Few people are more controversial than Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Or, to be more precise, few people are buried more deeply in bullshit.

The corporate media have been slinging mud and false or distorted accusations at Chávez for years. They routinely call him a dictator, communist and thug. They accuse him of supporting terrorism and undermining democracy. The list goes on and on.

On the other hand, Chávez’ supporters aren’t blameless. Some people revere Chávez almost as a god, refusing to even consider the possibility that he might have faults or has perhaps made mistakes.

This article serves several purposes. First, it lists and analyzes some of the major criticisms of Hugo Chávez, attempting to put them in perspective.

There’s also a personal angle. As one of Hugo Chávez’ fiercest fans, I’ve even used my campaigns for public office to support him. But I don’t want people to think I’m a mindless drone programmed to march in lockstep with St. Hugo. I’m my own person, and I may not agree with all of Chávez’ ideas, just as he presumably wouldn’t agree with all of mine. This article thus gives my supporters a better idea of what I’m all about.

Finally, this article is a reminder of the timeless advice against putting all your eggs in one basket. If we entrust a global revolt against corporate fascism to just one man, and that man turns out to be tragically flawed, they we could be screwed.

On the other hand, if Hugo Chávez really is a god, then his assassination (presumably by George Bush, Inc.) would leave a cosmic vacuum. Rather than simply revere Hugo Chávez, we should get actively involved. Rather than follow Hugo Chávez, we should follow his vision.

A Little Perspective

Before we begin examining Hugo Chávez, let’s take a few steps back and try to grasp the big picture...

Running a country generally isn’t an easy job. But Hugo Chávez is doing far more than that. He’s reforming a country. Indeed, some of his reforms are quite radical (as in extreme, not deranged or destructive).

Keep in mind that Chávez inherited some enormous problems, including massive poverty and corruption. In addition, Venezuela is bordered by Colombia, which has many problems of its own.

More than that, Chávez is struggling to unite and strengthen an entire continent, freeing it from “Yankee imperialism.”

At the same time, he has to constantly watch his back, on guard for anything from media lies and infiltrators to assassination attempts. His enemies include the CIA.

Few people could even attempt such a Herculean task. In fact, I can think of just one person who is attempting it—Chávez.

Thus, one should expect Chávez to make some mistakes. I’m not suggesting we should ignore such mistakes. On the contrary, we should analyze, discuss and maybe even try to help Chávez fix them. But I’m not going to pull the plug on Hugo Chávez just because he errs now and then.

Rather, we should put Chávez’ mistakes in context and learn what we can from them. A great strategy is to simply compare Hugo Chávez’ mistakes with George W. Bush’s mistakes. Who errs more frequently, and what are the magnitude of their mistakes? Are their mistakes truly mistakes, or are they intentional? What sort of patterns can we discern if we connect the dots?

Personal Faults

Hugo Chávez is a Tyrant

On December 2, 2007, the Washington Post carried a piece titled The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez, written by a man who knows a lot about tyrants.

Well, if a disgraced former Secretary of State and war criminal named Donald Rumsfeld calls Hugo Chávez a tyrant in a corporate mouthpiece like the Washington Post, then it must be so. (wink)

Hugo Chávez is a Thug

On March 29, 2008, I typed “Hugo Chavez is a thug” into Google and got 234 hits. The third hit wa a blog page titled Nancy Pelosi: Hugo Chavez is a Thug. Here’s the relevant portion:

Changing the search to “Hugo Chavez” thug yielded 59,600 hits. Nancy Pelosi was once again the star attraction.

Well, I hate to change the subject, but Nancy Pelosi rivals Billary Clinton, Laura Bush and Ann Coulter as one of America’s vilest sluts.

Still, I’m glad Pelosi shot her big mouth off, because she helped expose the Democrats for what they are—a bunch of thugs.

I suppose the question of whether Chávez is a thug depends on how one defines thug. Of course, the biggest thug on the planet is undeniably George W. Bush. You know, the guy Nancy Pelosi has worked so hard to protect from impeachment.

Based on what I’ve read, I do not regard Chávez as a thug.

Chávez = Motor Mouth?

If Chávez is remembered for just one thing, it would likely be his big mouth. While George W. Bush hides from the media, Chávez revels in it. Both men are famous for their name calling, but Bush simply can’t compete with Chávez.

Chávez has even called Bush an asshole, but his most most famous verbal assault was probably the United Nations speech of September 20, 2006, in which he called Bush the devil. Furious Democrats, rallied behind their President, condemning Chávez.

Even comedian Jon Stewart roasted Chávez over that remark (Daily Show Asks: Should Anyone Take Hugo Chavez Seriously?).

