Unreadable, Irrational

Sorry for not following your guidelines by which you attempt to frame discussion, but who the hell are you? 

You ramble on and on and on and on, and it all seems to boil down to the same thing: the U.S. has economic competition out there in the rest of the world, and it is all some big evil illegitimate threat that justifies the U.S. interfering with by any means necessary.  Then you attempt to steer thought and discussion by a dubious  mind-numbing Hegelian-style  discourse.

For a start, what gives the U.S. the political right to interfere in Venezuela's internal affairs?  Who cares what they do with their oil, provided that they are not planning to invade the U.S. or attack U.S. citizens?  Why isn't the U.S. doing much of anything to pursue energy independence?

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 289 comments) on Monday, February 18, 2008 at 1:11:10 PM
 

YOUR ANALYSIS IS HOPELESSLY MISGUIDED

Reading your article on Chavez and Exxon makes me think someone at Exxon or in the Bush White House wrote it for you - pure, rubbish and I write often on Venezuela and Chavez.

Read my stuff on Op Ed News, dozens of articles, and find out what's really going on in Venezuela, the Bush administration's nine year campaign to oust him, possibly kill him, and return Venezuela to the ranks of another Latin American colony and banana republic. Chavez stands in their way courageously, I salute him proudly, and he has most of Venezuela on his side to advance Bolivarianism for the benefit of his people.

ExxonMobil on the other hand is a world class bully. So are the White House thugs. Do you actually support these types. Who's paying you? My soul isn't for sale. Guess you gave yours up.

So much more to say, but I have lots to do spreading the truth and countering types like you. Have you no shame?

Stephen Lendman

by Stephen Lendman (252 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 76 comments) on Monday, February 18, 2008 at 1:48:10 PM
 

Reply

Mr. Lendman, 

To start, I have made it a rule to no longer comment on articles, whether it be on articles of others or comments made on my own.  

In your case however, and with all due respect, I will make "the" rare exception, since I think you're a very bright individual with good intent, and one who sincerely means well.  

Therefore, briefly in respectful reply: 

1. Please kindly forgive me, but I was completely unaware you have been anointed and appointed as the world renowned expert on the topics "Venezuela" and "Hugo Chavez" (Congratulations), and that all Venezuelan OpEd submissions must be filtered through you.

I "may" remember that in the future. 

2. By the way, with reference to 1) above, I was therefore stunned to see this comment coming from the world’s Chavez expert:

"he has most of Venezuela on his side...."

Based upon my simple understanding, last I looked in the dictionary, “most” is synonymous with “majority”.  Kindly please then correct me if I’m wrong, but I recall many news reports which stated the “most of the majority” defeated him in the Dec. 2, 2007 Referendum. So are you saying the ones on “his” side (the most/majority) voted no, and he really campaigned to lose? If that’s what you’re saying, your logic at least to me makes no sense. If I don’t have the Referendum results correct and he really did win, please kindly enlighten me. 

Perhaps I’ll just clarify for the readers "my" understanding. “Most” of Venezuela is “not” on his side, evidence his "majority decided" Referendum loss. 

3. Contrary to your challenging and provocative commentary/opinion, I have (actually) read most, if not all your articles on Venezuela. 

I guess I would have only hoped you would show me the same respect and courtesy and really read mine.  

Since you clearly did not, and challenged me on your own, my own candid assessment since you rather aggressively (and disappointingly, not very politely. I really expected better from you) provoked it, in a style similar to your South American mentor, you are the only writer or person "in my humble opinion" based on the themes I’ve read in your many writings (and collectively interpreting what you wrote), who has been able to pull off implicitly equating opposite ends of the spectrum, "both" Democracy and Dictatorship, at the same time, and get away with it.  

A real coup if you ask me. 

Anyway, since you challenged me on reading your articles or not, that’s then my interpretation of your writings, as you seemingly requested and wanted to hear. Others certainly may interpret your articles differently and have a different opinion.

Feel free to also ask them their's if you're conducting an "interpretation study", as you apparently did with me. 

4. BTW, aside from your clearly wildly passionate, almost deity-like infatuation of Mr. Chavez, which I won't try to stand between, primarily for fear of being smooched, you did not substantively mention or counter any of the specific Reuters, BBC, Bloomberg, Wikipedia etc etc economic, legal, etc. facts presented.  

Perhaps I guess, because you did not read the article, as noted earlier. Except of course to acknowledge mentioning "Exxon Mobil". Recall the "big oil" trigger in my article note which I figured someone would jump on. Quite frankly, given your impressive intellect, I hadn’t thought it would be you that would bite.

