30 March 2007

Hugo Chavez all out attack against Venezuela's media

One of the most ridiculous claims that dictator Chavez has ever made is that his wretched revolution is based on love. Observers may remember that late last year, during the presidential campaign, an almost sobbing Chavez appeared in Venezuelan TV sets and newspaper, wearing a blue shirt, basically begging people to vote for him for his life actions -undiscriminated killings included- had been driven by nothing but love. Chavez, stripped of all legal pretences, decided earlier this year that the broadcasting license of RCTV, Venezuela's oldest TV channel, was to be ended without further ado. RCTV is yet to be informed by the prosecution about the reasons that prompted this decision, which was taken not by a tribunal dealing with the case or any member of the judiciary but by Hugo Chavez. As there is no open case, RCTV has been unable to defend itself in Chavez's kangaroo courts.

Earlier this week, Aporrea posted a banner on its main site calling people to go protest against RCTV. In keeping with the presidential bleeding heart the protest was aptly called "Vigilia del Amor" or the "Love Vigil." Aporrea, let us not forget, is Chavez's most potent e-propaganda organ, it is officially funded, it operates in offices located in Miraflores, it provides servers and bandwidth to Venezuelanalysis.com (its English language branch), its founder -Martin Sanchez- is currently Venezuela's General Consul to Chicago, in sum it can be concluded that incitements to vandalism acts posted in Aporrea -if not directly ordered- count with official approval, or are we to believe that Hugo Chavez is a pacifist?

The above is but one of the very many expressions of chavista love. On Tuesday night RCTV headquarters in Caracas were covered with graffiti allusive to the termination of the license, racist and homophobic slurs, baseless accusations, in sum RCTV's walls were turned into a canvas showing a good compendium of Chavez's trademark loving jargon.

However the all out attack on any media daring to contradict the official line did not stop there. In a rather surprising turn of events Eleazar Diaz Rangel, chief editor of rag Ultimas Noticias, has been threatened by the Minister for the Popular Economy, Pedro Morejón, who 'warned' that they could be guilty of an "international conspiracy" and "campaigning to harm companies, institutions and individuals." The threat of course did not stop just there. Curiously enough that very same propaganda mouth was used by the thugs behind the North American Opinion Research to publish a communiqué a while ago which made remarkably similar accusations against me. Unfortunately neither Makarem nor Valbuena accepted my invitation to levy such charges in a British, read serious, court of law. But what are the chances for a fair trial for creepy Diaz Rangel should Morejón be ordered to take matters further in Venezuela? How will RCTV see justice be made considering that no court in the land has been instructed to open a case against it?

23 March 2007

Global Warming: the new cult

Just a couple of posts critical of the BS behind the global warming hype is what takes to send hate-o-meter levels to CO2 territory. Mind you it took me much debunking and a herculean effort geared at exposing Hugo Chavez to gain the hatred of racist Europeans, however when it comes to global warming things get nasty quite quickly. And since I have all but lost interest in what goes on in Chavezland I have been reading and researching some about the apocalyptic cataclysm that's about to befall upon this earth.

The world's foremost authority on climate change, for some fanatics anyway, seems to be the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC. This panel, formed by a group of rather interesting folks, is in charge of interpreting scientific data so, purportedly, policy makers across the globe can make informed decisions on how to tackle climate change. I don't know whether any earth science scientist has taken the trouble to inform this lot about the impossibility of arresting a natural process of global proportions as climate variation. Perhaps in the not too distant future we will see another hysterical panel discovering that the earth's tectonic movement is causing earthquakes and it must be stopped. In any case the report published makes for interesting reading for laymen, for it concludes that climate is changing. What an extraordinary realisation! As I have said elsewhere what I find reprehensible about the new green cult is the dramatization and prostitution of scientific topics in order to advance political agendas. The report contains, amongst others, the following jewel:

Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 metres of sea level rise.

Beyond such 'interpretations' the admission that the earth was significantly warmer in the past is to be noted. In light of such evidence how can definite conclusions upon human responsibility be drawn truly escapes me. The utter disregard for scientific records and sheer hatred-towards-dissenters that characterises the global warming fraternity is astounding. This morning I received this email from an Australian 'protector' of the earth:

Are you joking? Surely this is just to make contraversy right?


This graph is completely false! What a joke right?!

If the earth was 3 or 4 times hotter than 2007, as your graph illustrates, then we would not have plants or animals on the planet!

Also, there are very good reasons why this is believed to be man made. There are numerous studies to prove it.