Few people would argue that Chávez does not have a big mouth. The debate centers around the appropriateness of Chávez’ comments—and that ultimately boils down to personal opinion.

On this issue, I stand behind Chávez 100%.

The beauty of Chávez’ tirade is that he once against forced the Vichy Democrats to show their true colors. I was particularly galled by Charlie Rangel’s response (Rangel Responds to Chavez).

Rangel says it’s OK for U.S. citizens to criticize Bush, whether they voted for him or not, but foreigners have to show him respect. In other words, only U.S. citizens are entitled to free speech, just as Bush believes only U.S. citizens are protected by the Geneva Convention. The little whore was very defensive of “my president.”

Wow. Powell, Condoleeza Rice and Oprah Winfrey may still reign as America’s premier Uncle Tom’s, but Rangel can offer a little competition.

On another note, some people might think I’m a little paranoid in my mistrust of nearly every institution these days, but I make no apologies. After all, we’re living in an era of corporate espionage and high-tech spy technology.

I’ve even speculated that the Today Show could be a corporate operative. I enjoyed the few episodes I’ve watched. Jon Stewart is witty, funny and he take some good jabs at pResident Bush.

But he’s preaching to the church choir. Could Stewart have a corporate agenda?

The video I linked to above offers evidence that Stewart’s real loyalty might lie with Exxon. In my opinion, his derision of Chávez was way over the top. It makes me wonder if anyone should take Jon Stewart seriously.

Finally, if you haven’t read much of my stuff yet, you should know that I revel in name-calling. I, too, have called Bush an asshole, as well as a war criminal, traitor, coward, corporate whore and on and on.

If you don’t get it, that’s your problem.

Chávez is Impulsive

Hugo Chávez is commonly regarded as recklessly impulsive. One of the most famous examples was his response to Colombia’s military assault on Ecuadorean soil; Chávez dispatched tanks to the border. Some people claimed it was nothing more than a stunt used to divert attention from problems in Chávez’ backyard, much as George W. Bush exploits war.

In his defense, Chávez does live in a pretty tense environment, where things can happen very fast. I think Chávez’ response to Colombia’s cross-border killing spree was designed as both a show of force and unity. I have no problem with it at all.

A better example may be Chávez’ long-standing threat to cut off oil supplies to the United States. His critics maintain that such a move would hurt Venezuela more than the United States.

Obviously, Chávez is playing a dangerous game. He probably doesn’t relish the propsect of severing his country’s main economic lifeline. But he has valid concerns about outside interference, including a U.S. invasion.

In general, I think the results of Chávez’ decisions are a lot more favorable than the train wreck George W. Bush has created.

Chávez is Mentally Unstable

You know your critics are getting desperate when they start questioning your sanity. Chávez has been called deranged, a lunatic and el loco.

Then again, world leaders can be mentally deficient. It was widely known that Ronald Reagan was off his rocker even before he was diagnosed with Alzheimers. George W. Bush’s stupidity is well known, but many people further believe he has some mental issues.

Chávez occasionally says things that strike me as a little over the top, though not often. The most bizarre thing I can think of is Chávez’ stated intention of exhuming the body of Simon Bolivar. Historians say Bolivar died of tuberculosis in 1830, but Chávez thinks he was murdered.

Unless Chávez has some evidence to support his theory, he’s probably off on a wild goose chase that can only turn into an embarrassment. Of course, solid evidence that Bolivar was murdered would be sensational news, but I’m not betting on it.

In short, it’s hard to assess the Simon Bolivar examination without knowing exactly what Chávez’ motives are. But even if this turns out to be a stupid stunt, it isn’t enough to convince me that Chávez is a lunatic. Chávez could possibly be a little eccentric, but he’s surely more sane than George W. Bush—along with all the world leaders who kiss Bush’s ass.

Chávez vs Venezuela

Chávez is a Dictator

Hugo Chávez is widely reviled as a dictator. Google returned 2,260 hits for “Hugo Chavez is a dictator”. “Hugo Chavez” dictator yielded 870,000 hits. The top hit is a dangerously deranged piece in Capitalism Magazine titled Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez: Castro’s Mini-Me. It’s worth a read.

Chávez is also commonly referred to as authoritarian or autocratic. In fact, I think Hugo Chávez and George W. Bush are on fairly equal ground here. Both could be described as authoritarian in relative terms, but neither is a true dictator.

One of Chávez’ closest friends and allies, Fidel Castro, is a dictator. But George W. Bush counts far bloodier dictators among his allies.

Bush and Chávez both have enormous agendas, and a little extra power would help them fulfill those agendas. Thus, Bush exploited the 9/11 terrorist attacks in grabbing more power and attacking civil liberties. There were legitimate fears that he might install himself as a dictator.

