4.2.10

Eva Golinger gets $3.2 million from Chavez regime

Here's an admission: I find absolutely fascinating, in this global climate of unemployment, economic hardship, etc., that someone like Eva Golinger finds herself thriving in Venezuela. For various reasons, but principal of which that Venezuela is not in a position to be wasting money in harebrained ideas. Golinger, whose professional life in her country (USA) ran a rather brief course, until I exposed her as having cheated the IRS and the American public, has just been awarded by Venezuela's Congress some $3.2 million to increase distribution of a propaganda rag she's just launched, called Correo del Orinoco.

I expect fanatics to take whatever Golinger publishes there as the fountain of ultimate truth, however one would think that in light of the enormous problems currently affecting all Venezuelans, $3.2 million could be better spent. Surely a sign of Chavez's sheer irresponsibility, and of the independence of Golinger, in case she ever enjoyed benefit of doubt. Perhaps the IRS should send Golinger a few questions?

UPDATE: Eva Golinger says I am "tweeting lies" (Eva did not like my comments so her tweets are protected now, but here's a link for future reference). I suggested to her to take it with Chavez's information sources:


















Original source, Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias: http://www.abn.info.ve/noticia.php?articulo=218666&lee=3

More evidence below:
















Original source, Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela: http://www.asambleanacional.gob.ve/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24064&Itemid=78

3.2.10

Did Chavez say Haiti earthquake was caused by USA?

Must admit, I have been a bit slow on some developments lately, however upon reading this morning the news about whether or not Chavez said that Haiti's earthquake had been caused by some "earthquake weapon" operated by the US Navy, I decided to dig a little to establish who said what.

The Venezuelan führer did not say that Haiti's earthquake was caused by the US, or its "earthquake weapons". However, articles containing information about a so called  "experimental earthquake", caused by the USA according to "Russian sources" were published in five propaganda outlets of the Chavez regime, see below. Therefore, I reckon reports saying that Chavez said so, although not exactly accurate, can be forgiven in light of the stuff published by official  Venezuelan "information" outlets.









1.2.10

Chavez ta ponchao: Where's BBC professionalism when most need it?

After the coup that briefly ousted Hugo Chavez from his domain in 2002, a couple of Irish film makers, who, chance would have it, purportedly found themselves witnessing the whole shebang, produced a 'documentary' that captured those fateful days. The 'documentary', deceivingly called The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, won prizes all around, and Kim Bartley and Donacha O'Brian, its producers, were catapulted to chavista stardom. Such success would never had materialised had it not been for the endorsement that the BBC and other European broadcasters lent to the film, for it was later revealed that chronology of events was altered in order to meet a particular, utterly misleading, storyline. In short, pure propaganda. Nonetheless, the film, and its producers, did enjoy 15 minutes of fame. Now contrast that with the latest exercise in propaganda, produced sans BBC by Venezuela's official channel (Venezolana de Television), fabricating a storyline in an attempt to charge, presumably with treason and sedition, RCTV journalist Miguel Angel Rodriguez, for allegedly having made public calls for a military solution to rid Venezuela of Hugo Chavez:




30.1.10

WSJ weights in: The Chavez Meltdown

To the short and brutal list of life's certainties, let us add that socialism invariably leads nations to economic ruin. Latest case in point: Hugo Chávez's "Bolivarian" Republic of Venezuela.

Earlier this month, the Venezuelan strongman moved the official U.S. dollar exchange rate to 4.3 bolivars to the greenback from 2.15. At a stroke, he wiped out the savings and purchasing power of the very working-class people he purports to represent, most of whom have barely been getting by. News of the devaluation instantly sent the country—where consumer prices had already risen by 25% in 2009, according to official figures—into a panic, with consumers standing in line to stock up on goods before prices rose.

Mr. Chávez next decreed that he would fine and even arrest any merchant caught adjusting prices, eliding the fact that Venezuela imports nearly everything and exports only oil. Now Venezuelans have the Hobson's choice of either complying with the diktat, which means shortages, or disobeying it, which means inflation.

Yet no sooner was one catastrophe of "21st-century socialism" inflicted on Venezuelans than Mr. Chávez unveiled another. On January 12, the government instituted a series of rolling blackouts due to an electricity shortage that had been building for months. Ostensibly, the reason for the shortage was a drought that had left water levels at the country's huge Guri Dam—the source of more than 70% of its electricity—at critically low levels. But that is a function of the government's failure to maintain the dam and build additional capacity.

The instant result of the blackouts was chaos, particularly in Caracas, where people were left "stuck in elevators or in dangerous parts of town without street lighting," according to Reuters. The capital city already has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the world, and Mr. Chávez was forced to suspend blackouts there two days later. The rest of the country, however, remains subject to sporadic power outages.

Behind the crack-up of Mr. Chávez's utopia is the fact that he's running out of money because Venezuela's oil production is plunging. In 1998, the year Mr. Chávez was first elected, the country pumped 3.3 million barrels a day. Today, the figure is 2.4 million barrels, and that's an optimistic estimate.

Venezuela isn't running out of crude. The problem is that Mr. Chávez has expelled or seized the assets of foreign companies capable of properly maintaining the country's fields, including ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips. It didn't help, either, that in 2002 Mr. Chávez fired thousands of skilled employees of state oil company PdVSA because he didn't like their politics and replaced them with his political cronies.

