Venezuelan elections - Dead Chavez Edition - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Venezuelan elections - Dead Chavez Edition

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

I'm guessing that it was a close election decided by the advantages of incumbency. Chavez has a loyal and highly effective political machine and I'd bet his use of state/PSUV resources to help turn out his supporters worked to his advantage.

That might be "unfair" to Caprilles but that's also ... politics. It's not the same thing as fixing the vote.

Frijolero posted:

I hope Chavez wins.

I've talked to both camps of Venezuelan people. Some have told me that things have gotten worse with Chavez. Toilet paper shortages seem to stick out the most in my mind.
On the left, I was told that Chavez has brought more good than harm. Lower class people are a lot better off it seems.

My talks with Venezuelans is limited to only one camp, but even then the views vary quite a bit.

On the one hand, I've heard that Chavez is a communist dictator who has given the country over to Cuba -- that's the more extreme anti-Chavez view. On the other (and this is coming from Chavez opponents), I've heard the areas where Venezuela has become demonstrably worse (particularly in terms of crime) date to the chaos of the 1990s anyways and are not easy to solve.

They also say Chavez's social programs have done a lot of good even if it's difficult to sort out exactly which programs are wasteful and which ones are working. Their main objection was that Chavez is a vain egomaniac who wants to concentrate authority under himself.

They also see attempts to tar Caprilles with the right-wing oligarchs as ridiculous, and that he's more of a "Lula-style" social democrat. But really everyone needs to calm down and it's not the end of the world if either is president.

# ¿ Oct 8, 2012 04:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 10:50

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

^^^ Yes.

The Ender posted:

Chavez is not perfect, and people like to point-out that he's not perfect while ignoring everything he has done for Venezuela. His policies overall have led to enormous growth and wealth equality, but critics will always say, "Well, [X] policy wasn't good, was it? Of course it wasn't. Therefore, Chavez is a failure."

Venezuela holds fair elections that are heavily monitored by the U.N., so if there's a problem, you'd think the capitalist hegemony would've pointed it out by now instead of just running superficial propaganda against Chavez.

It's fair to say that Chavez has a cult of personality surrounding him. It's also fair to say that Barack Obama has a cult of personality surrounding him, and Stephen Harper has a cult of personality surrounding him, and the late Jack Layton, and the Queen of England, and any other loving popular politician. But people point-out Chavez's like it's some grotesque exception rather than the norm (even if the norm is unhealthy).

But Chavez is somewhat of a weird and grotesque dude. This is a president who exhumed the corpse of Simon Bolivar to prove he had been poisoned by the Colombians, and then claimed the corpse spoke to him. I mean, if George W. Bush or Barack Obama did that to George Washington... I don't know. People would ask questions.

Second, I think there are clearly some anti-democratic features to Chavez's presidency, which is really a big political machine and patronage-type operation. But that's a different thing from saying the system as a whole is authoritarian, or that Venezuela really is a dictatorship. The fact is that the opposition doesn't have enough popular support to unseat him.

PrezCamachoo posted:

If his policies have been so good for the poor why has the crime rate gone through the roof since he came to power?

Why are there more people dieing violent deaths in Caracas than BAGHDAD?

Is poverty not related to crime?

Eh. I'm not really buying your argument. Venezuela went to hell before Chavez came to power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo) and the security crisis is much bigger than Caracas.

Crime and drugs has been a problem across much of Latin America for decades. Look at Colombia, or much of Central America and Mexico. In Mexico, crime erupted after the corrupt old elites were thrown out of power and the old buddy network collapsed. It's such an enormously complicated problem and there's no single set of solutions any single leader could implement.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Oct 8, 2012

# ¿ Oct 8, 2012 05:04

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

^^^ Chavez's influence throughout Latin America has already started to fade. When Ollanta Humala in Peru successfully ran on a Lula-style and not Chavez-style platform, it was a sign that Hugo had been eclipsed.

The Ender posted:

Now, in fairness, I'll have to level my own criticism of Alo Presidente here: Chavez is definitely using it as a heavily biased propaganda vehicle. It targets younger viewers, it offers (basically) only Chavez's point of view, and there is no equivalent program for any opposition party.

Chavez has created a television monopoly for himself, which very likely gives him a huge advantage when election time rolls around.

I was about to say that yours was the greatest defense of Alo Presidente I think I've ever seen. Well done. But you were for a second in the unfortunate position of defending the show as promoting government transparency while comparing it to U.S. political and corporate advertising.

Also, you're ignoring the cadenas, which do go on the air several times a week and can last between a few minutes and several hours on both terrestrial networks and radio. If you have a satellite dish or cable you can always just switch the channel. But if you're poor then maybe not.

# ¿ Oct 8, 2012 05:40

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

The Ender posted:

...You're objecting to the Venezuelan emergency broadcast system?

That's, uh, well. That's an opinion, I guess.

Did you know there's also an emergency broadcast system in the United States?

You realize that Chavez has taken over the emergency broadcast system and now uses it mainly broadcast propaganda, don't you?

# ¿ Oct 8, 2012 05:45

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

a lovely poster posted:

If the most damning thing you can say about the guy is that he's taken over some hours of tv broadcast I'm going to have to say he's probably doing a pretty good job. Maybe you and the other anti-Chavez individuals would care to go into more detail about why he's so bad?

I don't think any of my posts in this thread have been particularly anti-Chavez. More often than not they've been defending Chavez. But when one of his defenders says they've never heard Chavez using the cadenas for propaganda purposes, I have to think there's some arguing in bad faith or willful ignorance.

The Ender posted:

That's certainly news to me. Source?

Reporters Without Borders:

quote:

The 11th anniversary of Chavez� rule on 2 February 2010 saw him deliver his 2,000th �cadena,� which have totalled the equivalent of nearly two months of speaking continuously. This does not include his regular Sunday broadcast �Al� Presidente� on VTV, or a new programme started on 18 February, called �De repente� Con Ch�vez� (�Suddenly� with Ch�vez�) with no set schedule.
http://en.rsf.org/report-venezuela,195.html

Committee to Protect Journalists:

quote:

Venezuelan President Hugo Ch�vez Fr�as has used cadenas�nationwide radio and television addresses that preempt programming on all stations�to challenge the private media�s news coverage and amplify the government�s voice. In his radio and TV call-in program, �Al�, Presidente� (Hello, President), Ch�vez often lambastes critics in the media and the political opposition.