Chávez initially seized power in a coup. However, he was later elected. Moreover, his elections are widely regarded as fair (in stark contrast to pResident George W. Bush). George Bush is the wannabe dictator who revels in torture, not Chávez. Bush is the global bully who acts like a dictator.

Bush uses his powers for evil (e.g. the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan). But what evil deeds can be blamed on Chávez?

When Peru’s right-wing president attacks Chávez for offering free medical care to Peruvian citizens, you can almost smell the stench of desperation in the air. Similarly, many U.S. citizens have criticized Chávez for offering oil at reduced prices through Citgo. President George W. Dumbass refused Chávez’ offers of assistance in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Much of the BS about Chávez the dictator stems from a sweeping legislative package that would have allowed Chávez to continue running for office for life. Whether or not that would have given him too much power is a matter of opinion.

Personally, I think Chávez is a treasure. People like him come along perhaps once a generation, and I’d like to see him stay in power as long as possible.

But the legislation failed. Ironically, its failure was also something of a success. In particular, it discredits all the fools who call Chávez a dictator.

The fact that the legislation failed suggests it was a fair election (aside from any U.S. meddling that influenced the vote). And after it failed, Chávez didn’t order a military crackdown. It all ended very peaceably.

In summary, Chávez is not a dictator. To what degree one might describe him as authoritarian is a matter of opinion. Based on his performance, I have no complaints.

Venezuela needs a strong ruler, and Latin America needs someone to replace Castro. In fact, I believe the United States needs a strong ruler. I just want someone who’s strong and good, not another treasonous war criminal.

P.S. Yahoo Answers agrees with me in deciding Chávez is no dictator. However, the right-wing Heritage Foundation takes a different line in its hit piece Thanks, But No Thanks for Aid from Self-Serving Autocrats, which approves George W. Bush’s rejection of Hurricane Katrina aid from Cuba and Venezuela. After all, who knows more about hurricane relief than George W. Bush?

Chávez is a Communist

Hugo Chávez is commonly referred to as a communist. I’ve found little evidence to support that claim.

He obviously thinks of himself as a socialist, but it isn’t even perfectly clear to me how he interprets that word. I’ve seen at least one reference that described him as a “micro-capitalist.”

It would appear to me that Chávez embraces the idea of a mixed economy, combining capitalism with socialism. Of course, propagandists like to label Chávez a communist as that word was drug through the mud by propagandists during the Cold War.

Which isn’t to say I love or hate communism. Like other government and economic systems, it has its place. It worked great for Native Americans centuries ago, and it arguably helped feed China’s starving masses, but it didn’t work so great for Russia.

Chávez is Ruining Venezuela’s Economy

This can be a tough one to figure out. After all, economics can be very complex, and whose facts and figures are we to believe? Even Wikipedia sends out a confusing message about Venezuela’ economic policy, though I think it’s generally positive.

As I write this, inflation is making headlines, and there are also many reports of food shortages. Yet Venezuela’s inflation is allegedly the result of an unprecedented spending spree, with purchases simply outstripping supplies. Chávez has taken steps to fight inflation, and he’s apparently working hard to boost agriculture.

One cannot but praise Chávez for making foreign corporations pay a fair share for Venezuelan oil. Using that money to fund various social programs can’t be a bad thing, unless these programs are rife with waste or corruption.

Chávez earned another gold star when he announced Venezuela’s withdrawal from the IMF and World Bank, which he charged with being an imperial tool that aims to exploit poor countries, after paying back all his country’s debts to both institutions five years ahead of schedule (saving U.S. $8 million in doing so). Surely, paying off one’s debts is a plus, yet this achievement has received precious little press in the U.S. media.

Many people criticize Chávez for spending money on foreign political ventures. Why is he giving cheap oil to U.S. citizens when so many Venezuelans remain needy? Why offer financial assistance to other Latin American nations?

It would be nice if Chávez could devote 100% of his time and money to Venezuela, but isolationism could be fatal in his situation. The best way to protect Venezuela—including Chávez’ gains—is to ally with other nations.

Moreover, such alliances can pay varied dividends. For example, Venezuela is closely allying with Brazil, whose agricultural economy may soon surpass that of the United States. Brazil is reportedly helping Venezuela diversify its agricultural sector. Similarly, Venezuelans have benefitted from thousands of Cuban doctors.

Similarly, people complain about Chávez’ militarization, but what choice does he have, considering the United States’ track record in Latin America, which includes supporting a coup against Chávez himself?

Chávez vs PDVSA

Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) is Venezuela’s state-owned petroleum company. It has activities in exploration, production, refining and exporting oil, as well as exploration and production of natural gas. PDVSA dominates the oil industry of Venezuela, the world’s fifth largest oil exporter.

