Blog            About             Photos            Links

<<Newer            Archives             Older>>

February 10, 2007 - FEATURE ARTICLE

January 22, 2007

January 19, 2007

January 6, 2007

December 19, 2006

These people are "illegal" Three blocks from the Swift beef plant in Greeley, Colorado, where hundreds of workers were terrorized last week, is the Catholic church of the surrounding Latino community. Last Tuesday, many workers went to a special morning mass here before heading to work. December 12th, The Day of the Virgin of Guadalupe, is a very special day in the Hispanic community. Those who work in the Swift meat packing plant went to work in the morning, saying goodbye to their families, carrying their sack lunch, not knowing that they would not be returning home again.  Shortly after, federal agents surrounded the meat plant in riot gear, secured the area, and began to detain hundreds of workers.  More than 300 workers were rounded up in Greeley, and more than 1200 nationwide in a raid on several Swift meat packing plants. Continue reading...

December 15, 2006

Democracy: Washington's Real Enemy in Venezuela The History of Democracy Prevention in Venezuela - Part 1 Hugo Chavez isn't the only Venezuelan leader to ever challenge and anger the United States. Cipriano Castro, president of Venezuela from 1899 to 1908, was probably as big of an adversary to Washington as Hugo Chavez is today. Throughout Castro's reign, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt was itching for an excuse to invade Venezuela. He considered the Venezuelan president a "villainous little monkey," and threatened to take action in order to teach Castro a lesson. Referring to the Venezuelan people, Roosevelt said he would "show those Dagos that they will have to behave decently." The threat of change was as feared then as it is now. For the local elites and their allies in Washington, change has never been in their interests. Since the colonial days, a small, white, economic and political elite has controlled the country and enriched themselves from the unfair, undemocratic system of exploitation. This system is closely linked to the interests of Washington, as Venezuela exports vast amounts of raw materials to the United States, and serves as a lucrative market for American products. Any attempts to change this structure would be very threatening to elite interests. Continue reading...

December 8, 2006

Six Lessons from the 2006 Venezuelan Presidential Elections People have said a lot of things about Hugo Chavez and Venezuelan politics in the last 8 years. Chavez has been accused of being repressive, of being a dictator. The government has been accused of electoral fraud and populism. They have attributed his high levels of support to populism, and giving out money to the poor. Many have even denied that Chavez has much support. Others have claimed that Venezuela is not a democracy. U.S. politicians described him using words anywhere from "thug" to "hitler". England's Prime Minister Tony Blair warned Chavez to "abide by the rules of the international community," while former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar labeled him as a "major danger facing Latin America," and has said he threatens democracy in the region. The mainstream coverage of the political process in Venezuela has been a horrendous disinformation campaign.  They label Chavez as radical and anti-American.  But that isn't the worst of it.  Mainstream media has carefully constructed the perception that Venezuela is an undemocratic and authoritarian state; a typical Latin American dictatorship, who maintains power through rigged elections and repression of the opposition.  But on Sunday all the cards came tumbling down, as their 8-year-old castle of lies and manipulations completely fell apart.  The huge Chavez victory in presidential elections reveals some very interesting realities about Venezuela that have never been recognized before by mainstream media.  It's time that the world recognize a few things about Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. 1.  Hugo Chavez is not a dictator.  This has been the claim and the image portrayed by major media for the last 8 years.  Its time to recognize the truth; that in Venezuela democracy is more alive than ever and Hugo Chavez is an immensely popular, democratically-elected leader.  Aside from winning 63% of the total votes, he also won with a majority in every single state of the republic in elections that were certified by both the European Union and the Organization of American States.  They were clean, open and fair elections in which the population had a real, significant choice to make between two very different candidates.  Unlike many nations, such as the U.S., in which the choice is between two parties that have very similar political programs, in Venezuela the population made a real choice to continue their revolution. 2.  Chavez is widely supported by the masses.  Mainstream political analysts have continuously tried to make the claim that Chavez only has the support of a minority of the population.  Opposition candidate Manuel Rosales made the claim that the only people who support Chavez are those poor sectors who live off the government like parasites.  In the Wall Street Journal, journalist Alvaro Vargas Llosa has made the claim that Chavez is dictatorial and only supported by a minority.  With Chavez almost doubling the previous record for the most votes in a presidential election in Venezuela, I believe those analysts would now have a difficult time defending their claims. 3.  The fraud claim is totally bogus.  Over the last eight years the Venezuelan opposition, along with mainstream media, have portrayed the Venezuelan electoral process as fraudulent and controlled by Chavez.  The claim has been that Chavez does not have the support of the majority of Venezuelans, but has stayed in power through rigged elections.  Sunday's elections clearly proved this false.  Chavez nearly doubled the votes of his opposition candidate in an electoral process that was extremely clean, open, and fair.   The opposition was forced to accept their defeat. 4.  Chavez won the recall referendum in 2004 and every other electoral contest in the last 8 years.  Opposition media often have made the claim that Chavez has not actually won the recent electoral contests in Venezuela.  After the referendum in August of 2004, official results showed that Chavez won with 59% of the total votes.  However, opposition leaders in Venezuela swore that the election was rigged, and they had their own polls to back up their claim, saying he only had 40% of the vote, with 60% against him.  International media also picked up the claim, casting doubt about whether or not Chavez is democratic.  Chavez' victory on Sunday, with 63% of the total votes, and over 7 million votes total, gives legitimacy to the 2004 victory (in which the official results showed almost 6 million votes), as well as his victory in 1998 and 2000, and shows opposition claims to be totally baseless. 5.  The U.S.-backed Venezuelan opposition uses fake electoral polls, and the media plays along.  As in 2004, in the months before Sunday's elections the Venezuelan opposition and mainstream media published many surveys showing that Chavez would lose the presidential contest.  One of the major pollsters, Penn, Schoen and Berland, a Washington-based firm, published a series of surveys showing support for Chavez shrinking with each result, and the opposition candidate Rosales gaining momentum.  All international polls, however, and those polls published by the government, showed that Chavez maintained a lead of between 20 and 30 percent.  The mainstream media in Venezuela did not show the real surveys, but rather gave wide coverage to those showing a close race or a Rosales victory.  We now see whose polls were true, and who was attempting to manipulate and confuse the population. 6.  Mainstream media coverage of Venezuela is full of lies and distortions.  We can now clearly see that mainstream media, both internationally and in Venezuela, consistently manipulate information about Venezuela, and they have managed to fool a lot of people.  Due to the media campaign in Venezuela, there was a significant portion of the population who believed Chavez would lose Sunday's election.  On the day of the elections, I talked to several people who were certain that Chavez had lost.  The mainstream media had used false surveys and biased coverage to create that image.  They were obviously wrong, just as they had been with the rest of their claims.  There had been no fraud, Chavez was no dictator, and the majority of the population is clearly with their president.  They had tried so hard, but failed to hide the fact that Chavez is a democratic and wildly popular leader. Sunday's elections in Venezuela are a good case study in how the mainstream media is dedicated to subverting democracy.  At every turn they have looked for ways to damage the image of Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelan democracy.  They have manipulated the information, distorted the truth, and circulated totally false information.  The objective has been to prevent democracy in Venezuela, but, for now, they have failed.  At the very least there should be an appology to Chavez and his government for all the false claims and distortions.  But since we know that will never happen, hopefully they will be forced to accept the above as the truth and give the campaign of lies a rest.