Over more than a decade, Ch�vez has broadcast almost 2,000 cadenas. According to data from AGB Nielsen Media Research, the president has aired 1,995 cadenas from the time he took office in 1999 until late January 2010. Ch�vez has spent more than 1,300 broadcast hours on the air, the equivalent of 55 full days, AGB Nielsen found.
http://cpj.org/blog/2010/02/suddenly-chavez-is-on-the-radio-yet-again.php

Opposition journalist:

quote:

The system was designed decades ago as a way to ensure the timely diffusion of information in case of natural disasters or to broadcast the rare state ceremony. But its use has exploded in the Ch�vez era. Now, several times a week we�re hit with lengthy cadenas, always highly scripted affairs: torrents of propaganda usually in the form of a speech delivered to a handpicked audience of Ch�vez loyalists.
http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/power-failures-in-venezuela/

# ¿ Oct 8, 2012 06:03

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Ardennes posted:

I think the fact there is a very clear robust opposition media makes the critical difference, it isn't like Russia where you just have one choice and I haven't heard about ballot stuffing either.

I am sure a "dictatorship" narrative is going to start in the US, but abusing state tv isn't the same thing as a dictatorship.

True. But it doesn't have to be a dictatorship (which I don't think it is) to be a dictablanda. And it's not just television - it's many things.

Venezuela has become increasingly militarized. Chavez created a new political militia that's separate from the formal military and the 100,000 armed street militia members loyal to Chavez. The military itself has become more politicized as well. This is leaving out the fact that the checks and balances between the different branches of government - including the judiciary - have been eroded in favor of a more centralized executive built around the president.

At the same time, Chavez has popular support and civil liberties are intact. The opposition is able to organize and win offices. Had the opposition won on Sunday, it's possible that Capriles would be the next president. But there was also an uncertainty around it, and many people are unsure whether Chavez would really ever give up power. That the uncertainty even exists is a problem. But I suppose it's academic now. Chavez may have terminal cancer and it's possible he won't survive this term.

Anyways, here's a Reuters image of Chavez getting rained out a few days ago. Aside from my criticism of his government and Chavez personally, it's really an incredible photo:

# ¿ Oct 8, 2012 07:18

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Borneo Jimmy posted:

So does anybody here have any details about this secret paramilitary army Chavez is running?

Here's some more links:

http://www.interviu.es/reportajes/articulos/los-legionarios-de-chavez

http://impactocna.com/2012/04/29/el-barzo-armado-de-la-revolucion-chavista/

A friend of mine participated in an opposition rally at his university when a group of these guys came out of nowhere on motorbikes and attacked them. If you search around, you should be able to find some pictures of these guys driving around on bikes while flashing pistols. I know a bunch of photos exist because he's sent them to me.

# ¿ Oct 8, 2012 23:24

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Thug Lessons posted:

These look like right-wing tabloids. They're also in Spanish, so most of this forum can't read them. All in all this isn't remotely compelling.

That's fair. But the same information is in this AP article:

http://news.yahoo.com/pro-chavez-gangs-tolerated-rule-turf-venezuela-122301808.html

In the video below, you can see the biker gangs in action, including what looks like them brandishing shotguns and clubs while busting up an opposition rally of what looks like students and middle-aged women:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoOGTSfuxKk

Amarkov posted:

Chavez is trying to arrest the leader of one of Chavez's secret militias. That's some 11th dimensional chess there.

Chavez has distanced himself from the militias but Santana was never arrested and even turned up on state television this year, according to the AP article. So I don't know about "trying to arrest." There doesn't seem to have been much of an effort. But clearly Chavez can't outright endorse them. But then he doesn't need to, as was already said.

To complicate the picture:

quote:

[One militia member] said the area is safer than other poor parts of Caracas, which routinely records scores of murders each weekend, despite having seen almost no government security forces for nearly a decade.

"They say we're armed, that we're �the Guardians of Chavez,' we're ultra-violent, we're killers," Martinez, 41, said with a smile. "No. We're the people who were excluded (by previous governments), who are now included, dignified and organized."

His group also runs a newspaper, and during October's election it plans to send members to polling stations across Venezuela to counter any "lies" told by the opposition media.

"We're showing that we're capable of doing valuable, high-quality things in the barrio," Martinez said.

"We'd be an immense resource for the right, for the multinationals, for capitalism. But we do things from a more social point of view, more Bolivarian, more egalitarian, more humanist. That makes them scared, bro."

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/us-venezuela-colectivos-idINBRE87E0GN20120815

But...

quote:

Also contributing to the sense that the collectives have become particularly combative this year are various media reports that the groups are behind several outbreaks of violence. In March, the murder of two young men in one section of 23 de Enero reportedly provoked La Piedrita to storm a neighborhood, setting vehicles on fire and firing gunshots. The group later strongly criticized media reports that described the confrontation as a �war� between neighborhood collectives. According to El Universal, La Piedrita blamed the murders on �narco-paramilitaries� who ambushed the two victims. More recently, unnamed local residents claimed the conflict broke out because La Piedrita is trying to assert its control over a rival collective�s territory, El Universal reported.

[...]

�There is a void of official, state authority in 23 de Enero that has helped justify the formation of these groups,� said Pedro Rangel, director of a Caracas-based think tank, Incosec, that studies conflict dynamics in the capital. �But legally speaking, that authority to provide security should only be in the hands of the police.�

[...]

In the meantime, the collectives essentially act as local vigilantes. Drug dealing and petty theft are acknowledged problems in 23 de Enero, and the groups are known to take action against offenders if they receive complaints from residents. Night patrols are common, and collective members openly carry weapons.

�There is no due process here,� NYU professor [Alejandro] Velasco said. �It�s trial by execution.�

http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/leftist-collectives-keep-the-peace-raise-fears-in-caracas-barrio

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Oct 9, 2012

# ¿ Oct 9, 2012 03:22

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Can-O-Raid posted:

Yeah, Chavez doesn't see democracy as anything other than a means of legitimizing his own rule. His entire party is built around himself, and his personal charisma, as evidenced by the lack of any candidates to succeed him despite failing health. He talks about his 'Bolivarian Revolution', but it doesn't really seem to exist as a coherent ideology, or as anything other than Chavez's personal opinions as a bizarro-world hybrid of Marxism and Nationalism.

Chavez picked Nicolas Maduro to be vice president on Wednesday. Maduro is loyal, comparably moderate and has enough stature to be president if required. (I'm just getting this from press reports.) Opposition bloggers - take this for what it's worth - are also saying that he's a more credible replacement than previous vice presidents. That could be a sign Chavez is becoming more aware of the need to solidify a successor were he to retire.