PDVSA is Venezuela’s 800-pound economic gorilla.

In December 2002 many of PDVSA’s managers and employees (including the CTV trade union federation) locked out workers to pressure President Chávez to call early elections and virtually stopped oil production for two months. The government fired 19,000 employees and reestablished production with employees loyal to the Chávez government.

Chávez has since been frequently criticized for the mass firings and for allegedly replacing those fired with incompetent workers who have allegedly impaired PSVDA’s operations.

My hunch is that PSVDA probably did suffer as a result of the new hiring campaign. After all, replacing 19,000 trained workers is no easy task.

But what else was Chávez to do? Workers were being locked out in what was apparently a political stunt, gravely affecting the national economy. It was obviously a serious situation, and Chávez had to either capitulate or fight back.

Chávez fought back and cleaned house. End of story.

Human Rights Abuses

Hugo Chávez’ critics often accuse his government of human rights abuses, including torture and murder. Of course, many of his critcs are bald-faced liars.

Nevertheless, Amnesty International does have some complaints about Venezuela. For example, its 2007 report states that, “Most human rights violations committed by members of the security forces remained unpunished. Human rights defenders and journalists were threatened, intimidated and attacked.”

Unfortunately, the situation is too complex and confusing to be easily appraised. I certainly don’t condone acts of violence and intimidation.

On the other hand, keep in mind that Venezuela is a de facto war zone. Passions are running high between chavistas and the privileged rich. Hugo Chávez was even taken prisoner during a coup, and his claims that the U.S. has plotted to assassinate him aren’t hard to believe; just ask Fidel Castro. In fact, religious kook Pat Robertson once publicly called for Chávez’ assassination.

Let’s face it, any nation that declares war against corporate corruption, poverty or an unfair class system risks war with the U.S. There are undeniably U.S. spies, infiltrators and agents in Venezuela. Thus, one cannot blame Chávez’ supporters for being a little paranoid. In addition, there are certainly some bad apples in the system.

Are some of Chávez’ supporters guilty of criminal violence and intimidation? Probably. But the same charges could be made against the opposition. Anti-chavistas could even make false charges in order to smear Chávez. The situation is very confusing.

For whatever it’s worth, Venezuela’s human rights record isn’t nearly as bad as that of neighboring Colombia. But Colombia’s puppetmaster, the United States, has a still worse record.

My initial impression is that Venezuela has some problems that need to be fixed, but they don’t seem indicative of a government that’s rotten to the core. It’s simply irrational to expect a nation in Venezuela’s position to have a spotless record.

Crime

One criticism I’ve heard lately is that crime is rampant in Venezuela. I checked it out, and it’s true. According to Wikipedia’s List of countries by homicide rate, Venezuela is cursed with the sixth highest murder rate in the world.

Obviously, that’s an embarrassment. However, it’s hard to make anything out of it Websiteswithout a little background information. Where are most of the murders being committed, in the capital city of Caracas? The countryside? Throughout the country?

Why are people murdered? What were the crime statistics like before Chávez took power?

I haven’t yet done enough research to answer these questions, but I have found some intriguing leads. First, I was struck by the fact that neighboring Colombia has a similarly high murder rate. Of course, U.S.-backed Colombian paramilitary forces murder people all the time. However, I suspect those murders aren’t even reflected in the statistics.

Then I discovered a bombshell. The following passage is taken from Caribbean murder rates hurting growth - World Bank:

No, this doesn’t offer any definitive answers. Nevertheless, it does point a giant finger of suspicion at Colombia. And we all know who Colombia is working for. Moreover, many people believe that certain elements in the U.S. government are profiting from the drug trade. Therefore, it would not be inconceivable to link at least some of Venezuela’s murders to George Bush, Inc.

But that’s just a theory. I have no solid answers to questions about crime in Venezuela.

Chávez vs The Media

On July 25, 2005, Chávez inaugurated TeleSUR, a proposed pan-American homologue of Al Jazeera that seeks to challenge the present domination of Latin American television news by Univision and the United States-based CNN en Español. As far as I’m concerned that ranks as one of Chávez’ greatest hits.

More complex and confusing are Chávez’ dealings with the private media. Of course, everyone knows Chávez is at war with the U.S. media, which we all know is rotten to the core. The big questions are raised by Chávez’ feud with the Venezuelan media.

I’m not even going to discuss any details, because it’s all over my head. There are charges and counter-charges, and separating fact from fiction becomes quite difficult. But, to help put it in perspective, allow me to explain how I would deal with the U.S. media if I was President.

No one hates media whores more than I do. They helped get us into Iraq and Afghanistan. They shamelessly manipulate political election campaigns—and have brazenly lied about me. They helped ruin my profession (education), and they libeled me when I worked in the classroom.