Are you serious, in this nonsense.

This action is criminal. We need to work together and this action is treason for the planet and you should be definately locked up in Guanatmano Bay.

SenderIP :

Address : nme-pow-pr2.tpgi.com.au

Interestingly enough none other than the chair of the IPCC (industrial engineer Rajendra K. Pachauri) appears to share a similar contempt towards his critics, though considering his position it's even more hysterical than the one of the 'eco-warrior' shown above. Not all is lost though, for Guantanamo Bay is certainly more comfy than Castro's gulags.

22 March 2007

George Bush trashed Hugo Chavez in LatAm again

In recent days I was asked to comment on George Bush's trip to Latin America here in London. Generally speaking Britons have a very shallow understanding of the political dynamics of that region. Prey of years of incessant disinformation by the BBC and The Guardian the conventional wisdom goes pretty much in this direction: all of the region's problems are caused by the imperialistic designs of Washington. Needless to say of course that such stance marries very well with the rampant anti-Americanism in this area of Europe, however it has very little to do with reality. I remember once a debate with soon-to-be-replaced Venezuelan Ambassador to the UK at LSE; he was launching a book about globalisation that placed all of our problems on American shoulders. When the Q & A session came I asked him to quantify responsibilities of local politicos in the current state of mess. Alfredo Toro Hardy did not like my question -nor did he replied in meaningful manner to it- but the lefty professor moderating the event expressed that said questions needed to be addressed.

Sometime ago, November 2005 to be precise, a summit took place in Mar del Plata, Argentina. In it American nations' representatives gathered to discuss trade and other issues. Dictator Hugo, ever the clown, went to a stadium to whip the crowd of perfect Latino-imbeciles into a frenzy, and made a fool of himself -in the stellar company of cocaine addict Diego Maradona- by reiterating his hollow rhetoric vis-a-vis George Bush and how his visit had been a complete failure. Claiming to have triumphed in arresting the advance of 'imperialism' in Mar del Plata, Hugo returned home victorious. The euphoria didn't last long though for 29 out of 34 countries did commit to further trade talks with the 'evil' USA.

More recently George Bush visited some countries in the region. Simultaneously Thugo went out of his way to reveal his best showmanship in performances carried out in front of paid audiences in countries that Bush was not visiting. Reality caught up with Hugo even quicker this time round, he hadn't even arrived back in Venezuela and the international media -having seen the spectacle in Argentina where Hugo called Bush a son of a bitch- was already ignoring his hate-fest. The ethanol pact between Bush and Lula stole Hugo's thunder, and the promise to open the US market to other ethanol producers in the region to decrease dependence on foreign oil -read Venezuelan- all but pushed Hugo to irrelevancy territory, despite the billions he has wasted 'winning' hearts and minds.

For a long time I have argued that Latinos are a capitalistic bunch. Although the region's business environment is one of the world's toughest, most people rather run their own little ventures than being employed or lead undignified lives as handout recipients. Bush trip came to confirm my argument, for even Lula, allegedly one of Chavez's staunchest allies in the region, preferred Bush's ethanol offer over Chavez's contracts. It goes to show that pragmatism and national interests are above revolutionary humbug for all but the Venezuelan pariah. Argentine's officials no show in Chavez's gig is also a good indication that pretty much all of the region's leaders avoid antagonizing with Bush unnecessarily, and will not jeopardize for one second the chance to enter into trade agreements with the leader of the world's largest economy.

Tough lessons for the soldier of Sabaneta, who still thinks that PDVSA handouts are a match to access to the biggest market. Latinos are not undignified parasites but entrepreneurial people. Bush's social justice talk rang no bells amongst Latinos for it isn't social justice what drives them but the chance to develop and grow. That's the only way to get out of poverty and we all know it.

Chavez has spent time and much money in Latin America, however in only two trips Bush was able to crush the Bolivarian agenda. Just imagine what could have happened had George kept his promise about engaging and giving priority to Latin America...

16 March 2007

Global Warming for dummies

In recent days Channel 4 News aired a documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" that has stirred quite the controversy. At the moment one of the scientists that took part in the documentary -Carl Wunsch from MIT- is accusing the producer of having misinterpreted his views (see comments), which were used out of context. None other than 'global warming über expert' George Monbiot came out swinging in The Guardian in defence of the global warming hype. The progressive neoenvironmentalist forces are -as ever- in defamation mood, trying to undermine the credibility of Martin Durkin -the documentary's producer- and pretty much every person who happens to agree with the views exposed in it. A FOI request (what the F%*& was this guy thinking?) has been attempted into the financing of the documentary, in sum the barking moonbats are in a state of absolute outrage.