I wouldn't call Chavez a dictator either. He's certainly illiberal but not anti-democratic and we need to distinguish the two. After all, a lot of people love him and continue to vote for him. But the same is true of Vladimir Putin. Slavoj Zizek also wrote something that touched on the state-capitalist model Chavez has pursued:

quote:

Many people sympathetic to the Hugo Chavez' regime in Venezuela like to oppose Chavez' flamboyant and sometimes clownish caudillo style to the vast popular movement of the self-organization of the poor and dispossessed that surprisingly brought him back to power after he was deposed in a US-backed coup; the error of this view is to think that one can have the second without the first: the popular movement needs the identificatory figure of a charismatic leader. The limitation of Chavez lies elsewhere, in the very factor which enables him to play his role: the oil money. It is as if oil is always a mixed blessing, if not an outright curse. Because of this supply, he can go on making populist gestures without "paying the full price for them," without really inventing something new at the socio-economic level. Money makes him possible to practice inconsistent politics (populist anti-capitalist measures AND leaving the capitalist edifice basically untouched), of not acting but postponing the act, the radical change. (In spite of his anti-US rhetoric, Chavez takes great care that Venezuelan contracts with the US are regularly met - he effectively is a "Fidel with oil.")

http://www.lacan.com/zizpopulism.htm

One more thing.

Raenir Salazar posted:

Also by what metric is the oil development inefficient? In terms of pure profit for businesses or in terms of actual aid derived from it for the people? Since social spending may direct much of the "net profit" away from the industry and to the hands and wallets of people who need it; through the bureaucracy needed to facilitate it in ways the private industry wouldnt even bother trying to do.

The problem is that no one really knows. Half of Venezuela's public investments are run through one state-controlled corporation which is basically secret and not subject to review by Congress. Oil money distributed by this fund has clearly improved the condition of Venezuela's poor, but it's also being used for dead-end projects that are never built and alleged to help line the pockets of politically-connected industries. But the real issue is that no one knows to what extent.

Read this Reuters article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/26/us-venezuela-chavez-fund-idUSBRE88P0N020120926

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Oct 11, 2012

# ¿ Oct 11, 2012 22:03

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

I'm reading that he's going in for hyperbaric oxygen therapy, which is used to alleviate some of the effects of radiation treatment in cancer patients. But if he's also radically more sick than before the election, then I wonder what's going on.

But I'm not a doctor, so...

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Nov 27, 2012

# ¿ Nov 27, 2012 21:17

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

As far as articles go, I'd recommend anything from Francisco Rodr�guez. Not a right-wing oligarch, but a former financial and economic advisor to the Chavez government:

http://frrodriguez.web.wesleyan.edu/

Here's two:

http://frrodriguez.web.wesleyan.edu/docs/working_papers/How_Not_to_Defend.pdf

http://frrodriguez.web.wesleyan.edu/docs/Published%20AQ.pdf

He wrote a long article in Foreign Affairs a few years ago but it's now behind a paywall. So that's out.

His argument is that while Venezuela has seen a decrease in poverty, it's also underperformed other Latin American countries like Brazil and Colombia, and the decrease is probably just the result of rising oil prices and not Chavez's programs as such; the decrease in poverty is comparable to any country with an oil boom of that size.

The other problem is that Venezuela has become even become more dependent on oil, a non-renewable resource which isn't sustainable over the long term. Non-oil areas of the economy may have even contracted, and this is while Venezuela has become increasingly reliant on imports from the U.S.; particularly food, which is becoming increasingly expensive. It technically "works" but it's also a kinda basket-case way to run a country, and once the spigots run dry then the economy has a good chance of rolling over and imploding.

Paul MaudDib posted:

If you see Chavez openly murdering thousands of individuals I assure you you will see most of the leftists here turn on a dime against him. We just remember what happened all those times when the leftist candidate wins an election and the right attempts a coup, and tend to be willing to extend a little benefit of the doubt to the left in those cases.

But most leftists (in Latin America at least) have already turned against Chavez.

Ollanta Humala, who used to style himself as a Peruvian Chavez, was swept into power last year after ditching that and adopting moderate center-left politics along the lines of Brazil's Lula. So the debate isn't just going on between the left and a reactionary right-wing, it's also going on within the left.

Ten years ago Chavez was considered this innovative mind behind "21st Century Socialism" and was supposed to represent Latin America's future, but now I think people have realized his promises were overhyped. He's clearly becoming more and more irrelevant as countries like Brazil are moving ahead with economies based around exports and high-tech industries and not political and resource patronage. No one is following the Chavez model anymore except Venezuela.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2012 22:31

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

This article paints a much worse picture, and is working under the assumption that his cancer is now being "managed" rather than being cured. Basically he's probably going to die from it.

It's lengthy. But I'll excerpt the meat of the article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323297104578177482710236790.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

quote:

His latest operation suggest the president's odds of survival are worsening, doctors say. The fact that his cancer has returned twice after undergoing four surgeries and treatment like radiation therapy and chemotherapy that Mr. Ch�vez has said he had indicates the cancer is aggressive and unlikely to be cured, the doctors say.

"There is no question that a recurrence now is an ominous sign. Any additional procedures are palliative in the sense they are to prevent symptoms from getting worse, rather than curative at this stage," said Michael Pishvaian, an oncologist at Georgetown University's Lombardi Cancer Center.

Mr. Ch�vez faces a potentially dangerous recovery from his latest surgery, said Thierry Jahan, an oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco. Excessive use of anti-inflammatory steroids during his treatments during Mr. Ch�vez's illness could cause muscles to waste away, and, after an operation, increase the chances of infections leading to sepsis, a potentially deadly infection, blood clots, gastrointestinal bleeding and an increased risk of rising sugar levels leading to diabetes, Dr. Jahan said.

Doctors say cancer in the abdomen is almost always one of four types: prostate, colon, bladder or sarcoma, which is a rare form of cancer that arises not from an organ, but from connective tissue like muscles, ligaments, fat or bones. Mr. Ch�vez's former family doctor, Salvador Navarrete, has said publicly that Ch�vez family members told him the tumor was sarcoma.

Since cancers like colon and prostate usually only require one surgery, doctor say, repeated surgeries and treatment suggests the cancer is sarcoma, which reappears following initial surgery unless a broad enough section of tissue around the diseased area is removed, doctors say.

"When sarcomas occur in the belly area it's pretty dramatic. It's pretty difficult to get back in there and get everything, because the abdominal cavity is such a permissive environment for tumor cells," said Dr. Jahan, who specializes in sarcoma surgery.

The description of Mr. Ch�vez's cancer "is certainly highly consistent" with a sarcoma, said George Demetri, medical director of the center for sarcoma and bone oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

"They tend to follow this kind of path: a lump is taken out, the patient is fine," he said. Patients may receive either radiation or chemotherapy. But "almost inevitably, they come back in or near where they started," he added. Patients get a second surgery and the sarcomas come back again. "These patients can go through multiple surgeries."