On Monday, Mr. Chávez made a grudging concession to reality when he agreed to a joint venture with Italian oil major ENI, which itself had been run out of Venezuela in 2006. We'll leave it to the Italians to place their own bets about the limits of Mr. Chávez's caprice. They've already had fair warning that Bolivarians, like other predators, rarely change their spots.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704362004575000922680308014.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

28.1.10

Marcel Granier and Gustavo Cisneros

(*) Granier has done what few had dared. In these times of group think and collectivism, individuals also embody archetypes. As such, in a great part of the collective imagination of Venezuelans, Marcel Granier and Gustavo Cisneros have ceased being persons turning into symbols of the country's integrity or decay. Like Dorian Gray in Oscar Wilde's novel, or Hendrik Hoefgen in István Szabó's film MEFISTO, Cisneros has transformed, in our political imagination, into the embodiment of a typical literary, mythology and folklor character: the one that sells his soul to the devil. With the stigma of the meeting with Jimmy Carter and Hugo Chavez, in which Venezuela was sacrificed at the altar of Venevision (Cisneros' TV network), Cisneros does nothing but represent all of those individuals who have allowed the consolidation of totalitarianism for personal gain, and all of those that have lowered their heads and have sold principles and integrity to maintain their businesses and profit one more day. That's the image of decadence, of failure of elites that did not assume responsibility with the country and yielded to fear, and to the prospect of continued participation in rent seeking practice.

Marcel Granier, on the contrary, seems to have come out of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, a John Galt and Hank Rearden type of character, archetypes of creative force and individual freedom unmoved by power. For characters such as "Felicitadores" and "Cerebritos", from Mario Vargas Llosa's The Feast of the Goat, Granier has commited entrepreneurial suicide, he has immolated himself unnecessarily owing to rigidity and stubbornness. However, Granier has done what very few have dared: to sacrifice his property to become a symbol of resistance and integrity. Like in Globovision, and in some other Venezuelan refuges, the image of the man who loses his state for loyalty to country, is a sign of the potential we still have to regain our freedom.

* Translation by Alek Boyd, of an article written by Axel Capriles, published by El Universal.

27.1.10

Venezuela's dictator hits twitter

Hugo Chavez has presumably ordered his minion Andres Izarra to keep him up to speed with Twitter (http://twitter.com/HugoChavez_Vzla). At least that's what the first tweet (11:00 PM Jan 8th from web) says:
Buenas tardes, soy Andrés Izarra sepan que el presidente esta recibiendo por medio de un resumen diario todos sus comentarios. Saludoss
Translation:
Good afternoon, I am Andres Izarra, know that the president is receiving a daily summary of all your comments. Regardss
This is just laughable really, mind you Izarra is meant to be the guy who's behind TELESUR's 24/7 propaganda operation, the same arse who admitted that the Chavez regime would build a communications hegemon, modelled on the "freedom and plural" ideals of Antonio Gramsci. What does he think, that his fascist boss is going to regain the loss credibility by getting on twitter? The list of friends says a lot though, mind you Putin, Piedad Cordoba, Lula... Soon to join, straight from the jungles of Colombia, FARC, and Fidel Castro, Mugabe, all the way from Belorus, Lukashenko. One just couldn't make this stuff up.

Here's a picture of tweets, and link to full page, for future reference:



While socialism fails in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez bows to capitalism

The WSJ reports today that the Venezuelan madman said recently that "investment and experience from foreign oil firms is necessary in Venezuela, "We need it". Contrast this position, in a rather pathetic effort at courting international investors, with these statements, made for local consumption: “In the model that I envision, public companies will not depend to survive on their installed capacity, nor the quality of its articles, nor their costs, nor their sales, because their continuity would be assured by the State.”

How can any right thinking person reconcile the two: is Chavez a socialist, or is he a capitalist? Moreover, how can Chavez's reassurance be taken seriously, if only last week he ordered summary expropriations of private companies?

One thing is certain, Chavez's 21st century socialism is proving a bigger failure than its predecessors.

26.1.10

Venezuela: protests against suspension of RCTV leaves two dead

Following from "More blood in Hugo Chavez hands", El Universal reports that a second student died at the A & E department of Merida's university hospital, after protests against suspension of RCTV International erupted in cities across the country.

Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF) stated that cable channels "were faced with the choice of having to broadcast the presidential ramblings or to disappear off the nation’s television screens." What RSF describes as "presidential ramblings" are locally known as "cadenas", which are described thus:
The “cadenas” go much further than simple official messages. They allow President Chávez an unlimited and unheralded right to speak without any time limit on almost the entire national broadcast system. Given that Hugo Chávez also presents his own Sunday programme “Aló Presidente”, is there any real need for this? Supposing there was, why should it be necessary to force the head of state’s speeches on so many channels and even worse under threat of penalties and even suspensions? Would not one public channel be sufficient to broadcast the “cadenas”? Use of these “cadenas” violates the right of independent media to decide on their own content. It prevents free circulation of pluralist news and information. It attacks the right of Venezuelans to choose their own programmes.

More blood in Hugo Chavez hands

A 15 year old student was killed yesterday in Merida. That is, a 15 year old that would not have been there -which side he was supporting being entirely immaterial- had Chavez and his thugs not forced suspension of RCTV International from cable companies on 23 January. I think I am going to go with Caracas Gringo version here, and reiterate that Chavez is actually fomenting unrest in Venezuela. Only that can save him from an almost certain loss of control of the country's Congress in the coming elections this September.

25.1.10

Hugo Chavez derangement goes up a notch: "I am the people"

No further comments needed really, although one could wonder: are the millions of Venezuelans who keep voting and marching against him part of the people?