December 4, 2006

Venezuela decided: The Bolivarian Revolution Continues With 78% of the votes counted, Chavez is the clear victor with more than 60% of the votes, his opponent obtained only 38%. Here in Caracas everything is calm, and it appears that the opposition has accepted their defeat. Chavez won the majority in every single state of the republic, as he broke all the records for the highest percentage of votes, and the highest total of votes in the history of Venezuela. Stay tuned for further analysis, photos of election day, and more information in the next few days.

November 21, 2006 - FEATURE ARTICLE

Coup d'Etat in Venezuela: Made in the USA The U.S.-designed Plan to Overthrow Hugo Chavez in the Days Following the Election In 1999, when the U.S.-led bombing campaign in Serbia didn't get rid of Slobodan Milosevic, Washington changed its strategy. U.S. intelligence organized a $77 million effort to oust Milosovic through the ballot box. They sent in CIA front organizations funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Instead of guns and bombs, these U.S. forces were armed with fax machines, computers, and perhaps most importantly, sophisticated surveys done by the Washington-based polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland.(1) Their mission: to take down Milosevic by strengthening opposition groups. Since 2000, this smooth new strategy to influence elections and topple regimes has been implemented in many other countries.  Dubbed as the "post-modern coup" by Jonathan Mowat, the same brilliant techniques were used in Belarus in 2001, in Georgia in 2003, and in the Ukraine in 2004, to name a few.   Although it ultimately failed in Belarus, in Georgia the U.S. effort produced the "Rose Revolution" which overthrew President Eduard Shevardnadze.  In the Ukraine it was the "Orange Revolution" that installed Victor Yushchenko in 2004.(3)  Each time, groups financed by the NED, and USAID worked inside the country to build popular support for the opposition candidate.  Each time they constructed an appealing campaign image using the modern marketing tactics that they have perfected along the way.  And each time, they used Penn, Schoen & Berland election "polls" to shape the public's perception. These days the U.S. has a new arch nemesis; Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.  Surely Washington would be delighted to get rid of him in the same fashion as all the rest.  But there is one small problem; Hugo Chavez is no Slobodan Milosevic.  He is immensely popular among the masses in Venezuela and throughout Latin America.  Pro-Chavez parties have continued to win democratic elections over the last 8 years, and will most certainly win again in the December 3rd presidential contest.  This time U.S. forces have their work cut out for them.  They know that it is basically impossible to beat Chavez at the ballot box; he's too popular.  It looks like they will have to go to plan B: a coup d'etat. Continue reading...