But multiple surgeries take a high toll on the body, creating added layers of scar tissues that can become "cement-like," Dr. Demetri said. Both scar tissue and the tumors can cause obstructions to blood vessels or the bowel, for example, which could require immediate surgery, Mr. Demetri said. They can also put pressure on any of a variety of nerves to the bladder, pelvis, bowel and lower legs, resulting in extraordinary pain, he said.

Patients who suffer from sarcoma tumors that are aggressive and incurable usually live between one to three years. If Mr. Ch�vez suffered from advanced sarcoma when he was diagnosed, he would be in the middle of that range right now.

One cancer specialist says he gives Mr. Ch�vez a 50% chance of survival in the next six months, with decreasing odds of survival thereafter. Mr. Ch�vez, who looked more robust in the run-up to his victory in October's presidential election, is now likely to endure more anticancer treatments, the doctors say. While he may have several months of renewed energy, he is likely to become increasingly symptomatic and tired.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2012 08:51

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Just throwing this out there, but would anyone be interested in a Latin America thread? I'm thinking about putting one together in the coming days. But I can't say when exactly. If there's a Southeast Asian thread, then there should be a Latin American thread, no? If others want one, we could start collecting links. Venezuela Analysis is a start. We'll also need good newspapers from around the region.

As of right now, Chavez and Venezuela is the only Latin America topic that seems to survive on its own. Others are mainly temporary current events topics. But what about Mexico? Cuba? Argentina? Brazil? What's going on in Suriname? (Yes, I know Dutch is the mother tongue there. It is, in my opinion, still part of Latin America!) I think it could be a hit.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2013 19:18

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Cahal posted:

That sounds like a great idea. Latin America has a 'rich' history of U.S.-sponsored coups and I'm sure there is a lot to talk about. I'm particularly interested in the 'miracle' of Chile.

Certainly. I'm interested in talking about current events too (there's a lot of interesting stuff going on right now worth talking about), but it'll also be a chance to get into the grit of U.S. intervention in the region. We often talk about it but we don't often go into the details.

(Post links.)

# ¿ Jan 3, 2013 19:50

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Badger of Basra posted:

I am definitely interested. I have a skeleton OP written up actually if you'd like to take a look.

Sure! I'm not sure if we're allowed to post a draft in here, because I'd recommend we just do that. But in case not, you can email me at [edit: removed]. (I don't have PM.)

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Jan 4, 2013

# ¿ Jan 4, 2013 01:52

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Zeitgueist posted:

Again, my point is that these conspiracy theories are based, in large part, around the fact that CIA actually does stupid poo poo like that. Not that they did in this instance.

Pretty sure you can't actually inject people with cancer.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21336-could-the-us-have-given-chavez-cancer.html

Also, this news reminds me why I didn't like Chavez, but why I also don't like most of the people who don't like Chavez. Which means I probably hate myself, which is also probably true.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2013 00:36

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/chavez-body-be-permanently-displayed

quote:

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) � Venezuela's acting president says Hugo Chavez's embalmed body will be permanently displayed in a glass casket so that "his people will always have him."

Vice President Nicolas Maduro says the remains will be put on permanent display at the Museum of the Revolution, close to the presidential palace where Chavez ruled for 14 years. Maduro says the president will lie in state first for at least another seven days.

A state funeral for Chavez attended by some 33 heads of government is scheduled to begin Friday morning. Tens of thousands have already filed past his glass-topped casket at a military academy following a seven-hour procession on Tuesday which took his body from the hospital where he died.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2013 22:37

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

a bad enough dude posted:

... what? How is that different than anywhere else? There may be a lot of people who don't like Chavez, but they are nowhere near a majority. Which is all that matters in a democracy.

Agreed. You can't really argue that Chavez didn't secure popular victories. But there are other problems that matter in a democracy, like:

ReindeerF posted:

rule of law, institutions are incredibly weak, feudal systems persevere and even basic things like freedom of the press or due process of law are total jokes.

# ¿ Mar 10, 2013 06:50

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

elgatofilo posted:

I can't find anything referring to sexual orientation in the constitution nor have I heard of this. Could you cite the chapter and article? As for the referendum, I'm guessing this was due to pressure from Colombia's imminent passing of a similar law. Whenever Chavez has spoken of LGBT people, it has been with contempt.

Contempt is too strong. I thought it was more along the lines of Obama when he was "evolving" except I think Chavez used a term like "maturing." Maduro on the other hand... oh boy. When "big faggots" is a term you use for the opposition, I think that pretty much says everything.

Thug Lessons posted:

Funny thing is Venezuela is actually ahead of the US on gay rights legislation, and has been since the adoption of Chavez's constitution in 1999. They would have been expanded further in 2007 had his amendments passed.

I wouldn't overstate this either.

quote:

Adri�n: There has been 14 years of propaganda by the Chavez regime saying the revolution included the LGBT population, but they did nothing. There is no effective protection against discrimination, couple rights, transsexual identity, educational and health programs. They say the LGBT community is no longer persecuted by the police, but that�s not true. They also say that there are labor protections, but there hasn�t been one favorable court decision in 14 years.

Trans-people also have trouble changing their names. Venezuela was the first Latin American country to recognize the identity of transsexual people in 1977. Until 1998 there were more than 150 favorable court decisions but none after 1998.

In May 2004 I went to the Supreme Court to ask for the constitutional protection of transsexual people and nine years later all I got is silence. To make it worse, in May 2008 the Supreme Court decided it was constitutional to discriminate against same-gender couples. This compares negatively with decisions taken in Colombia and Mexico.

429Mag: So no revolution for gay rights then�

Adri�n: Yes. The Chavez revolution is not inclusive of LGBT people and is not willing to grant equal rights. 96% of the Congress was dominated by chavistas between 2005 and 2012 and they have a total majority with the power to direct the legislative agenda. We protested, lobbied and proposed equality bills. We did that with all groups, both chavistas and non-chavistas, but none of those proposals was even voted.

http://dot429.com/articles/1739-interview-venezuelan-society-is-much-more-tolerant-than-its-politicians

Edit: Now I'm reading that the Supreme Court decided it was *not* okay to discriminate in May 2008. So I don't know what's happening. There are apparently problems with getting the government to enforce the measures, though.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Apr 17, 2013

# ¿ Apr 17, 2013 23:27

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

"We are in a sea of poo poo, dude." That's the best quote from that.

Well, it's fascinating actually. I'm gathering Silva believes that Diosdado Cabello is at the head of a conspiracy called "the class of 1985" (military reference?) who claim to be more radical than Maduro ("more Chavista than Chavez" even), but are in reality secret right-wing oligarchs. Though I bet a lot of it is him letting his imagination get ahold of himself since he's Mario Silva. But what the hell:

On Maduro's wife, Cilia, manipulating him along with some :biotruths:

quote:

MARIO SILVA: I am afraid, Palacios, that Nicol�s, firstly, is being manipulated by Cilia.