Please now take a look. Maybe you simply just missed or simply glossed over the hook.  Anyway, the mere sight of the word "Exxon", seemingly triggered your rabid waiting in the wings, "word class bully” comment", rather than focusing on the article issue. Clearly, we disagree who was the bully – in “this" article case/situation. I'm Ok to agree to disagree.   

Perhaps in the future however, really reading the article and then "constructively" challenging facts, rather than unleashing clearly canned impassioned political support responses, automatically triggered by "tags" Venezuela and/or Chavez, might be better use of the article comments section.  

Afterall, the idea at least I thought, is to constructively provide new (substantive) information (not raw, single minded passion) and related insights based on (real) data and (real) facts to the readers, so they can digest and make their own informed decisions, rather than "telling" them what or how to think or how much of an expert one might unilaterally credit themself.  

Forgive me, but I guess since I don't live in particular parts of South America, I'm just stuck in a democratic approach to opinion.  

If that now triggers another at the ready, in this case canned Bush response, please don't waste your time. Contrary again to your uninformed opinion, I'm not a fan either - at all. See, we have something really BIG in common. 

5. I assume being the (self) designated Venezuelan expert, and I don't recall specifically seeing it in any of your articles, but (I assume) have you been to Venezuela at least once, if not many times as your boastful "expertise promotion" would suggest.  I'm sure the readers would therefore be VERY interested in your view of the pervasive, HORRIBLE/DISGUSTING and growing slums surrounding, if not completely overtaking Caracas and throughout the country? 

I have my own opinion based upon my firsthand visits and I feel more for those disenfranchised, poor people than you could ever (never) convince me Mr. Chavez has it bad.  Really now. 

I also assume your comments about the supposed mutual adoration between Mr. Chavez and the people means Mr. Chavez' oil revenues are (finally) on the way to help those millions of REALLY poor, unfortunate, downtrodden souls with no apparent hope and no opportunity. Gosh, I hope so. As I've seen it firsthand and I deeply feel for them and their misery - they DESPARATELY need the help.  

Mr. Lendman, DO YOU FEEL THE SAME WAY? Not sure I've seen it in your writings.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, all that said, I will be the first to admit, you have excellent writing talent, albeit, what's that word you used, oh yeah, "misguided". 

Please don’t bother lashing back with an expected, based on your initial comment tone and tenor, canned counter hostile commentary, as you have my considerate and only reply. I don’t play that game. It serves no one’s better interests - yours, mine or the readers. 

Instead, if you have any answers to the challenging questions I posed, (starting with the last “DO YOU FEEL THE SAME WAY? And what “you” Mr. Lendman propose Mr. Chavez do to "finally" help these poor, unfortunate people? BTW, shouting"Three cheers for Simon Bolivar" don't cut it - at least for the millions of people hungry and unsheltered who need to properly feed and clothe their children.), regarding the massive and growing slum conditions, I’m sure that would be VERY constructive use of the comment section and too beneficial to the readers, and much appreciated by all.  

Certainly by me, and I’m quite sure the millions of Caracas slum dwellers. 

Hope you're well. 

Kind regards, 

BN   

by Brock Novak (31 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Monday, February 18, 2008 at 5:58:16 PM
 

oil threat

Regardless of the pros and cons, every country has the right and obligation to use its natural resources for the betterment of its own society. The country owns the insitu reserves after all. Yes, proper redress must be made when third parties with licenses to produce those reserves are affected negatively, but this redress is the cost to the country of being trusted in the international marketplace. It is not inherent in the tenure granted by the country to the third party producer. The country at all times has the sovereign right to nationalize its industries or to do whatever else it wants to do with its resources. The big problem for such countries is the loss of trustworthiness with investors and international producers if they do such things without appropriate compensation. No court in any country outside the country in question should stick their nose in such business.

by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1138 comments) on Monday, February 18, 2008 at 2:02:06 PM
 

Why propogate the MSM lie

that the referendum would make Chavez dictator for life? The referendum would allow an ELECTED prez to serve more terms. And why not take the Bush out of Your own eye before pointing at the speck in Venezuelas? Dictator for life with a signature here, no votes involved. I dont  have to defend Chavez, he is capable and ready to defend himself and his country. Did it ever occur to you minions of the anti-christ that it is none of your stinking business what a sovereign nation does with its commodities?

And You cant fire Chavez, he already quit. As the globalist beast flexes its muscle in a cheap attempt at world domination, you lackeys always seem shocked and offended that your currency is shunned and trade is cancelled. Non-aligned is a badge of honor worn by the few moral leaders that have the audacity to think for themselves. How did this idea spread among the mentally challenged that the US holds a title to the whole world? Drill for your own oil and keep your fascist reterick to yourself.