Their crimes are real, and the damage is real, and, if I had the power, I’d make them pay a terrible price. But would I be able to do it within the law?

Consider a reporter who revels in teacher bashing. He’s presumably aware that he’s doing the bidding of his corporate masters...but isn’t it possible that some reporters have been brainwashed into believing the worst about teachers? And if they actually believe what they write, are they committing a crime?

Media whores call me names all the time, and I simply return fire, dragging the bastards through the mud on my websites. When the Seattle Times falsely called me a one-issue candidate during one political campaign, I was infuriated. That was a direct, preposterous lie, and if I ever find myself in a position of power, I will extract a pound of accountability.

But beyond such blatant lies, what can we do? Does freedom of the press give journalists the right to engage in disinformation and insults?

I simply haven’t figured out all the answers yet. The media must be held accountable, but I’m not sure how to do it, aside from reinstituting regulation and prosecuting them for their more blatant lies and reinstituting regulation. Maybe vigilantiism is the only answer.

In summary, I empathize with Hugo Chávez on the media issue, and I tend to side with him, but I lack the detailed knowledge of Venezuela’s media wars I need to go much further. If you would like to explore this issue in more detail, you might start by reading Media representation of Hugo Chávez (Wikipedia) and Deconstructing the IAPA War on Venezuela (Venezuela Analysis).

Nepotism

Hugo Chávez’ younger brother, Anibal, is mayor of Sabineta, Chávez’ hometown. His father, Hugo de los Reyes Chávez, is governor of the surrounding state of Barinas. Hugo’s brother, Argenis, serves as Barinas’ secretary of state.

Another brother, Adelis, is a senior banker at Banco Sofitasa, which reportedly does brisk business with the state government. Adelis also supervises the government’s construction of a new soccer stadium in Barinas.

His brother Narciso was placed in important posts at Venezuela’s embassies in Canada and Cuba, where he was put in charge of overseeing the various bilateral agreements reached between Fidel Castro and Chávez.

The eldest brother, Adán, serves as ambassador to Cuba, private secretary to the president and minister of education.

Naturally, one can’t blame people for asking questions. Were all these presidential relatives fairly elected or appointed, or do we have a case of nepotism? Either way, the situation offers fertile soil for the charges of family corruption Chávez’ critics like to spew.

This is one of the criticisms that I have to shrug my shoulders on. I simply don’t know enough about the situation. It isn’t hard to imagine relatives of someone as popular as Hugo Chávez getting elected Mayor of Sabineta and Governor of Barinas. The appointments are more questionable, but not necessarily condemning.

Given Hugo Chávez’ precarious existence—surrounded by infiltrators and potentially one step away from a CIA assassin’s bullet—it’s understandable that he would want to surround himself witih people he can trust.

It’s also interesting to compare the Chávez clan to the United States’ Bush clan. George H.W. Bush served as head of the CIA and President, son George W. Bush as Governor of Texas, then President, and son Jeb Bush as Governor of Florida. Another son, Neil Bush, has been accused of chasing whores in the Far East while on business trips in the service of his official siblings.

I do accuse and condemn George Bush, Inc. for nepotism. I’ll withhold judgment on Hugo Chávez until I have more detailed information.

Chávez’ Popularity is Plummeting

To Hugo Chávez critics, nothing could be more irritating than the fact the guy’s so damn popular. After all, he gets elected and re-elected, and his fan club includes many U.S. citizens.

Finally, the man who seemed invincible was hit with three “incidents” that made him appear more mortal. First, voters rejected a sweeping legislative package that would have allowed Chávez to continue running for office.

Second, Exxon took Chávez to court and got billions of dollars worth of Venezuelan assets frozen. Then there was the Colombian military assault on Ecuadorean soil, which exposed Chávez as both a terrorist and an impulsive fool (if you believe the corporate media).

So it isn’t surprising that the anti-chavista propagandists began cheering over Chávez’ reportedly plummeting popularity. But we should ask a couple key questions about these reports: 1) How accurate are they? 2) How much influence do U.S.-backed opponents have on public opinion?

Consider the following excerpt from the article Polls: Support for Chavez government falling (USA Today):

Notice the passage I highlighted in bold text.

Let’s not assume that Chávez surrendered to Exxon. On the contrary, he’s fighting back, and he appears to be winning so far. That can’t hurt his popularity.

But we should also consider Chávez’ popularity outside Venezuela. And while we’re at it, let’s compare George W. Bush’s popularity.

Colombia’s military adventure in Ecuador prompted Chávez to take a firm stand. Most Latin American nations rallied behind Chávez, not Colombia’s right-wing puppet, Uribe.