This blog has had its share of global warming controversy. Readers and fellow Venezuelan bloggers have taken issue with my opinions on this, arguing that I am immature, petulant, ignorant and generally mocking my capacity to differentiate leftist's bull -vaya redundancia- from reality. It seems that I just can not have an opinion contrary to what the geniuses of the IPCC, the very same ones that have failed to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the current warming trend is attributable to mankind, have already reached. It's the "consensus" what matters; the "belief" of members of a UN panel, heralded as the ultimate truth. Cynically Monbiot opens up his tirade mentioning Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein, as examples of scientists that proved the consensus wrong, when in fact today -thanks to the systematic bombardment of the media- most people believe and support the hysterical claims and "consensus" of Monbiot-like experts and attack independent minds, as those presented in Durkin's documentary.

It is for these reasons that I decided to borrow from fellow blogger Francisco Toro's idea of saying it with pictures and draw a couple of graphs to illustrate my point: I will call it global warming for dummies.

The vertical axis is temperature and the horizontal is time since earth's formation. For this purpose I have drawn a line that represents the fluctuation of global temperature over time, but by no means this plot represents accurately periods of cooling or warming. As geological evidence shows the planet has undergone various such periods, the intention is just to show that it has happened in the past, when yummy mummies driving Chelsea tractors and aviation did not exist. The earth's temperature has increased 0.5 degrees in the last century. Should we be as worried as the global warming fraternity would like us to be? See next graph.

The second graph should be cause of great concern to human kind had it had any relation to reality. The red line shows temperature fluctuation over time. Fact is it has no bearing whatsoever with reality, however in my opinion it illustrates perfectly the hypothesis of the advocates of the end of the world, for they irresponsibly and lacking scientific evidence have already ruled that the current warming trend (+0.5 centigrade) is indeed man made, ignoring paleoclimate records.

The politicization of this issue has resulted in clueless politicians, media, Hollywood types, the Green fraternity, the radical Left and assorted has beens affirming without qualms that it is all our fault. It seems to be an impossible task for most of them to provide coherent explanations as to why this phenomenon has occurred throughout the planet's history, for it throws their ludicrous hypothesis into disrepute. So what better than to ignore the inconvenient? Why this time round the warming is caused by burning of fossil fuels and anthropogenic CO2 emissions when it did not in the past? How come earth's climate has changed to the point where the dynamics that used to influence global temperatures are no longer relevant, or worse have been relegated to sub roles? These are some of the questions I asked myself when I first heard the hype. I remember having thought "since when climate is a fixed and not an ever changing variable?" But hey who am I to doubt the all knowledgeable IPCC right? Fortunately not all scientists agree with the media-driven political imposition of the "consensus."

9 March 2007

The Great Global Warming Swindle

One of the added benefits of having read Geology is that one can easily tell apart the bullshit from the science when it comes to earth's matters. In recent days I participated in an online debate casa de Miguel (see comment section) about global warming. My take about this issue has been the same all along; one must always doubt whatever argument the Left puts forward. If apart from being adopted by the neo-progressive forces the issue captivates the attention of multi billion dollar NGOs, parasitic multilateral bodies and the radical establishment all the more reason to question it. In the instance of global warming only ignoramuses will affirm that the current warming trend is man made. Lacking credible evidence to prove their point the global warming fraternity has developed a political clout comparable to the coming apocalypses it insists in predicting. Geology teaches us that earth has undergone many periods of warming and cooling. In fact the geological record contains evidence of this cycle when man wasn't even around. Therefore to conclude that today's warming is due to carbon emissions generated by our burning of fossil fuels or carbon footprint is just bullshit. Any person slightly familiarized with geological precepts knows that the biggest source of greenhouse gases -read water vapour- are the oceans. That much no one can begin to dispute. But why this sudden necessity of blaming humans for global warming? Why the conscious disregard for science when it does not support conventional wisdom?

The answer lies with the ideology of those advancing the hypothesis and note that I use hypothesis and not theory for they have failed to scientifically achieve such status. The Left has all but lost its north; it has no goals, no unity of purpose and no agenda besides attacking and trying to destroy capitalism. Global warming provides the perfect excuse to carry on with it. It is the new card to be trumped against the establishment; it is the new way to shame the corporate world but more tellingly it is the vehicle that allows the furtherance of racism at its most primary. Radicals on this camp have gone as far as sending death threats to scientists that have spoken up against the swindle. Entire populations of developing countries are collectively and happily condemned to a life time of misery by these advocates of the end of the world.