This is a continent of caudillos, mate, and women should be behind. For many reasons, mythical, spiritual things, Venezuelan women love powerful men. And I mix up these things, which are psycho-social, which have to do with a person's leadership.

Ch�vez, while he had his wife, or whoever he might have, I don't mind about him having them or not; he was a mysterious man for women because he divorced twice; and he used to be an attractive man for women. And that thing was most enticing. I told Hanoi [Mario Silva's daughter] once: "drat it! I wonder if anybody could tell Nicol�s that he would rather stop showing Cilia; that he should act as a leader, and not like: "here my woman is, [give me] a little kiss," and stuff like that. This is not a US campaign; this is a Latin American campaign.

INTERLOCUTOR (PALACIOS): Could we say that such behavior runs counter to the tradition of...?

MARIO SILVA: Sure! Of course!

My Commander Fidel once said to me �and he certainly must remember this, because it was during one of the meetings I had with him... He told me that he did not understand why Commander Ch�vez had not finished off the bourgeois elections (?) (...) Because the people used to make mistakes, and I absolutely agree with him. I absolutely and entirely agree.

Here, with the elections the way they are, we could be struck down. They could knock the Revolution down.

In fact, we were thinking �and yesterday we held an intelligence briefing with two Cuban comrades, two Cuban officers, at [south Caracas military base] Tiuna Fort. And one of the issues I raised was...

Actually, they told me about the US Army and the US State Department war and its modalities... I think it was updated up to 2012, November 11, 2012. And I asked a question to the Cuban comrades yesterday: What if...? Let us picture another scenario, because you did not talk to me about this... What if they have the capacity to change the (election) results in [the National Electoral Council] CNE?

This is an issue, Palacios. We hung the sword of Damocles over our heads when we said that the CNE is invulnerable.

On the opposition's strategy:

quote:

MARIO SILVA: Ok. Now, listen to this, Palacios. This is very important to me: Why did not they make the opposition win? This has an answer.

INTERLOCUTOR (PALACIOS): You have asked me that twice.

MARIO SILVA: Because the opposition is more dangerous when it is two [percentage] points below than when it is two [percentage] points above. Exactly! What is the origin of this conflict? The one and a half [percentage] point [lead of Maduro] and the doubts!

How the 60-70% (grassroots support) we have in the [low-income] barrios would have reacted if they (the opposition) won the election by one and a half [percentage] point? The war would have started. But the opposition was not stupid. They took a step back. They said: �No! Let's take this to one and a half (percentage) point and conspiracy will continue. Why? We can overthrow him now, and if not, in two and a half years, for bad administration, corruption, inefficiency, any bullshit. We can hold a recall vote and screw him (Maduro)'.

(Slapping on the table)

Do you understand now?

INTERLOCUTOR (PALACIOS): Crystal clear.

Something about arming themselves and an assassination attempt:

quote:

MARIO SILVA: We are in a sea of poo poo, dude, and we have not realized it yet, Palacios, and things are handled under the table.

And the target to be killed right now is me, because I know many things, Palacios. They know that I am entrenched myself. Orders have been given again to kill my children.

We discovered two and bang, bang... we hit them (slapping the table)

One of the subjects we found carried a NATO rifle. These are things we have done swiftly.

quote:

MARIO SILVA: [Defense Minister Diego] Molero gave us additional five rifles. We have 12 rifles right now. We have plenty of ammunition; we have the capacity to counterattack... Anyway, buddy, all things considered... and note that this thing drives me really mad. And this would be the ending remarks. I am really mad because a tiny group that cannot be publicly exposed... which is against Maduro, cannot be exposed; otherwise, they would have to declare themselves as traitors. It is a little group, a little group we can control, crush, neutralize, as it were. I do believe that we can make it. I need though, my friend, and that thing is...

You need to take a seat and talk to Maduro, compadre. You need to take a seat and tell him the things... I have been close to tell Maduro: "Maduro, a conspiracy is going on. I have almost said so to him. However, I don't know what about his reaction...

Silva says he's depressed. The Cuban intelligence officer gives advice. Silva says if the conspiracy takes power, they'll kill the social welfare programs and sever Cuba's intelligence pipeline:

quote:

INTERLOCUTOR (PALACIOS): Well, I advise you, above all, to cheer up. Depression obstructs ideas. And thus far we have detected a portion of the phenomenon... which can help further in this process... to clarity all questions, ideas...

MARIO SILVA: One of the things going around is the need... Likewise, for that group, the group of Diosdado and company, to become detached from... to keep relations, but becoming detached from the brotherhood, and the agreements with Cuba; that is...

INTERLOCUTOR (PALACIOS): That is on its way...

MARIO SILVA: It's on its way, it's on its way, and that would be... You know, because you are the only ones who have been working hard on those Missions [welfare programs]. And you are keenly aware that as soon as they get detached, Barrio Adentro is over; hospitals, health care, education, all that poo poo will be finished off...

INTERLOCUTOR (PALACIOS): Many things, intelligence...

MARIO SILVA: Intelligence as well. Many things...

INTERLOCUTOR (PALACIOS): Now, let's record it...

MARIO SILVA: Let me record that thing for you; let me put it on a CD for you.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 03:50 on May 29, 2013

# ¿ May 29, 2013 02:01

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

SedanChair posted:

I always wondered why Hezbollah militants would travel to Venezuela, unless it's like one of those things where you find out your city manager went to a "planning conference" in the Bahamas.

Militants, no. But there's enough evidence that's built up over the years to suggest there's been some fundraising work in Venezuela. I don't think this is a secret, either. There's a large Lebanese expat community there so there's been some talk about that. I think the Treasury Department has blacklisted a few Lebanese-Venezuelans for raising money.

I guess that's interesting. But it's hardly scandalous in a country with a government that supports Hezbollah "resistance." The stuff about training camps and Chavez working with Hezbollah to attack America and what-not, that's feverish paranoia and there's no evidence for it. The U.S. government itself has said repeatedly that there's no evidence of any such thing, even. (Whenever Pentagon officials that work on Latin America stuff talk to Congress, they always get asked about this by Republican legislators, and the answer is "we don't know anything about that, sir.") And like you said, it doesn't make any sense.

# ¿ Jun 2, 2013 07:34

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Violence isn't limited to Venezuela by any means and you can go through Colombia into Central America for some horrific levels of homicide. It's a region-wide problem. (Or go to Trinidad. It's bad there too.) Caracas is still really bad, though. A friend of mine spent a few months living in Caracas (in a relatively well-to-do area) studying the politics of the country and there were bandits throwing literal grenades at the cops on his street one night. He couldn't go out at night because it was simply way too dangerous.