November 30, 2006

The Political Conflict in Latin America Couldn't Get Much Clearer Alvaro Noboa, of Ecuador, is fairly representative of what the white elite class is in Latin America. The richest man in Ecuador, he inherited his wealth which is made up of a whole slew of businesses including banana plantations, coffee, sugar, soft drinks, banking and more. His principle business activity is the exportation of bananas and he has been accused several times of human rights abuses and poor working conditions on his plantations. A 2002 Human Rights Watch report said that children as young as 8 years old work on the banana plantations in hazardous conditions, and adult workers are afraid to organize unions. Noboa is known for using violence and armed men to break up strikes, even firing on them in a 2002 incident that resulted in 2 wounded. Of course, that is the price that these workers must pay so Noboa can continue to export cheap fruit. In 2005 his banana exporting company had sales of $219 million. A neoliberal and Washington's preferred candidate in last Sunday's presidential elections, Noboa stated his clear approval for a free trade agreement with the United States, in spite of the fact that the majority of the population of Ecuador is opposed to it.  Of course, further opening markets, both for exporting and importing is exactly what someone like Noboa would be interested in.  After all, that's what neoliberalism is all about.  The US products get more access to the Ecadorian market, and big exporters like Noboa get better access to US markets.  Everyone benefits, except for the majority of the population that is left out.  Meanwhile, Ecuador must keep its bananas competitive on the market, which they do by keeping workers' wages very low, down the barrel of a gun. Fortunately, Ecuadorians chose another path.  On Sunday they elected leftist economist Rafael Correa.  Far from a white elitist, Correa is darker-skinned, speaks the indigenous language Quechua, and rejects an unfair trade agreement with the United States.  Instead of serving the interest of Washington, he will work in the interests of the Ecuadorian population, something Washington surely sees as dangerous. The political options in Latin America couldn't get much clearer than the choice between Correa and Noboa in Ecuador.  As leftists have been winning in nation after nation in the region, it is clear what the preference of the majority of the population is.  Now, as always, the struggle is one of classes.  In the most unequal region in the world, the elite class fights to maintain its position of domination and exploitation, while the humble masses express their desires for real, profound changes that will develop a national economy that includes them. In Venezuela, the conflict is almost identical.  The choice is between a government of the elite class, neoliberal, and serving the interests of the multinational corporations, or a government of the masses, politically and economically independent, that works to serve the interests of the majority of the population. After a long process of deciding who would be the opposition candidate to run against Hugo Chavez in the December elections, Manuel Rosales emerged as the single candidate of the opposition, which most opposition parties would back.   Originally, candidates like Teodoro Petkoff, a known neoliberal of the administration before Chavez, wished to be the opposition candidate.  Julio Borges was another, but it was decided that he was seen as "identified with the rich, those who have money and very far from those of humble origins."  Roberto Smith was involved in the very unpopular neoliberal reforms of the government in the 1980's.  Thus, the candidate who seemed to have the least stigma of being "elite", neoliberal, or identified with the rich was chosen as the single candidate. Although he has openly denied that he is a neoliberal, Manuel Rosales has as one of the heads of his campaign the neoliberal Teodoro Petkoff.  He makes frequent references to opening the doors to foreign investment in Venezuela, and has said that he will reverse the agrarian reform put forth by the Chavez government.  In 2002, during the brief overthrow of Chavez, Rosales signed and supported the Carmona Decree which dissolved all of the elected powers of the government and, most importantly, overturned the Chavez administration laws that prevent the privitization of the nation's oil industry.  In other words, Rosales supports the privatization of the natural resources; a clear sign of what it means to be neoliberal. The conflict is very clear.  It is between the interests of the oligarchic minority, or the interests of the humble masses of the population, who so desperately need national development, national economies, and independence from the United States.  However, even though this conflict is so incredibly clear, there are few who can see it.  The Latin American elite exercises an incredible amount of power in the region.  They own the media.  They control the existing industry and control the economy.  And, by exercising their influence, they have managed to gather the support of a significant portion of the population.  Although it is still a minority, this disillusioned sector of the population believes what the elite media tell them.  They are carried along by the lies of the oligarchy seeking to serve their interests. On December 4th, there is no doubt what those elite media will be saying.  They will be claiming that the victory of Hugo Chavez was fraudulent.  Although nearly all the surveys show that he holds a massive lead in the polls, around 30%, the major media will maintain that he did not win, but committed fraud.  And, since they have the support of a significant portion of the population, this claim will not fall on deaf ears.  They will claim that Hugo Chavez' victory was fraudulent and many will believe it.  It doesn't matter what the facts say, or what the professional polls say.  What matters is who has the loudspeaker, who controls the podium.  On December 4th they will claim fraud, and they will try to topple the Chavez government.  Hopefully there will be enough people who insist that democracy be respected, so that they cannot succeed.

November 13, 2007

November 11, 2006

The False Reality of the Venezuelan Media

Four men on the corner snicker and sneer as President Chavez's major opponent in the upcoming elections, Manuel Rosales, prepares to march through the streets of the city.  The march, which was supposed to start at 9 a.m., still has not begun at 10 o'clock.  I ask them "When is the march going to begin?", and they laugh "They have to wait until at least 100 people show up!" as they joke and laugh about those who oppose the government of Chavez.  Listening to their conversation, its obvious that they see the "escualidos", as the opponents to Chavez are called, as a somewhat ridiculous minority of the population, who will easily be defeated in the December 3rd elections.  These men are staunch supporters of Chavez and his anti-imperialist rhetoric, and those who don't support the revolution are the target of their scorn and disdain.

Similar to this are the opinions of the people in the barrio school where I teach.  The barrio zones and shanty towns are where the majority of the Venezuelan population lives, and to them, Manuel Rosales doesn't stand much of a chance against President Chavez.  Although there are surely a few Rosales voters here, among the poor classes in the barrio the large majority are clearly Chavez supporters.  And even those who don't particularly love their president wouldn't consider voting for the opposition.  As one young couple told me, "Rosales represents a return to the past, to the kinds of governments we had before Chavez."  Another excited Chavez supporter said this week they will inaugurate the new Barrio Adentro medical clinic in their community.  Nearly all the children in the community study in the local Bolivarian school, a Chavez program to improve primary education.  And many of the adults study in other educational missions developed by the government.  For them, the choice on December 3rd is as clear as it could be, and they are without a doubt that President Chavez will be reelected for six more years.

On the other side of town, the reality is a totally different story.  In the English language institute where I teach evening English courses to university students and adults, its almost impossible to find a Chavez supporter.  Although some of the Venezuelan staff at the institute support Chavez, nearly all of the students in the institute, who come almost exclusively from the middle and upper classes, hate the president with a passion. Any mention of the president and students respond with groans and disgust, as if he were the most despicable person imaginable.  He is stupid, he is a dictator, he is completely nuts, they say.

The institute is private, somewhat expensive, and geared toward those Venezuelans who are interested in studying or working in the United States.  Inevitably, this means the students come from the minority of the population who have considerable expendable income and a higher level of formal education.  A large portion of the students idealize the United States as a place where someday they might live, and be prosperous.  They've emulated certain aspects of "American culture" that they've seen in Hollywood movies and U.S. television shows.  Others maybe aren't interested in living in the United States, but they realize that the language of business is English, and if they wish to obtain a good job after graduating, it will be helpful to speak English.

These two realities will come to a direct collision on December 3rd when Venezuelans go to the polls.  Nearly all the surveys show a huge lead for President Hugo Chavez, however those in the opposition camp can't see how that is possible.  "In Venezuela there are two ways to see the political situation; the right way, and the wrong way," one of my students told me.  He laughs at the thought of someone who would support Chavez.  He assured me that Manuel Rosales will win the elections in December.  I asked him if he'd seen the surveys that show Chavez has the lead.  He said the surveys he'd seen showed Rosales would win, and he wasn't lying.  The media he watches has created a completely different political reality.