George W. Bush, of course, is probably the least popular U.S. President in modern history, in spite of all the support he gets from the corporate media. I’m one of many U.S. citizens who would gladly swap presidents between the U.S. and Venezuela.

What if an international survey was conducted to determine the most loved and most hated people in the world? There’s little doubt that George W. Bush would rank as the Most Hated, with several members of his administration probably also ranking among the top ten. (I suspect Bill Gates might also make that list.)

In contrast, Hugo Chávez might rank among the most popular world leaders. Nuff said.

Chávez vs The World

Chávez is Anti-American

Everyone who criticizes the U.S. government, corporations, capitalism or George W. Bush is labeled anti-American, even if they’re U.S. citizens. And I speak from personal experience.

The big irony is that we are anti-American...sort of. Another irony is that the people who call us anti-American are anti-American themselves. It all depends on how one defines anti-American.

It’s no secret that Hugo Chávez hates George W. Bush, neoliberalism and “Yankee imperialism.” So do all intelligent, ethical people.

I don’t think Chávez has much love for Democrats these days, either. After all, they’ve treated him like cow shit. Again, any intelligent, ethical person would hate the Vichy Democrats.

For whatever it’s worth, Chávez had good relations with President Bill Clinton. He also claims to love the American people. He has offered U.S. citizens cheap oil through Citgo and also offered aid after New Orleans was struck by Hurricane Katrina.

Are there political strings attached to cheap Venezuelan oil and hurricane relief aid (which George W. Bush snubbed)? Probably.

But my perception is that Hugo Chávez is anti-American in the same way that I’m anti-American. Viva Chávez!

Chávez Screws Corporations

Some free market whores complain bitterly about Hugo Chávez not honoring agreements with foreign corporations or otherwise treating them shabbily.

Well, boo hoo. Corporations have been screwing Latin America for generations. Come to think of it, they’ve been screwing me for generations. As they say, what goes around, comes around.

However, I don’t think Chávez has declared total war on corporations. Yes, he’s now raking in still more money via a new windfall tax on oil corporations, but foreign corporations are still doing business with Venezuela.

In the meantime, I hope other oil-producing nations follow Chávez’ lead in sticking it to Exxon.

Chávez Supports Terrorism

It was only a matter of time before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce played the T card, calling Hugo Chávez a terrorist. As best as I can recall, the T card was largely held in reserve until March 1, 2008, when two terrorist nations, Colombia and the United States, apparently cooperated in a military attack on Ecuadorean soil. Before long, America’s media whores were repeating the news that someone found a laptop computer in the terrorist camp they raided, and, of course, the laptop had files linking Chávez to the terrorist group.

The terrorist group in question is FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia). If you want to understand what’s going on, you have to do a little research on FARC.

Whether or not FARC is a terrorist group or a band of freedom fighters is a matter of opinion. Some people regard it as a noble cause gone bad.

But even if FARC should be considered a terrorist group, that doesn’t make its opponents—Colombia’s right-wing government and its U.S. sponsor—pure as the driven snow.

There is more evidence to indict Chávezv as a terrorist. He enjoys close relations with Cuba and Iran, both of which the U.S. regards as terrorist nations. (Of course, the U.S. enjoys close relations with Saudi Arabia, and it was formerly very close to Saddam Hussein.)

Some worry that Chávez is destabilizing Latin America and building a military arsenal, sure signs of a budding terrorist power.

In the meantime, the Venezuelan government is trying to get its hands on Luis Posada Carriles, a terrorist who’s hiding out in the U.S. Chávez demanded the extradition of Carriles—accused of conspiring to bomb Cubana Flight 455—in 2005. Unfortunately, the extradition was blocked by a Texas judge and the Department of Homeland Security.

Chávez also requested the extradition of former Venezuelan officers and members of Militares democraticos, Lt. German Rodolfo Varela and Lt. Jose Antonio Colina, who are wanted for bombing the Spanish and Colombian embassies after Chávez made a speech criticizing both governments.

Obviously, Chávez’ government has to have some contact with FARC. After all, Chávez has become the leading negotiator for the release of FARC captives. Beyond that, I would imagine Chávez has some sympathies for FARC—I certainly do—but that doesn’t mean he’s actively supporting them.

But, even if Chávez threw on a pair of jungle fatigues every night to rendezvous with his FARC colleagues, it’s still hard to point a finger of blame when the biggest terrorist power on the planet remains the United States.

Chávez is Militaristic

Right-wingers had a shit fit when Hugo Chávez began talking about arming Venezuela. As I recall, it began with talk about acquiring Kalashnikov assault rifles. Then he purchased some fighter jets and helicopters.

Now, Chávez is splurging on some diesel submarines.

There are two reasons, this infuriates America’s free market whores. First, Chávez isn’t making his purchases from the U.S. Second, they don’t want Venezuela to acquire the ability to defend itself against the U.S.

Yes, Chávez is building up Venezuela’s military. He’s also participating in a plan to unite South American nations in a military alliance similar to NATO. Good for him.

Naturally, it’s sad to see any nation spend truckloads of money on weapons. On the other hand, if Chávez sits on his butt and allows the U.S. to invade or manipulate Venezuela, thrusting its residents back into hopeless poverty, then how can he call himself a leader?

Chávez the Meddler

Hugo Chávez is widely criticized for meddling in other nation’s internal affairs, especially in Latin America. This is yet another criticism that we can analyze on two levels: Is it true, and, if so, so what?

It’s no secret that Chávez has ambitious plans for Latin America. He wants to spread his Bolivarian Revolution into every nation, and he wants to see right-wing rulers toppled in elections. Chávez has also used his influence with Opec and his close relations with Cuba and Iran to undermine the U.S.

So what’s the problem? The U.S. has been meddling in Latin America forever—and our methods aren’t nearly as gentle as Chávez’.

Chávez enjoys close relations with Cuba and Iran; we enjoy close relations with Saudi Arabia and some other very shade governments around the world.

The way I see it, the mere fact that the U.S. has its big nose in other people’s business leaves Chávez little choice but to meddle in other nation’s internal politics. The exact extent and true nature of his meddling is something I can only guess at, but I like the results very much.

Chávez Has Evil Friends

Here we go with yet another pot-calling-the-kettle-black charge. Hugo Chávez is criticized for his evil friends, chiefly Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Iran’s Ahmadinejad.

Well, Castro is a mixed bad. He’s certainly done some questionable things, but he also has some accomplishments to be proud of. Castro is a hero to millions of people around the world, if only because of his courageous stand against the U.S.

I confess, I don’t know a lot about Ahmadinejad except that he seems like a very intelligent guy—a genius compared to the moron we have in the White House.

But Ahmadinejad and Castro share one thing in common: Both are sworn enemies of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. has invaded Cuba, and the CIA has attempted to assassinate Castro. Similarly, the U.S. has invaded two nations bordering Iran (Iraq and Afghanistan) and has repeatedly bullied and threatened Iran, attempting to goad it into war.

Frankly, I think Ahmadinejad and Castro might both be a little nicer if certain powers would JUST STOP FUCKING WITH THEM.

In the meantime, pResident George W. Bush is friends with just about every sleazy ruler you can think of, from the Saudi royal family to some fellow torture fans in Central Asia.

Chávez vs Tibet

Hugo Chávez reportedly believes the U.S. is behind the recent rioting in Tibet (Venezuela’s Chavez sees US role in Tibet violence, says aim is tainting Olympics). More precisely, he believes the U.S. is trying to divide China and sabotage the Olympics.

This is probably the issue on which I most strongly disagree with Chávez. I support Tibetans all the way and hope I live to see a free Tibet. I also find it hard to believe that the Tibetan riots were orchestrated by the U.S.

One might guess that Chávez is working for the leaders of China, a strong nation with which he has built close ties. If so, that would undermine his reputation as a champion of human rights worldwide.

Still, one cannot discount Chávez’ ideas entirely. The U.S. is the champion international meddler, and the bushistas are increasingly worried about an ever stronger China.

Any U.S. concerns for Tibet were conveniently swept aside as an army of corporate whores rushed to to business with China in the new era of globalization. Now they pretend to care.

And if Chávez is to be condemned for his remarks, one should also take a close look at the Dalai Lama, who met with Diane Pelosi. What that vile, Democratic whore has to offer Tibetans is beyond me. I don’t know if the Dalai Lama actually respects Pelosi or if he was just desperate for any support he could get.

I just think it’s sad that the issue of Tibetan freedom is getting tangled in so many political games.

Danny Glover

This isn’t really a criticism so much as a personal observation. Of course, I would never criticize a celebrity for supporting Hugo Chávez. I think it’s righteous.

But actor Danny Glover has a dark secret I think Chávez—and Glover—should know about. A little background.

At the beginning of the school year in 1998, Danny Glover was the keynote speaker at a rally at Seattle’s Westlake Center. But the star of the show was Seattle Schools Superintendent John Stanford, a retired general who was struggling with leukemia.

What could be more heart-warming than an appearance by a former military man who had dedicated his remaining days to helping children and was now fighting for his life, a man easily as charismatic as Danny Glover himself?

The sad truth is that John Stanford was a very sick person in more ways than one. He was effectively recruited by the Seattle Chamber of Commerce to spearhead the privatization of Seattle’s public schools. As far as I’m concerned, Stanford—and his Seattle supporters—were nothing more than pedophiles.