I think the other thing is cost of living. Venezuela has very high costs of living, as I'm sure Labradoodle could talk about :

http://www.mercer.com/costoflivingpr

My friend echoed the same thing. It's expensive and you can't get very much. The food is bad. Meat was hard to come by and it often smelled terrible. Rents are sky-high. It's like living in London without the perks.

# ¿ Jun 7, 2013 01:03

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

So I saw this shared on Facebook. It's some cops on motorbikes jacking up a couple and robbing them in broad daylight.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152236874312497

# ¿ Feb 18, 2014 03:52

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Hugoon Chavez posted:

Yeah, there are no safe areas in the bigger cities. There are "a little less dangerous" zones, but you can still get mugged at broad daylight surrounded by witnesses any day, at any time.

A friend of mine lived in Caracas for a few months in one of the nicer neighborhoods. He was cloistered in his room after dark. He said the only violence he saw was when police confronted some criminals outside his building and the criminals started throwing grenades.

Other than that, he was fine. But one of his colleagues (another American) who was kind of clueless about his surroundings got robbed by some cops.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2014 09:30

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Hugoon Chavez posted:

Wow, I've seen some Molotovs being thrown but never granades. Must be fun.

That was the word he used. But I'm thinking improvised explosives. I know grenades turn up in the prisons so presumably they're on the streets, though.

The main thing he said was stuff you'd hear in many cities. Avoid the police. Walk with purpose. Don't loiter.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2014 10:21

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Labradoodle posted:

Jesus, tonight it's like hell broke loose over Caracas.

There's an up to date chronicle of the night here:

http://caracaschronicles.com/2014/02/19/19f/

Holy gently caress those bike gangs. They look like the thugs (basij) used in Iran.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2014 06:33

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

h3avyduty posted:

Venezuelan goons: What hopes do you have for the outcomes of a new government, if Leopoldo Lopez survives and pulls the regime down?

From an outside perspective, the guy doesn't seem like one that will look out for the interests of the average citizen - well off, privately educated, American-trained economist. It all smells of US involvement/influence, maybe not as explicit as in say Chile with Pinochet, but I don't buy the freedom rhetoric he's making. It doesn't seem likely he'll go for a (partially) publicly owned oil industry to build a sovereign fund like Norway, for example.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it will be good to see the end of the current regime (and I hope it does so with the minimum of violence/unrest possible), but it seems to me like you are trading one monster for another.

I'll let them speak for themselves but I don't think there are any Lopez fans here. I thought the consensus was that Lopez is another would-be caudillo.

About U.S. involvement, unless you have any evidence then it's just a conspiracy theory.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2014 06:58

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Bob le Moche posted:

Evidence of US involvement in current events: http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=06CARACAS3356&version=1314919461

I'm sorry, you need to try harder than that. Supporting NGOs that are critical of Chavez is not the same thing as orchestrating the protests from behind the scenes.

Bob le Moche posted:

I feel like there's a bigger picture here than just Venezuela, too. To people in the rest of South America and the world the country is providing hope for an alternative to the US hegemonic order.

I think that ship sailed a long time ago.

illrepute posted:

I think probably the best example of American sketchiness is how Washington moved unusually quickly to recognize the coup government in 2002 as legitimate (Spain also did this) and only condemned it after it failed. Not a smoking gun by any means, but it definitely showed where U.S interests lay. America's record in other Latin American countries is public knowledge, so it's not hard to connect the dots.

Then it's been surprising that the U.S. reaction to the protests in Venezuela have been so even-keeled. And the characteristically right-wing and reactionary American media has been remarkably silent on it. It's barely registering. I would suspect a lot of Americans wouldn't even be aware of it if there weren't a large Latino population that was concerned about it and were spreading news through social media. I've seen more about this on Facebook than in the papers.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Feb 20, 2014

# ¿ Feb 20, 2014 17:47

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:

Oh come on what kind of argument is this. Financial, political, and media support don't count unless there's a man in Washington or Arlington or Miami personally bossing around people on the ground? Reminder: people have been treating the specter of American involvement as a "conspiracy theory", which is probably one of the top ten stupidest things I've ever seen argued in this forum. It's on par with global warming denial in terms of its sheer bullish ignorance.

But the evidence presented so far is pretty tenuous. The cable linked earlier included support for a handicapped rights group, an NGO focused on urban planning, etc. Various forms of "soft power" as opposed to the hard power that goes into coup-making. By your standard Occupy Wall Street was a Kremlin-backed plot because RT spent a lot of time promoting it as a means to destabilize the U.S. government.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2014 18:10

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Adventure Pigeon posted:

If I remember correctly, the United States refines most of Venezuela's crude oil already, and, due to its composition, is the only country where that's feasible. Is that the case or am I wrong/has that changed? All these posters claiming that the whole thing is backed by the US, couldn't the United States just put some sanctions in place and wreak havoc if they wanted to? Beyond providing some modest support for protesters, is there really a need for 11th dimensional CIA chess when the US already has access to Venezuela's most valuable resource and can pull the trigger whenever they want?

That's still true, but the U.S. won't likely do that because it would cause oil prices to rise with all the bad domestic political consequences. Plus, it would mean getting support from other Latin American states. There's less than zero chance other states will be on board. The U.S. could to it anyways but -- of course -- it would mean damaging relations with the rest of the hemisphere. Then it could also backfire and make the Bolivarians stronger. It sounds like a bad deal all around.

Also, why would the U.S. overthrow Maduro? Like overtly overthrow him and back a coup? In 2002 you can see the rationale: Chavez was perceived as a threat to U.S. national security interests. It was just after 9/11. At the same time, the U.S. underestimated Chavez's support. But Maduro in 2014? Venezuela is no longer a model for anyone anymore. Not even the U.S. military says Venezuela is a threat now. No one expects these protests to succeed. Why now? When the U.S. is trying to extricate itself from the Middle East and surge in Asia, that it would suddenly reorient to Latin America?

The soft power instruments fit with this strategy. "We'll fund some NGOs, try to present an alternative to Chavista rule, and build closer relations with Brazil and other South American states as a counter-balance."

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Feb 20, 2014

# ¿ Feb 20, 2014 20:03

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

baka kaba posted:

Nobody has any idea of whether there was direct US involvement in what's happening right now, with the initial events or otherwise, but it's facile to act like it would be hella weird bro if they were following standard M.O., or that there's something incredibly complicated and intricate about it. It's simply easier to encourage destabilisation in the background, and be there to support the favoured side when it happens, than to outwardly take hostile action on the world stage, creating a difficult diplomatic situation and giving the target country an obvious enemy to rally against.

