are blindly pro-Israel) don’t even realize that they’ve been brainwashed, anti-Chavez propaganda is so ubiquitous within the U.S. that even the members of the press, who are supposed to remain neutral, use such loaded terms as “a U.S. antagonist” to describe Chavez. (“Firebrand,” with its implications of insanity and/or anger-control problems, is another loaded term that I’ve seen the mainstream media use to describe Chavez.)

Hugo Chavez is the democratically elected president of Venezuela. That is his role in the world. But, as is typical for an apparently American news writer, the writer can see Chavez only though the lens of U.S. interests, so Chavez becomes “a U.S. antagonist,” as though the only way to describe or define Chavez (or any other nation’s leader) would be as “pro-” or “anti-” U.S. (Wasn’t it George W. Bush who used to scoff imperialistically: “You are with us or you are against us”?)

We Americans have this blind, knee-jerk imperialist tendency to see other nations only in terms of whether they kiss our ass and do what we say or whether they actually — gasp! — stand up for their sovereignty, as Hugo Chavez has had the gall to do for his people and for which he has been falsely branded a “dictator.” (And plenty of Americans still believe the “dictator Chavez” lie, just as they still believe the other lie propagated by the treasonous Bush regime, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 — and thus, the Vietraq War.)

And then we fat, lazy and ignorant Americans scratch our heads and ask ourselves why they hate us.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized