"So a word to the wise for Chavez – be careful. Be very, very careful. Have no doubt, those who desperately seek your ouster are frustrated and desperate. Coups, strikes, and elections have not worked for them. The next logical step for them is to try assassination. Rest assured they will take that step."
Very well put OW. And lets not forget what happened even in the U.S. to the Chavez look-a-like, Huey Long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long
I doubt that the US is going to invade Venezuela and I also believe Chavez does not think so. Chavez is smart and has been vastly underestimated by his opposition. Most of his plans for the revolution have been thought out in advance. Time will tell what all this military build-up really means.
OW, let history be the teacher here.
Note that the article utterly fails to give its readers any sense of 'context'--what has the US been involved in from past decades?
The empirical record on the US contempt for third world leaders and popular democratic movements is vast.
Indeed, most articles, because of constraints from needing to be brief, cannot give much context--but the context they do give is important for sketching the outlines of the ideology that undergirds the discourse.
The citizen's militia is vitally important for the continuation of the Bolivarian project. I hope that Chavez is competent in establishing this militia as a perpetual institution.
If the US does invade then the oil industry needs to be attacked so as to not allow any benefits to accrue to the US and its dispicable, antidemocratic minions in Venezuela.
Hey, the US is a totally illegitimate leading world power. Bush and Clinton would be in jail right now if global justice prevailed in any way. Thus Chavez and the Bolivarians need to become prepared for any contingency.
Brett: if you don't think it could happen, think again, my son--be prepared for the worst has yet to come.
" I doubt that the US is going to invade Venezuela and I also believe Chavez does not think so"
I would disagree, lets just say that it is unlikely that it will happen under Bush, but later on, even if it is a democrat, things will get hairy.
Ok, to Brett and others who had questions on poverty in Venezuela here are some new numbers:
"—¿Qué tanto ha crecido la pobreza durante la gestión de Chávez?
—Eso es una campaña propagandística contra el Gobierno, es una matriz de opinión que han llevado, incluso a los organismo internacionales. Vemos la pobreza monetaria (se llamará así porque es una medida sólo a través de los ingresos), cuando el presidente Chávez asumió estaba alrededor de 50% y venía descendiendo hasta 39% en el año 2001, pero como consecuencia del paro y del sabotaje petrolero se disparó a 55%.
En el año 2004 comenzó a bajar en el primer semestre dos puntos y para cerrar el segundo semestre en 47%, mientras que la pobreza extrema se ubica en 18%. La encuesta de consumo del primer semestre de 2005 nos permite adelantar que la pobreza para ese período ya estaba por debajo de 40%, ya volvió por debajo de los niveles que estaba en el 2001 y esperamos cerrar el año con una pobreza alrededor de 35%, medida simplemente por la parte monetaria, lo que además se traduce en una importante mejora del ingreso."
This is from an interview with the President of the INE, who collects those stats, in Panorama:
http://www.panodi.com/
They don't archive their articles so if you want to read it you have to do so today.
So there we have clearification. POVERTY IS DOWN UNDER CHAVEZ. Quit significantly in fact. Plus, as the article points out, a lot of other indicators are better too.
Of course I'm sure the opposition will just ignore this news like they are ignoring the PDVSA financial statements too. So much to blog and so little time but I'll get to it.
Commenting by HaloScan