The private media in Venezuela over the last 6 years has been a truly amazing expression of the power mass media has over a population.  The major television channels, such as Globovision, Venevision, RCTV, and others are openly and aggressively anti-Chavez.  On April 11th, 2002, when a group of Venezuelan businessmen, politicians, and military officers briefly overthrew President Hugo Chavez, the major media used their power to carefully aid the coup leaders.  First, they cleverly manipulated images to blame the violence in the streets on the government.  Less than 48 hours later, when the Chavez supporters came out into the streets, surrounded the Presidential palace, and demanded the return of their president, the private media chose to play cartoons and soap operas instead of reporting what was happening.  In spite of all this, Chavez was returned to power on April 13th, as a result of the popular uprising.

Likewise, over the last few years, at every turn the private media has taken the opportunity to blame nearly every negative piece of news on the Chavez government.  From violence on the border, to increased kidnappings, to traffic jams, all are the fault of the national government.  They claim Chavez is a corrupt dictator, and that the freedoms that Venezuelans now have, such as the freedom of expression, have been stepped on, and will soon be taken away.  All of this is done in an attempt to destabilize and ultimately remove Chavez from the presidency.

Consequently, this constant media campaign has had a substantial effect on a large sector of the population that is middle and upper class.  A recent survey showed that 20% of the population believes that Chavez will lose the December election to his opponent Rosales.  Unaware of the positive accomplishments made by the government, they see Chavez as a crazy tyrant, and a threat to democracy.  The media has created the sensation that the country is going down the tubes, and everything is getting worse.  According to them, the government has been totally inept at solving the major problems in the country, and the president's discourse is constantly taken out of context to give the impression that he is an obnoxious and offensive person.  "I cried when Chavez won the 2004 Referendum," a student's mother told me.  "How embarrassing to have a person like that as the President of Venezuela!" she exclaimed.  The middle and upper classes have been trained to believe that a good government must come from the "better", "educated" class of society.  Chavez, from the poor, lower classes, doesn't fit the role.

Ironically, it is this only this "educated" class who is susceptible to the outrageous manipulations and distortions of the mass media.  The majority poor of the population is fairly immune to it, as they don't depend on mass media for their information, and they surely don't relate to the elite point of view they hear on the U.S.-style news programs.  As a result, Chavez still maintains the support of the masses, despite the constant media campaign against him.    According to a Chilean study, Chavez has among the highest support among Latin American nations, and more Venezuelans rank their government as "very democratic" than any other Latin American nation.  Most surveys taken over the last year show that not only does Chavez have high approval ratings, but that his opponents have very little support.  To most observers, there will be no contest in the December elections.

But the private media have recently published some surveys that show a drastically different picture.  According to them, Manuel Rosales has the support of roughly half the population.  Globovision, the cable news network, has reported that Rosales only trails Chavez by 13 percentage points, 37% to 50%.  According to El Universal, and the survey company Keller, Rosales is close behind Chavez, 48% to 52%.  And according to an article recently published in La Frontera, a local newspaper in the state of Merida, Rosales could have as high as 58% support in the whole country, with Chavez coming in far behind with only 42%.  The national network RCTV, as if they were openly campaigning for Manuel Rosales, begins their nightly news program following the campaign trail of Rosales, transmitting his speeches, and explaining his political promises.  A reporter on a radio show claims "The people are waking up, and Rosales is moving towards victory!"

It appears the campaign has been successful.  Rosales supporters are now fairly certain that he will win, as they follow his campaign every night on the evening news, with surveys that show his growing support.  "Even the Chavez supporters have admitted Chavez will lose," one middle-class student told me.  However, anyone who has seen the numerous international surveys knows that the opposite is the truth.  Chavez holds a commanding lead in the international polls, and it is pretty much impossible that Rosales could close the gap in the weeks that remain before the elections.  So what is the point of the false surveys?

October 20, 2006

Venezuela Changing

Meet Karolimar.  Karolimar is a typical Venezuelan girl from a poor family.  She lives in the shanty houses on the side of the hill, as does all of her extended family.   Her grandfather was among the first to settle in this community that hangs off the side of the mountain.  He came here decades ago from a rural area, as Venezelans in general flocked to the urban centers looking for economic opportunities.  Oil has dominated the Venezuelan economy for the last century, and has created a society that lives off imports, paid for by oil revenues.   The rest of the economy was virtually abandoned, as were all those people who could not find a place in the oil-based economy.

A girl like Karolimar has very few opportunities in her life.  Coming from a barrio, its not likely she will receive a very good education.  Most of her family is somewhat illiterate.  Her local school could never afford computers, or textbooks.  And it would obviously be impossible for her to attend a private school.  But Karolimar did manage to finish her high school education, studying in a local Catholic school for poor children located in the barrio.  But now what can she do?  Venezuela's major universities only have a very limited capacity, and traditionally the system has functioned for the benefit of those with money.  Usually, in order to enter any program, one must pass an entrance exam.  The wealthy, of course, have studied in better schools, and have been well prepared for the entrance exams, not to mention favoritism, corruption and the influence of rich families.  And, besides, those from poor families cannot usually afford to dedicate their time to studying, and its even less possible for those poor people who live far from a major university.

So what has Karolimar done?  Right now she is working down in the street below the shanty town.  There she has a small kiosk on the sidewalk where she sells food, mostly breakfast and lunch.  She, like the majority of Venezuelans, works in the informal economy.  That is, she has no formal job but is making a living on the margins by selling a good or service.  She sells her breakfast and lunch food mostly to the people from her same community as they come and go.  Most Venezuelans are forced to work in the informal economy, as an industrialized modern economy has never been developed in Venezuela.  Without any other economic possibilities, in an economy that excludes a large sector of the population, those in the informal economy are looking for a way, any way, to just get by.  Living in a shack on the side of the mountain and working in her kiosk, Karolimar can hopefully sell enough lunches to pay for her groceries, and other expenses.

A few years ago, Karolimar's story would  have ended there.  She would have few other options but to continue working in the informal sector.  But, fortunately, there are a few more interesting details to her story.  Like thousands of Venezuelans, Karolimar is now studying at the university level.  She is getting her degree in Education through the Mission Sucre, the university-level education program created by the Chavez government.  Although she doesn't receive a scholarship from the government, those students who are most in need do.  Karolimar's best friend also studies Education and she receives around $50 per month from the government.  According to Karolimar, everyone who studies medicine in the Mission Sucre also recieves a scholarship, as they study all day, every day, with Cuban doctors as teachers.

Karolimar should graduate in 2 semesters and is excited to start working in the local school.  In the community where she lives the government converted the old primary school into a Bolivarian school.  Now the primary school kids get 3 free meals a day, and the school runs all day long, giving the parents the chance to earn income during the day.  Bolivarian schools are attractive places to work for a teacher, as the pay is much better than in other schools.

So instead of spending their lives selling goods on the streets, thousands of Venezuelans like Karolimar now have the opportunity to study, from primary school to university level.  Thousands now have new job opportunities available to them.  Some statistics have shown that more than half of Venezuelans are now studying, and hundreds of thousands have already graduated from the various programs.  Now the challenge will be to create enough jobs for all of these educated workers.

  Karolimar's mother has spent much of her life trying to organize the community behind different causes.  In the beginning they lived on the mountain without any services.  They had no water system, no sewage system, no roads.  The occupants collected water from a river at the base of the mountain for drinking and cooking.  As the community grew to several thousand occupants by the 1990's, one of their  main demands was for medical care.  The public hospital is far away, and is totally inadequate to serve the population of the city.  For years they have organized committees in the community to demand health care in their community.  But, to no avail; most people in the community simply did without medical attention.

In a couple weeks the community will inaugurate a new Barrio Adentro medical center in the center of the community.  As a part of the new public health system, this medical center will be staffed by Cuban doctors, who are known for their high quality health care methods in poor sectors around the world.  The health care is totally free, as are a large amount of the drugs.  Thousands of these kinds of small medical centers have been constructed in poor communities all over the country.  The Barrio Adentro program has been built parallel to the traditional health system in Venezuela, and will now hopefully replace it.  The idea is that all those new students studying medicine will soon be able to replace the thousands of Cuban doctors now working in communities throughout the country.

These are some of the improvements that have been made in the lives of the poor in Venezuela in the last few years.  The middle class, who does not live in the barrios and finds it hard to see that the president has done anything but talk, but the majority poor of the country have no difficulty in seeing that this president, and his revolution, is something that they don't want to lose.  The improvements in their lives, though modest, are much more than what they have gotten under any other government, and they continue to support Chavez, as they see that he supports their struggle to improve their conditions.

Up the hill from Karolimar's house is the government-subsidized food market called Mercal.  Here they sell all the basic foods that a typical family consumes; rice, beans, cooking oil, margarine, ham, milk, flour, eggs, etc., all at government-subsidized prices.  This allows the poor families, or anyone who wishes to shop at the tens of thousands of Mercals opened across the country, to save around 40% on their grocery bills.  Also a good percentage of the food is produced in Venezuela, helping support and recuperate the weak food industry in Venezuela.  One school kid told me one day, "My dad says that if it weren't for President Chavez we wouldn't be able to eat."

The owner of the Mercal, a merry old man who lives above the store, was sent to Cuba last year to have an operation on his eyes.  He, along with Karolimar's uncle and several other people from the community had serious eye problems, such as cataracts, that had long been neglected proper medical treatment.  Many could not see well, and others would soon go blind if untreated.  Under the new government program called Mission Milagros (Miracle), hundreds of thousands of  people have been sent, free of cost, to Cuba to receive the professional eye treatment they provide there.  Those who went from this community came back satisfied.  The store-owner tells me about the beautiful beaches he saw during the few days he spent in Cuba a year ago.  "And how are the eyes now?" I asked him.  "Perfectos," he replied.

Karolimar's aunt Rosa is at the head of the local Consejo Comunal.  These new forms of community organization are popping up everywhere, and in this community they are already recieving money from the government for their local projects.  The idea is a form of direct democracy through community participation.  The communities must organize themselves according to the new Law of Consejos Comunales.  Then, they put together the community-improvement projects that they decide they need in their community.  If approved, the government gives the funding directly to the community, avoiding all middle-men, and the community executes the projects themselves.  In Karolimar's community, the Consejo Comunal is already working on improving the inadequate sewage system, and they are building new bridge to cross the river.  With direct participation and involvement of the community, it is much more democratic than top-down decision making, and they limit the possibilities of corruption.

Along with the huge macro-economic changes that hope to achieve economic independence and development, the Chavez government has implemented domestic programs that have had a significant impact on the lives of the majority poor.  There are plenty of Venezuelans who oppose the government and the very outspoken president, most of them from the middle and upper classes.  The private media campaign of constant attacks has surely had an impact on a large sector of the population.  But the majority of Venezuelans see him as a change from the past, and appreciate the changes that he has made.  They hope, as we all should, that the revolution can continue successfully, and be free from outside intervention.

October 9, 2006

Venezuela Inmensa

Check out this group of local students who plays traditional Venezuelan music.  They play for different events and ceremonies around Merida.  We caught them during one of their practices and they played a couple tunes for us.  The name of the group is Venezuela Inmensa.

September 21, 2006

President Chavez Speaks in New York

U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, responded to Chavez's remarks by stating "The real issue here is he knows he can exercise freedom of speech on that podium, and as I say, he could exercise it in Central Park, too.  How about giving the same freedom to the people of Venezuela?"  One look at the Venezuela media for 2 minutes shows how dead wrong Mr. Bolton is.  But, we've come to expect these kinds of blatant lies from the U.S. government.

September 16, 2006

Why is Venezuela a threat to Washington?

August 25, 2006

Ask a Mexican what's wrong with "Free Trade"

This is what I call a "superfluous population."  That is, there is no place for them in the current global economic system.  They are simply "extra" people, looking for a place to fit in.  There are no opportunities for them to work in Mexico, or Central America and there are only slightly better opportunites in the United States.  With no other choice, each year nearly a million Latinos cross the border illegally into the United States, in search for a way to make a living.  To those who have designed the rules of the economic system, these people simply do not matter.  They are the unfortunate side-effect of what is called "economic growth" and "free trade".

This group happens to be a group of illegal immigrants who are former students of mine, but they could be any of the millions of Latinos living on the margins in the United States.  Talking to them about their lives, and their struggles is a good lesson on the side of "free trade" that is never talked about.

Free-traders talk about the "the efficient movement of goods, services, capital, information and technology."  They tell us that this is the way that prosperity can be carried to all corners of the globe.  The consensus is that "free trade" will extend and create wealth for everyone, and in order to do this we must eliminate "policies or measures that adversely affect trade and investment."  However, what this really means is the adoption of trade relations that benefit investors, and capital.  This gives corporations the freedom to move capital across borders, and invest freely in different countries.  Any laws or policies that affect the profitable investment of the corporations must go.  This means, those laws that protect farmers, workers, the environment, or the domestic economy are eliminated.

Agricultural subsidies or price controls that once kept small farmers alive are now eliminated.  Corn, a staple of Mexican agriculture, is now imported at lower prices from the United States.  Local producers lose their market, and large corporate farms move in to produce different crops for export.  Millions of farmers are forced to give up their land, and move to the already over-crowded cities, or go north to the United States.

Along the  border with the United States, U.S. companies have set up maquiladoras, in order to take advantage of the abundant cheap labor in Mexico.  Wages are driven down both in Mexico and in the United States.  Laws protecting the workers and maintaining labor standards have been eliminated under NAFTA, as well as the laws protecting the environment from the pollution of these factories.  Instead of developing their own local economy, the economy becomes based around the maquiladoras producing cheap goods for a distant population.  The common man has the choice of working long hours like a slave for little pay in an American-owned factory, or he can head across the border and find better wages, and better conditions.

Another key element to the free trade agreements is privatization.  The government must privatize all state-owned services and resources.  Many times these are bought up by U.S. companies looking for new areas of investment.  This means the elimination of many sources of government support for the poorest sectors of the society, creating even more desperate people who can find no place to work and live in their society.  Instead of trying to protect domestic industry so Mexicans can create an economy of their own, where all Mexicans can find a place to participate and contribute, they have been selling off the country to U.S. companies and allowing them to exploit Mexico's resources and poor workers.

So is there any question why so many Latinos travel north to find better conditions?  What Americans don't understand is that this problem of immigration is a consequence of the actions of their own U.S. corporations who make such huge profits from the trade agreements with Mexico and other countries.  These corporations push for the free movement of capital and investment between countries, but you never hear them talk of the free movement of workers.  No, this would defeat purpose of the trade agreement which takes advantage of the captive poor workers and depressed wages in Mexico.  The standardization of trade policies and laws is a good idea, but the standardization of wages, and labor policies is not?  What really matter is profit, not human beings.  As long as the corporations can increase their profits, it doesn't matter how much of the population is left out.

It is largely this "left out" population that we now find living in the United States.  They do not want to live in the United States, far from their friends and family and outside of their culture, but they feel they have little choice.  Most don't speak English, and are therefore forced to work the hardest and most dangerous jobs.  And now life for them is becoming increasingly difficult in the United States.  These communities have been in a panic lately as new federal and state laws are tightening.  Many more are dying trying to cross the border as they are forced to the extremes as border patrol is stiffened.  They are losing their jobs as the government cracks down on those who employ illegals.  It is now impossible for them to aquire a driver's license in some states, making it more difficult for them to buy a car, and nearly impossible to insure their car, or just register it.  They are forced to drive without a license, without license plates, and uninsured.  Most Americans brush this off as a small problem, not realizing that illegal immigrants make up fairly large sector of the population in many parts of the country; much larger than people realize.

So next time you hear politicians, business leaders and their "intellectual" cheerleaders going on about the wonders and benefits of "free trade", ask the question "free for who?"  The kind of "free trade" that is being pushed around the world by Washington gives more freedom to corporate investment and capital, but it takes away freedoms from the majority of the population.  The general population is left to fend for themselves with no government protections or supports.  This kind of global trade increases inequality as wealthy corporate investors carve up the world even more among themselves, and leave the rest of the population out.  It should be no suprise that the same groups who benefit from it are also the ones praising it and promoting it.  However, talking to the people who it affects the most, it is clear who benefits, and who does not.

August 12, 2006

The most brainwashed society in the world                               

Spending some weeks in the United States after a year and half in Venezuela, there has been one reoccuring thing that has continued to amaze me.  The population is subjected to some of the most effective mind control in the world.  In a repressive, dictatorial society, the population is controlled by force.  Regardless of what they think, their actions are controlled, and thus the general population is marginalized from power and control of their country.  However, in a free, open, and democratic society like the United States, the population must be controlled and marginalized by other means.  Instead of controlling their actions, it is necessary to control their thoughts.

I was amazed to find out that one of the most popular books among my friends and aquaintances is now "The World Is Flat" by Thomas Friedman.  Friedman is the famous New York Times columnist who has historically supported United States' foreign policy.  He now supports the U.S. War on Terror, the U.S. unconditional support for Israel, and the corrupt poltical system in Washington.  But could we expect much different from one of the most promoted "intellectuals" in the United States?  Since he is promoted and featured by the New York Times, we can already be sure that his views are acceptable to the corporate business world to which the NYTimes belongs.  