The UN created a panel (IPCC) whose conclusions are held as the ultimate truth about global warming. But the report published fails to demonstrate the case and uses semi scientific jargon presumably to con the public. Created in a way so as to make the case with words rather than with sound and credible scientific evidence the report goes on to stress upon the "likeliness" of the hypothesis it seeks to demonstrate or the "confidence" with which bureaucrats on UN's payroll believe in their hypothesis. Again any serious scientist would laugh at such irresponsible and altogether useless way to describe a scientific phenomenon.

Channel 4 News broadcast an aptly titled documentary yesterday "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It is a thought provoking, thorough investigation into the movement and reasons behind the whole scam based, unlike those on the other side of the equation, on rigorous scientific evidence. I was very pleased to see an influential TV network take on the hysterical global warming crowd and disprove their allegations. Further I learned about the origins of the new creed, traced back to the one person the entire environmentalist community despise with a passion, Margaret Thatcher. What an extraordinary revelation for not even this most trendy and fashionable cause of the world's resentful imbeciles is of their making.

7 March 2007

Wikipedia exposed

To those who like me have been reporting the evolving crisis in Venezuela the news came as no surprise: Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is, to put it mildly, utterly unreliable. It didn't surprise us because we bear witness of how Hugo Chavez's and Venezuela's pages have been edited almost beyond recognition. In fact apologists of Hugo Chavez have expressed their pride on their 'editing work' in Wikipedia. Logically the only natural conclusion one could reach in light of it is that no Wikipedia entry can be trusted.

The revelation of the true identity of Essjay -aka Ryan Jordan- reinforces apprehensions towards the online encyclopedia. A 24 year old managed to con not only the Wikipedian community but also Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder. The fact that Wales went as far as establishing a working relationship with Jordan without even bothering to undertake the perfectly normal credential-checking processes to be expected between an employer and its employees speaks volumes about Wales duty of care towards his pet project.

Wikipedia does not check the credentials of its editors, that much is known. However knowledge about its editing processes and criteria remains scant. A request to remove links to my site -vcrisis.com- from all Chavez related pages was introduced by another anonymous Wikipedian. Flanker, as his online name goes, argued that vcrisis.com was not a reliable sources of information with regards to Venezuela. But who is this Flanker character and what reasons prompted him to make such request? What I know is that he is an avowed apologist of Hugo Chavez and frequents comments sections of sites publishing commentary on Venezuela in order to advance the premise that Chavez's Venezuela is the closest approximation to paradise on earth. I also suspect that he is not even Venezuelan, neither is Sandy, that other Wikipedian involved in the issue. So how come people characterized by their superficiality of knowledge and partisanship about our issues get to decide what constitutes reliable information sources? Furthermore how come they are allowed to rewrite history without providing credible evidence to substantiate their claims?

Recently another Wikipedian (Maracucho) created a page about me that draw the ire of Chavez's fans and so they started editing it. When I noticed it I tried to delete the whole thing, knowing full well the infantile approach that Wikipedians have for facts. I could not, but was advised to take the issue with the Wikipedia Information team [info-en@wikimedia.org] that granted my request to have my page deleted.

I guess the take away message is that orthodox encyclopedias, with responsible editing processes, will continue being the preferred choice of serious people.

6 March 2007

Venezuela's communists weary of Chavez's hegemonic construct?

The business of determining what Venezuelan political event will be picked up by major international news outlets is tricky. The communist State of Venezuela has become a place where not two weeks go by without a major scandal hitting the news. And when I say major scandal I'm not exaggerating. Check out these examples since the beginning of this year:
  • -- Hugo Chavez declares himself a dictator and promises to send Church hierarchs literature on Marx and Lenin so that they'll understand what his 'socialism of the 21st century' is all about.
  • -- Officials from Venezuela, by any measure an underdeveloped country, sign in London, by any measure and in itself one of the world's leading economies, an agreement to subsidise fuel of its public bus fleet.
  • -- Hugo Chavez sort of makes official his break up with Israel.
  • -- Hugo Chavez nationalizes local and foreign owned power and telecom companies.
  • -- Hugo Chavez reasserts his personal commitment to close Venezuela's oldest TV station.
  • -- Officials from Venezuela interfere openly in the internal politics of neighbouring countries.
  • -- Officials from Venezuela declare that the DEA is a drug cartel, while tons of cocaine originated from Venezuela are seized the world over.
  • -- The bloody coup d'etat staged by Hugo Chavez in 1992 is turned into a national day of sorts. Officials not only celebrate the criminal attempt but stress their pride in it.
  • -- The former chair of the purportedly independent electoral council is appointed by Chavez as Venezuela's Vice President. Former Vice Presidents include the current Attorney General.

In any democratic country any of the above would have caused a political earthquake. In Venezuela these events have become part of the idiosincratic political framework, to the point that new scandals overshadow 2 or 3 day-long ones. The whole country suffers from attention deficit disorder, considering the speed at which new issues pop up. It is therefore risible the late 'rebellion' that allegedly some communists are staging in Venezuela in purported 'open and frank opposition' to the hegemonic construct that Chavez has in mind. In my opinion this amounts to no more than an orchestrated charade by which ignorant fools are led to believe that democracy is thriving in Chavezland. What a load of nonsense.

The stint could be consider newsworthy had the actors performing the show not being PODEMOS, PCV (Venezuela's Communist Party) and some other chronic underachievers. In truth the ones involved have had a go at being in power thanks to the charity of the supreme leader, and under no circumstances should anyone entertain the thought that they shall risk their current bourgeois status for an alleged dispute over Chavez's project of unifying all his minions under one roof. Those salivating over it should be reminded that that's precisely what takes place in communist regimes: one leader, one party, one voice of command, or are we to believe that Venezuelan communists are dyed-in-the-wool democrats after all? Give me a f**ing break, surely Ismael Garcia won't give up his jet rides and über rich lifestyle...

5 March 2007

A Hugo Chavez lo quieren matar otra vez...

Londres 05.03.07 | Hugo dijo ayer que lo querían matar. Otra vez. Que vaina. Hugo nos tiene acostumbrados a los anuncios de magnicidio. Cada vez que se acuerda de que los sicarios de la CIA andan por ahi, el hombre nos alerta sobre los peligros que se le ciernen. Lo que Hugo nunca nos cuenta, siendo que es un cuenta cuento habilidoso, es que cuando sus dizque archi enemigos -esos son los gringos- lo tenían preso durante los sucesos del 11 de Abril, a ninguno de ellos se le ocurrió llenarle la cabeza de plomo, o tirarlo del helicóptero ese donde lo trasladaron a una 'isla secreta' en el Caribe. Lo tenían ahi a la merced, papita para hacerle cualquier maldad, pero no le hicieron nada. Que interesante no? Lo que si es cierto es que el grupo de asesinos que lo persigue, a saber conformado por agentes especiales del Mossad israelí entre otros, lleva 8 años intentado infructuosamente de matar a este tipo. Pero que nos dice esto de la oposición 'recalcitrante y reaccionaria' esa a la que Hugo se refiere sin cesar? Los partidarios de la extrema derecha venezolana formaban parte del golpe del 11 de Abril. Eso lleva Hugo repitiéndolo un buen rato, no es asi? Como es eso que ellos también pelaron ese boche? Sera que Hugo nos esta cayendo a embustes? En cualquier caso es triste ver el espectáculo en el que se ha convertido la politica venezolana, donde un degenerado dicta pauta y los demás siguen la comparsa con esmerado rigor. Y no me estoy refiriendo aquí a los chavistas. No. Me refiero a los Manueles, a los Teodoros, a los Leopoldos, a los Julios, en fin a lo que denomino los ex-men, no como en la película sino en sentido literal. Ex-men porque todos, sin excepción, son ex algo: Rosales ex candidato presidencial; Petkoff ex politico; Leopoldo ex alcalde... Ante tal ralea a Hugo lo unico que le queda es carcajearse a mandíbula batiente, agradecer infinitamente la suerte de contar con tal dizque oposición e inventar magnicidios.

Gobernar no le interesa; paliar los problemas del pais tampoco, nos lo ha demostrado. Son las mieles del poder absoluto, global, lo que mueve a este hombre. Y es por ello, nos reitera hasta la saciedad, que lo quieren matar. Hemos de concluir entonces, después de 8 largos años de magnicidios anunciados sin pruebas, investigación o arresto algunos, que la eficiencia de sus asesinos y la de sus opositores politicos van de la mano, Hugo seguirá vivo y mandando hasta que la muerte, la natural, lo alcance.