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 427 comments) on Monday, February 18, 2008 at 4:46:07 PM
 

Reminds of a Mickey Spillane writing

I gave up at the first page and read the comments, but thought, no give him a chance, read it all for the 'facts' that he promised in the first bit. None to be found, just a load of rhetoric and anti Chavez ranting, probably paid for by Exxon, but they have been screwed, because of the quality of the argument.

by ibrahim turner (25 articles, 31 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 177 comments) on Monday, February 18, 2008 at 5:11:30 PM
 

You beat me

I  only made it through two paragraphs.

by Gregg Gordon (26 articles, 47 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 199 comments) on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 at 1:06:21 PM
 

Who's oil is it?

I am not saying I think Chavez is a great guy but if America would keep its nose out of other country's interest's and spend the money here to not only utilize our own oil reserves but other forms of energy we would be better off. How many wind generators and electric commuter cars to name a couple would a trillion dollars a year build?

by Dave Gray (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Monday, February 18, 2008 at 6:23:31 PM
 

Let's settle this!

Who controls Exxon?

http://greatreddragon.com/commentary/exxon.htm ::

Who loans money to Chavez?

 http://greatreddragon.com/commentary/jpmorgan.gif ::

Who controls JPMorganChase?

http://greatreddragon.com/commentary/morgan_chase.htm ::

End of discussion! 

Stephen Lendman knows what he's talking about!

Unfortunately, America and Venezuela are both being sold out. 

Same sociopaths, different methods,  same result.

Total financial control of the State.  Citizens be damned.

by Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 217 comments) on Monday, February 18, 2008 at 7:55:28 PM
 

BROCK NOVAK ARGUES WITH HIMSELF; LOSES

Mr. Novak's article and his reply to Mr. Landman are a manifestation of sublime incoherency.  Mr. Novak argues that we do not need Venezuela's oil, but then he gets his panties all in a bunch just thinking about the prospect of losing access to that oil.

Mr. Novak alleges that Hugo Chavez does not have the support of the Venezuelan people, but Mr. Chavez has been elected President of Venezuela four times since 1998 in elections which were monitored for fairness by international organizations.  In the most recent Presidential election in December 2006, Mr. Chavez won 62 percent of the vote in which 75 percent of eligible voters participated.  Charges of election fraud lacked any credible evidence.  He has his faults, but the result in the most recent constitutional referendum is additional evidence that Hugo Chavez is not a dictator.

Hugo Chavez has faced very active opposition in Venezuela, which included an attempted military overthrow in April 2002 of the democratically-elected government.  When it initially appeared that the military coup against Mr. Chavez in 2002 had been successful, the United States immediately conveyed support to the brief dictatorship which emerged after this coup, and the overthrow of a democratic government was celebrated prematurely on the editorial pages of The New York Times and The Chicago Tribune.  Starting in 2001, opponents of Mr. Chavez orchestrated a series of general strikes which severely damaged the economy until Mr. Chavez won an overwhelming mandate in the elections in 2004.

Regardless of the dubious merits of certain provisions in the constitutional referendum, which was defeated by a narrow margin on Dec. 2, 2007, it is a fact that several well-funded opposition groups distributed demonstrably false propaganda about the referendum provisions in the weeks prior to the vote.  The more direct form of democracy that is on display in Venezuela was rejected by our founding fathers because they wisely feared a tyranny of the majority, but the constitutional revisions sought by Mr. Chavez required a referendum, and even if the constitutional revisions supported by Mr. Chavez in the referendum in Dec. 2007 had succeeded, the Venezuelan constitution would have preserved elections.  It is ironic that voters in a democracy can even elect to discontinue a democracy, or (as has happened in the United States) democracy can wither on the vine, but neither of these scenarios exists in Venezuela.

The policies of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund ruined the economy in Venezuela during the ten years before Hugo Chavez was first elected as President.  If a comparison is made between the governments which ruled Venezuela from 1989 until 1999 and the government under Hugo Chavez, most objective observers would note that Venezuela under Hugo Chavez has made significant investments in public health facilities, public schools, subsidized food markets and public works projects.  High rates of poverty and crime exist throughout Latin America, and it is extremely dishonest to use Hugo Chavez as a scapegoat for the residue of generations of political corruption by right-wing dictators and center-right democracies (all supported by the United States). 

It is true that poor management of the economy by the government of Mr. Chavez has produced some uneven results, and there may be elements in the Venezuelan government who are as corrupt as those in our own government, but there also has been measurable improvement in the living standards and aspirations of poor people in Venezuela.  Hugo Chavez eventually may be consumed by a failure of his government to satisfy the rising public expectations generated by his ambitious goals, but unlike our own politicians, he is not engineering greater disparity between the haves and the have-nots, and he is not throwing more than $100 billion per year down a rathole in Iraq.

by Blaine Kinsey (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments) on Monday, February 18, 2008 at 8:41:35 PM