But the problem with "The World Is Flat" is none of the above.  Friedman writes a compelling account, from a lot of personal experience and careful analysis.  But what is his basic conclusion?  Basically he comes to the conclusion that U.S.-led globalization, dominated by multinational corporations, is not only unavoidable, but desireable.   His only criticisms of U.S. corporate-led globalization is the way in which we are doing it.  Are we using our military correctly?  Are we going to be competitive enough to succeed at this, or are we too complacent?  Never does he consider the question, do we have any right at all to dominate the world with our form of globalization?  Never does he explain how current form of coporate globalization, using the tools of the IMF and the World Bank limit democracy in poor nations, and benefit U.S. corporations.

But, its not really a surprise that one of the most promoted authors on U.S. politics comes to these conclusions.  What else should we expect from the corporate-owned media that dominates in the center of the empire?  The most amazing part is that this book, along with many other similar ones, are largely read by the political "left" in the United States!  And this is a key factor in how U.S. thought control works.  If you make people think that this is the most "left" on the spectrum, then they will automatically not be capable of going beyond that.  This false "left" restricts the debate within those limits, and thus all thought is controlled within these barriers.  This form of thought control has been explained in detail by Noam Chomsky in numerous books and articles.

For example, on the war in Iraq, the debate varies between two extremities.  On the right the position is,"we must hold strong and we will prevail in our war on terror."  On the left, the most extreme position is, "We are making mistakes in the war on terror, we are not capable of bringing democracy to Iraq, and therefore we must withdraw."  The truth, that the U.S. has no right to invade a country and massacre its people, never even enters the debate.  The fact that a "War on Terror" is impossible because War IS terror is not mentioned.  Nor does anyone ever question whether the real motive is even terrorism, or are there hidden motives?  Imagine for a second, a parallel situation.  When Japan invaded China before WWII, would we ask the question, "Will the Japanese be capable of winning, or was it a mistake?"  Would we have said during WWII that the Germans should withdraw from France not because they had bad intentions but because it was a mistake and they won't be capable of winning?  These positions would be absolutely ludicrous.  Those are the positions of the left in the United States.

The debate concerning Israel and Palestine is another very revealing example.  Time Magazine, or the New York Times are seen by many Americans to be on the extreme left side.  However, when reading the analysis of the middle east, both of these support Israel unconditionally.  However, again, the debate is framed into a small spectrum.  On the left (NYTimes, TIME) the position is, "Will Israel be able to succeed in their attack on the Palestinians and Lebanese, or will it hurt their interests?"  On the right they would say , Israel must continue their invasion and occupation.  On the left, they agree with Israels motives and goals, but they say they should change their strategy.  Never do they ask the question "Does Israel have any right to invade, occupy, and massacre the Arab populations that surround them?"  Never do they mention that Israel has engaged in an illegal military occupation of Arab territories for over 50 years, with constant condemnation by the nations of the world, except the United States.  Never do they mention the fact that many many times more Arabs have been killed by Israel than the number of Israelis killed by Arab attacks.

And, again, the question that U.S. media always ask is "Should the United States get involved in the conflict and work for peace, or should we not get involved?"  The spectrum of thought is already very limited, with the assumption that the U.S. is not involved.  What they fail to report is that the U.S. is VERY involved in the conflict.  The U.S. supplies Israel with billions of dollars of weapons and military aid, and has consitently, for decades, blocked any and all resolutions in the United Nations to stop Israel's colonization of the surrounding territory.  The  reality is that Israel has no military.  What they have is a U.S.-equipped military, but with Israeli soldiers.

Should the U.S. be the "world police", or should we stay out of others' affairs?  Should the U.S. help poor nations, or not?  Are we succeeding in our goal to "bring democracy" to the world?  These questions all assume that that is our intention and that we don't have other motives!  Few Americans are even capable of seeing their nation as the imperial, rogue-nation that it is.  Few Americans are even aware of the oppressive, colonial economic policies that maintain and worsen the conditions of the poor across the globe, and consistently prevent real democracy, to the benefit of the U.S.  Few are aware of the long history the United States has of installing and supporting dictatorships around the world in order to secure U.S. business interests.  So effective is the thought control, that the truth about American policy is not even conceivable for the majority of American citizens.  In the belly of the empire, the notion of empire doesn't even exist!

July 5, 2006

Community Radio back home in Colorado

Today I spoke on a community radio program in the U.S. about Venezuela, what is going on with the Revolution, and the context behind it.  

You can listen to the interview here.

July 12, 2006

Caracas, a disaster of modern capitalism

This weekend I spent a little time in Caracas.  The experience was amazing and shocking; a city completely divided and shaped by its immense inequality.  The capital city of Venezuela, Caracas represents the pinnacle of a society that is at war with itself.  The class divisions are sharp in Venezuela, and in Caracas these divisions are seen the clearest.  Those who are included by the economic system are constantly threatened by those who are excluded, and the excluded majority keeps searching for a way to take a larger part of what should belong to them.

The world capitalist system functions in way so that there is a center, and a periphery.  The center of the system, North America and Europe, lives in affluence with an abundance of wealth and resources, while the rest of the world lives on the outskirts of this economic system, with overwhelming poverty and scarcity.  The countries on the periphery have one basic purpose in this system; to provide raw materials to the center.  The center uses these raw materials to manufacture goods which they overwhelmingly consume in the center (45% of the world's resources are consumed by the United States, which has only 5% of the world's population).  The goods are also exported to the rest of the world, but only for those who can afford to buy them.

In the periphery of the world, where the majority of the world's population lives, this economic system is a disaster.  A small minority of the population gets wealthy with the export of their country's resouces, while the rest of the population remains excluded from the economic system.  Without a developed economy to spread out the nation's wealth, the wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of a few, who remain loyal to the economic system which has given them their wealth.  

In Caracas the effects of this economic system are seen all too clearly.  The vast majority of the population lives in the barrios built on the hillsides surrounding the city.  Conditions in these barrios are horrendous.  The level of poverty is so extreme that life in these places has turned into total chaos.  Drugs, crime, murders, kidnapping, robbery, extorsion, Caracas is now one of the most dangerous cities in the world.  In the first half of 2006, there were at least 324 murders reported in just Caracas alone, according to the the Caracas newspaper  El Universal.  There have been some movies made that attempt to show the conditions of life that the majority of the inhabitants have.  The most recent is called Secuestro Express, and focuses on the organized kidnapping that has increased in recent years.  Poor groups from the barrios target rich families, kidnap their children or relatives, and then demand huge sums of money for their release.