Well I think the clearest evidence ruling out involvement is that the economies of Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia are all doing pretty good. There was this article in the NY Times a few days ago about how good a job Evo Morales is doing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/world/americas/turnabout-in-bolivia-as-economy-rises-from-instability.html

Venezuela is doing poo poo-astically, though, which Maduro blames on the machinations and sabotage caused by American agents. Which either means the U.S. is singling out Venezuela and is leaving the more successful examples of left-wing Latin American governments alone, or it's not targeting any of them and success or failure is up to these respective countries -- and Venezuela is just a particularly terribly run country.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2014 20:42

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

The Warszawa posted:

I'm hesitant to make any conclusive statements about Venezuela specifically on this point, but this is a huge problem in any nation - though I think the issue is not so much government agents actually acting as muscle or eliminating rivals (more common is for agents to "tax" criminal activity so they can take a cut from all operations rather than aligning with one in particular) - and especially in nations with shortages leading to a robust black market.

That's why they call it organized crime!

Yeah exactly. Government agents are tasked with enforcement, so corruption means they enforce selectively. Drug seizures are often expedient and used by different drug trafficking groups within the military as a weapon against their rivals. So the army, national guard, navy, etc. intercept drug shipments being trafficked by other branches of the military. They control the airports, ports, border crossings, etc. So for a cartel trying to get cocaine from Point A to Point B, the different factions within the military can step in and profit as a middleman.

To illustrate how bad it is, a couple years ago the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned some of Venezuela's most senior military officials for having (alleged) links to drug trafficking, including the head of military intelligence and the minister of defense (who's now the Chavista governor of Trujillo). The government says these sanctions are politically motivated, and they might be, they might not be, or they could be politically motivated and the allegations true at the same time.

Another case is the Makled brothers, who were a rich business family. One of the brothers, Walid, also happened to be a very powerful drug lord. In 2008, Walid's young brother Abdullah ran as a pro-Chavez but independent candidate for mayor of Valencia. During the election, the government swept in and arrested the brothers on cocaine trafficking charges. So it was curious timing, and the suspicion is that had Abdullah not challenged the PSUV, Walid would still be free. Walid later said that until his arrest he had dozens of generals on his payroll. (Which is what you'd expect him to say in order to cast doubt on the prosecution. But still fishy.)

Ardennes posted:

However, violence as a whole isn't really solely a Venezuelan problem but a broader regional one. It needs to be remembered that Mexico in its own way is having a silent civil war and Colombia has already been discussed. Things are obviously bad in Venezuela, but right across the US border you have a massive amount of violence.

Which is true.

And this is also true:

The Warszawa posted:

When talking about the effects of the drug trade in Venezuela, it's pretty important to remember that Venezuela has been operating its own independent drug war for nearly a decade, having severed ties with the DEA in 2005. At some point it stops being "the U.S. American drug war" and starts being a Venezuelan drug war - it's not just spillover effects from U.S. domestic and international enforcement but internal enforcement as well albeit with mixed results.

You can't neglect the role the U.S. drug war plays in this. Part of the increase in crime and drug trafficking in Venezuela can be attributed to displacement of criminal groups from Colombia. (If you look at the homicide rate over the past 10 years in both countries, they've swapped places. Colombia's rate has fallen about as fast as Venezuela's rate has risen.)

At the same time, the Venezuelan government hasn't really done anything about it, and really has created the conditions for it to get a lot worse. Venezuela under the Chavistas has become a very militarized society, Chavez came from the military, the military has become politicized and (after the 2002 coup) military officials have risen to control key government positions. And because the state is so heavily involved in the economy, that's allowed these (corrupt) officials to enrich themselves and use their influence to protect their privileged positions.

Another argument is that governments can only give so much attention to different problems, and the problems of transforming Venezuela into a socialist society and stamping down on dissent has meant other problems like crime go ignored.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Feb 23, 2014

# ¿ Feb 23, 2014 09:04

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Chuck Boone posted:

And here is a picture of the new army standard the government is giving out:

If I was being charitable I would say that Chavez will go down as a very, very important figure in Venezuelan history, and who activated previously marginalized and excluded sectors of the population. I'm not on the left but I'll recognize that the opposition will make a big error if they try to erase him from the history books. But this canonization by the government is also a liability, as it shows they're clinging onto the past rather than adjusting to reality and coming up with solutions to people's problems.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2014 06:40

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Chuck Boone posted:

As far as Maduro speeches go, this one was particularly disjointed and ambiguous. What does he mean by "political/government/social agenda"? Is he just going to send cabinet ministers to check on rice harvests and open schools, or is he actually going to hand over some power?

Looks like delegating blame down to lower-level officials.

# ¿ Dec 16, 2014 09:22

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

I want a U.S. Marine to punch the big fat guy in the gut, but the Marine's fist is enveloped in the guy's gut like he's the Blob, and he start laughing "Mwa ha ha!"

Even better if he'd wear a Chavez t-shirt with the mouth near his stomach, so it looks like Chavez is gobbling the gringo up.

:btroll:

# ¿ Mar 15, 2015 07:12

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Yeah I had a friend spend a few months in Caracas. Lots of crazy stories, like witnessing some gang throwing a grenade at the police outside his apartment, etc. He's pretty street smart, can pass as Venezuelan and he didn't stay out at night, so he didn't have any problems. But another foreign student (who was a very gregarious and trusting hippie-kinda dude) got accosted and mugged by the police. You generally want to stay away from police anywhere, but you definitely want to stay away from the ones in Venezuela.

Helsing posted:

Was there a particular moment when Venezuela's crime problem really went off the rails? Violent crime has been declining in so many other countries, even in the same region, so it's kind of shocking (not to mention depressing) to read these accounts, even though it's widely known that crime in Caracas is awful and my friends who have travelled through Venezuela have similarly mentioned some pretty disturbing incidents.

I'd like to hear about this, too. A lot of English language sources on this subject deal with the question in a very procedural manner, involving the relative absence or presence of impartial criminal justice systems, etc. But it's pretty dry reading. Venezuela has had a high crime rate for awhile, I think it's more than it stayed high while the rest of the region dropped.

I'd reckon corruption has a lot to do with it, and that the justice system is politicized to a far more degree than many other countries. Cuba is at least an authoritarian country that is actually pretty good at putting the squeeze on people. Venezuela is like the worst of both words, like an abusive father who comes home drunk and beats you up randomly, so you can't predict it, and you don't know what behavior you're supposed to change to discourage his wrath. Cuba at least beats you up consistently.

This below is about Colombia, but you can see the relevance to Venezuela here:

quote:

Fourth, bringing economic development into marginalized urban spaces is important. It allows the community to embrace the state. But such efforts will be insufficient if authority and control of violence still lies with the criminals. Effective development also requires a great concentration of resources street by street. Dispersing one clinic here, one electric generator there will amount to only political handouts that won�t change the life of the community. The drug gangs can even reap political benefits from such limited handouts by portraying themselves to the community as those who negotiated the patronage from the state. Most importantly and most challengingly, urban revival requires legal jobs to be brought to the community in sufficiently large numbers, so that employment and social advancement are no longer linked to illegal economies.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2011/02/14-colombia-crime-felbabbrown

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Mar 18, 2015

# ¿ Mar 18, 2015 21:18

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

joepinetree posted:

Murder rates have been surging for the entire Northwest section of South America and parts of the Caribbean. The murder rate has increased just as fast in Northern Brazil and parts of the Caribbean, and that is directly related to the Cocaine route shifting more and more and more towards Europe instead of the US, and the US heroine trade coming more and more from that section of South America instead of Asia. It is a fair question to ask how much local governments have facilitated this shift, but it certainly is broader than any one individual country.

I say that because homicides in Colombia appear to be trending downwards.

http://www.eltiempo.com/politica/justicia/medellin-y-cali-las-que-mas-aportan-a-reduccion-de-homicidios-en-2014/14952936

Though a lot of that has to do (apparently) with urban policing strategies in Medellin and Cali. It's going up in some other cities, but the rate also took a dive a few years ago, so it's still relatively safer to be in Bogota now than, say, a decade ago, even though there's statistically more homicides than the year before.

Of course, that also goes to your point about shifting drug trafficking routes.

# ¿ Mar 18, 2015 22:22

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Kurtofan posted:

Why is it switching to Europe?

Supply and demand. From what UNODC reports suggest (just scanning them a second ago), cocaine consumption in the U.S. declined sharply after the crack cocaine epidemic in the 1980s. Europe never had much crack.

But what's interesting is that per-capita European consumption isn't growing, but has stabilized. For what it's worth, nose-candy consumption in Europe is about half that of the U.S. and the heaviest users over there are in the U.K., Italy and Spain.

The caveat is that populations do grow, so if the per capita consumption remains the same in Europe, there will still be more users -- and thus a growing market. U.S. consumption seems to be declining faster than population growth, which would explain the market shift.

But other sources say the rate is rising in Europe as well. But the sources I've looked at so far that say that are press releases from organizations, and the numbers aren't clear. So saying it's "rising" might be a way to get attention. Though technically, there ARE more users.

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Mar 19, 2015

# ¿ Mar 19, 2015 01:34

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

-Troika- posted:

The UK? Huh.

Apparently London skews it.

# ¿ Mar 19, 2015 03:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 10:50

BrutalistMcDonalds: Oct 4, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

This is pretty interesting:

quote:

Predictably, Venezuela�s government has latched on to the sanctions announcement and overreacted.

However, it�s the US pundits who have surprised in their overreaction to the sanctions. Without naming names, here�s some of the conventional wisdom I�m sure you�ve read in articles over the past two days:

Counterproductive.
Gives Maduro a lifeline.
Gift to Maduro.
Falls into Maduro�s trap.
Plays into Maduro�s hands.

Here is why that conventional wisdom is wrong and the Obama administration is correct.

Maduro is not Chavez. We all remember when Chavez was alive and just how good he was at this sort of political jujitsu. Chavez would have taken these sanctions and turned them into approval points in the polls because he was a rare gifted populist politician who could pull it off. However, pundits who believe Maduro can do this as well as Chavez have apparently missed the last two years of events in Venezuela. They are �fighting the last war� as they say in the military. Maduro wants to be Chavez. He�s trying to use Chavez�s playbook on these sanctions. But he�ll fail because in everything Maduro has attempted to do he has proven to be nowhere near the skilled politician that his predecessor was.

Venezuela�s situation is fairly bad. The economy is in a recession. Inflation is over 100%. The Bolivar has dropped further on the black market. The crime and security situation makes Venezuela one of the five most dangerous countries in the world. US sanctions of some corrupt officials from an unpopular government are not going to overshadow those problems.

Maduro looks out of touch. While Maduro wants to use the sanctions to distract Venezuela�s citizens from the domestic economic and security problems, for many voters, his focus on the US makes him look out of touch from Venezuela�s citizens and problems. His attempt to create a distraction is just as likely to make him look distracted. That will harm his public image over time.

Maduro�s attempts to blame the US in the past have not worked. Congress passed and the Obama signed the sanctions back in December. Before the specific announcement this week, the Maduro government spent the past two months condemning those December sanctions and trying to use them as a distraction. Even before December, Maduro's government has spent the last two years trying to blame the US for Venezuela's problems. How has that worked out for Maduro? Not well. His government received some statements of support from UNASUR and CELAC, but the region hasn�t rallied around Venezuela and domestic public opinion has continued to go downhill. There is little reason to think Maduro's response to the sanctions this week will be any more effective than his response to the sanctions in December or anything else the US has done in recent years.

Maduro has cried wolf too many times. For all of Maduro�s bluster, the US is not invading or attempting to overthrow his government. His previous claims of plots have turned out fairly empty. Both Venezuela�s citizens and the region are realizing the monthly (or weekly) panicked calls for help to fight against the gringo invasion and coup plots are becoming a waste of time.

US-Cuba relations are on the mend. Specifically, President Obama is going to shake Raul Castro�s hand in Panama next month at the Summit of the Americas. There is no amount of reaction to these sanctions that the Maduro government can manage that will trump that image of US relations with Latin America.

The US is on the right side of history. When you look at the seven individuals the US sanctioned, nobody is criticizing the sanctions by defending their individual actions. Does Brazil want to defend the generals who ran Sebin and ordered protesters detained and tortured? Does UNASUR want to defend the prosecutor who has unjustly detained and brought charges against political opponents? Does any country want to defend corrupt military leaders who are laundering millions in stolen government funds while Venezuela has a hard time paying its bills? Those are the people the Obama administration sanctioned. Twenty years from now, those are the sort of Chavista officials who will be remembered like the generals from the Pinochet or Videla governments are remembered today. It�s good policy for the US to be on the right side of history today and it�s more likely to pay off sooner than later.

http://www.bloggingsbyboz.com/2015/03/overreacting-to-overreaction.html

I also somehow missed Jose Mujica saying this:

quote:

"El problema que puede tener Venezuela es que nos podemos ver frente a un golpe de Estado de militares de izquierda, y con eso la defensa democr�tica se va al carajo. Ser�a un grav�simo error que se salieran de la Constituci�n"

http://www.elpais.com.uy/informacion/mujica-teme-golpe-militar-venezuela.html

BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Mar 19, 2015

# ¿ Mar 19, 2015 05:12

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Venezuelan elections - Dead Chavez Edition

«‹›2 »