So, naturally, I was shocked and disgusted to discover that actor Danny Glover had apparently joined the Stanford Fan Club. Moreover, I’ve discovered that Glover has been indirectly linked to the Seattle Chamber of Commerce in other ways. He was also billed as “a strong supporter of children's charities across the country.”

But I’m not really being fair. Danny Glover is an actor, not a political science student. One could easily be duped into believing the late John Stanford was indeed a saint, especially given the often bizarre media coverage he received. Thousands of Seattleites believed he was God.

In fact, I call John Stanford the George Bush of education because of his often mind boggling stupidity and sheer evil. Before he died, he was being groomed for a position as U.S. Secretary of Education, and I believe he would have been appointed as such by either President Gore or Bush.

So there are two possibilities here: Either Danny Glover knowingly collaborated with some of America’s sickest people, or he was duped into believing John Stanford was a decent human being.

In this spirit, I would like to ask Glover to do a little research, then help me blow the whistle on John Stanford and the Seattle Chamber of Commerce he worked for. It would represent a sort of closure for myself and other victims of John Stanford, Inc.

And, for whatever it’s worth, being duped by the Seattle Chamber of Commerce doesn’t necessarily mean you’re stupid. The bastards have fooled me many times. Theirs is a slick act.

Anti-Chávez Links

On March 29, 2008, I did a little casual research, typing Hugo Chávez’ name into Google in association with various unsavory terms. The results say a lot about America’s media whores, from the Washington Post to corporate comedian Jon Stewart.

Key Word(s)	Search Term	Hits	Search Term	Hits
dictator	“Hugo Chavez is a dictator”	2,260	“Hugo Chavez” dictator	870,000
tinpot dictator	“Hugo Chavez” “tinpot dictator”	0	“Hugo Chavez is a tinpot dictator”	1,320
authoritarian	“Hugo Chavez is an authoritarian”	3	“Hugo Chavez” authoritarian	186,000
autocratic	“Hugo Chavez is autocratic”	0	“Hugo Chavez” autocratic	62,100
president for life	“Hugo Chavez is president for life”	1	“Hugo Chavez” “president for life”	22,900
tyrant	“Hugo Chavez is tyrant”	540	“Hugo Chavez” tyrant	62,200
anti-democracy	“Hugo Chavez is anti-democratic”	0	“Hugo Chavez” anti-democratic	44,400
anti-American	“Hugo Chavez is anti-American”	5	“Hugo Chavez” anti-American	198,000
corrupt	“Hugo Chavez is corrupt”	3	“Hugo Chavez” corrupt	694,000
liar	“Hugo Chavez is a liar”	3	“Hugo Chavez” liar	161,000
thug	“Hugo Chavez is a thug”	234	“Hugo Chavez” thug	59,600
leftist	“Hugo Chavez is a leftist”	9	“Hugo Chavez” leftist	1,640,000
communist	“Hugo Chavez is a communist”	726	“Hugo Chavez” communist	1,030,000
terrorist	“Hugo Chavez is a terrorist”	22	“Hugo Chavez” terrorist	1,830,000
militaristic	“Hugo Chavez is militaristic”	0	“Hugo Chavez” militaristic	77,900
asshole	“Hugo Chavez is an asshole”	2	“Hugo Chavez” asshole	42,400
murderer	“Hugo Chavez is a murderer”	1	“Hugo Chavez” murderer	1,120,000
big mouth	“Hugo Chavez has a big mouth”	7	“Hugo Chavez” “big mouth”	14,800
impulsive	“Hugo Chavez is impulsive”	0	“Hugo Chavez” impulsive	123,000
mentally unstable	“Hugo Chavez is mentally unstable”	2	“Hugo Chavez” “mentally unstable”	2,140
deranged	“Hugo Chavez is deranged”	1	“Hugo Chavez” deranged	31,600
lunatic	“Hugo Chavez is a lunatic”	3	“Hugo Chavez” lunatic	114,000
banana republic			“Hugo Chavez” “banana republic”	23,900

On May 11, 2008, I added terrorist to the list...

• “Hugo Chavez is a terrorist”—359
• “Hugo Chavez” terrorist—1,125,000
• “Hugo Chavez” terrorism—1,990,000

As time allows, I may do a similar study comparing media tirades against Hugo Chávez and George W. Bush.

Get involved! You can join the team by simply visiting Urban Dictionary > Hugo Chavez and clicking the yellow thumbs up icon , indicating you agree with my definition of Hugo Chavez (the first one listed). It may seem trivial, but it’s quick, easy and free, and words and ideas do matter. (On May 13, 2008, the score was 1-3.)