The city is basically divided into two halves.  The eastern half is where the middle and upper classes live, with affluent lifestyles very similar to those in the first world.  The western half, where the poor majority lives, is an unorganized mess of barrios, with makeshift housing stacked one on top of the other as far as the eye can see.  And the west side is so feared, that residents of the east side refuse to even enter it.  I waved down a taxi in the east side, an d asked the driver if he could take me on a tour of the west side.  His face got serious, and he tried to understand why in the world I would want a tour of that mess!  At first he refused, telling me that it was too dangerous.  They could pull a gun on him and take his car from him.  Anything could happen.  But then, for an extremely inflated rate, he agreed to take me on a limited tour.  However, once in the west side, he refused to go deeper into the barrios where I wanted to  go.  He turned around before getting too far, and returned to the east side.  It's a good thing, because as we were stopped in traffic, a man reached in the window of the taxi and snatched away my camera.  The taxi driver was glad they didn't pull a gun and steal his  car from him.

June 16, 2006

Student Riots in the University of the Andes, Merida

In the last couple weeks there has been a lot of controversy about the student riots in Merida.  So what's the deal anyway?  After a week of asking around, talking to classmates and university students, I remained confused.  No one really understood why, all of a sudden, a group of students began to protest in the streets, and commit violent acts.  The first week the classes continued and the University remained open, although a group of students had blocked the road that passes by the University and began to burn things in the street and throw rocks at the police.  The general consesus was that they were mad because the Supreme Court had suspended the University elections, due to the fact that the university authorities were not following the rules established by law.  The students of the opposition must have believed their candidate, Nixon Morenos, would have won.

After a week of fighting, things did not cool down, and many students and police officers ended up wounded.  Some of the police officers were shot with firearms that the students were carrying.  A picture of Nixon Morenos was published in the local paper with blood on his face.  It appears the police hit him with one of their rubber bullets that they use against riots.  In Venezuela, historically the universities have always been autonomous spaces where the state and federal authorities cannot enter, or submit to their control.  The police cannot enter any property of the university.  For that reason, the police remained on the perimeter of the university, trying to contain the situation.  From inside the university, where they have refuge, this group of violent students was throwing rocks and shooting out at the police, as can be seen in the photos.

I heard rumours that they had taken photos of some of the students with weapons, including one of a machine gun.  There were some rumours that these were not actually students, but paramilitaries, or crooks, who are aligned with the opposition to the Chavez government.  Some say that the student opposition organization, Movimiento 13, has offered them money to go protest and fight with them at the university.

With all of these rumours, I decided to go figure it out for myself.  A friend and I walked about as close as we could to the riots and started to film what was happening.  The police were firing through the fence at the students, while the students were throwing rocks back at the police.  The unstable situation had affected the whole city as one of the main avenues had been shut down for a week.  From my footage, I was able to get an image of some "students", in which it appears that one of them may have a pistol.  We couldn't tell for sure, but you can see that these students were not peaceful, nor were they victims of repression by the police.  It appears that they were trying to create an unstable sitation in order to generate opposition to the government.

My roommate told me that in his department of the university, some of these "students" began tearing down Chavista posters and firing their weapons into the air.  Later they threatened the students and called out for the Chavez supporters to come out and face them.  Obviously, since they were armed, no one faced up to them.  By the end of the second week, the National Guard was called out to end the violence, and it appears they entered the university to put down the revolt.

On Friday, June 16th, there was an opposition march to call for the "autonomy" of the University.  Hundreds and hundreds of students, from many different departments, came out into the street to march in support of the student leader Nixon Moreno, who is now in hiding from the government.  I went and filmed the march and interviewed several particpants.  Each participant said the goal of the march was to demand the autonomy of the university, and show their opposition to the fact that the National Guard and the Merida Police had not obeyed the autonomy of the University.  You can see photos of the university march in the June photos page.

Those students who I interviewed who were not participants of the march had something else to say. They said this was just a political march, an excuse for the opposition to say the government was trying to take over the sovereignty of the university, when this was not the truth.  One student mentioned that the law says the police can enter the university in the case that the students are armed and violent. Another said that the student leader Nixon Moreno isn't even a student at all, and has been at the University for 14 years taking one course a semester just to take advantage of the free food, residence, and transportation the university provides.  Another student mentioned that one of the objectives of Nixon's organization is the privatization of parts of the university.  This sounds to me like a pretty suspicious organization, with some pretty suspicious objectives, aligned with the objectives of the elite opposition, and the United States; get rid of Chavez, and privatize the state institutions.

What appeared to me to  be interesting, and amazing, is that all these people could be marching for such a vague reason, the "autonomy" of the university,  and supporting the violent actions of the Movimento 13.  Framing the march around a vague theme made it possible for this small opposition group to get a lot of students to come out and march.  But, it seemed that most of them didn't even really know why they were marching, but the majority of them were in support of Nixon Moreno, and, of course, oppose the government of Chavez.  They had allowed themselves to be carried along by the media campaign against the government, which said the government had violated the university's autonomy.  The question I kept asking myself is, how can they think that the government is not going to do anything when a small group of students is using violence, and firing guns at the police?

Ironically, it is usually these same people who continue with the campaign of "no violence" led by the media, who say Chavez has created more violence in Venezuela.  They are against violence, but when the students are shooting weapons, burning things in the streets, throwing rocks, and inciting confrontations with the police, they believe the police should not be able to do anything in return.  It is such a big contradiction that I can't believe so many people could be blind to it.  As the sign of the marching students says in the photo, "NO to the violence, YES TO THE AUTONOMY!"  So, what do they want?

<<Newer            Archives             Older>>

Blog            About             Photos              Link