http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/world/americas/as-chavez-worsens-venezuela-expels-two-us-diplomats.html

Quote :

"With the president’s death, the Constitution says that the nation should “proceed to a new election” within 30 days, and that the vice president should take over in the meantime. The election is likely to pit Vice President Nicolás Maduro, whom Mr. Chávez designated as his political successor, against Henrique Capriles Radonski, a young state governor who ran against Mr. Chávez in a presidential election in October. "

[Edited on March 5, 2013 at 5:29 PM. Reason : ]

3/5/2013 5:28:21 PM

at 3:55PM EST, the damn dictator died

5 minutes later, the Dow closed at a record high

COINCIDENCE???

3/5/2013 5:37:22 PM

His death smells very fishy to me.

Why is it so hard for africa and south america to adopt democracy? It is just dictator after dictator over there man, it is very sad. A part of it I am sure has to do with how many times the U.S. has gotten involved to protect their own interests.

[Edited on March 5, 2013 at 7:47 PM. Reason : x]

3/5/2013 7:46:46 PM

Democracy isn't for everyone. This is a very expensive lesson the US still hasn't learned.

3/5/2013 8:17:58 PM

ahhh bullshit. If the U.S. would just keep their hands out of it, there would be more functional democracies in Africa/South America.

3/5/2013 8:25:37 PM

If the US would keep their hands out of it there would be more functional dictatorships.

In many cases that is completely fine. Many people prefer it or function better in such a situation.

Hard fact of life.

3/5/2013 8:35:48 PM

Chavez was not a dictator, he was democratically elected.

3/5/2013 8:41:22 PM

Let's not split hairs or anything...

3/5/2013 9:00:11 PM

he came to power in a populist uprising against a corrupt regime

then he offed opposition leaders and even had the constitution changed so he could have a third term

sry, not democratic

3/5/2013 9:00:30 PM

“There is evidence that 70 years ago they tried to assassinate then Cuban President Fidel Castro with radiation, in addition to other methods,” Golinger said in an interview. “We can only imagine the weapons capacity the U.S. possesses today.”

3/5/2013 9:30:49 PM

Quote :

"If the US would keep their hands out of it there would be more functional dictatorships. In many cases that is completely fine. Many people prefer it or function better in such a situation. Hard fact of life."

[Edited on March 5, 2013 at 10:16 PM. Reason : s]

[Edited on March 5, 2013 at 10:16 PM. Reason : FML]

3/5/2013 10:14:58 PM

Good news for Venezuela.

Chavez was a sack of shit who fittingly died of ass cancer (which his VP blamed on the CIA).

He had an unbelievable opportunity to develop Venezuela into an economic powerhouse on the strength of it's oil wealth, but instead that was squandered by corruption and nationalist policies that scared away foreign investment. Meanwhile murder rates tripled as Caracas became a dirty cesspool and the rest of the country followed.

3/5/2013 10:38:38 PM

Quote :

" Why is it so hard for africa and south america to adopt democracy?"

1.) I don't think some nations can handle the idea/implementation of democracy. With some cultures due to lack of education, tribal strife, populist religious zealism they need some ruthless shitbag to keep the country together.

2.) The US has been known to support the totalitarian leader and discrediting if not even usurping the "democratically" elected leader when it meets our economic interests.

3/5/2013 10:46:49 PM

^

3/5/2013 10:52:16 PM

Africa was fine (relatively speaking) until the white europeans took over and fucked shit up. Blaming "cultures" without acknowledging the damage that western civilization has done to their population is foolish.

3/5/2013 10:58:15 PM

Quote :

"he came to power in a populist uprising against a corrupt regime then he offed opposition leaders and even had the constitution changed so he could have a third term sry, not democratic"

Was he elected? Then it was democratic. Democracy is not necessarily electing the person you happen to like.

Quote :

"He had an unbelievable opportunity to develop Venezuela into an economic powerhouse on the strength of it's oil wealth, but instead that was squandered by corruption and nationalist policies that scared away foreign investment. Meanwhile murder rates tripled as Caracas became a dirty cesspool and the rest of the country followed."

In fairness Venezuela has become richer, but it's very likely that could be in spite of Chavez, of course the rise in crime is very likely not related to him either. I don't know, can't really say.

3/5/2013 11:04:31 PM

It's only democracy if a pro business, corporate puppet allows foreign companies to come in and privatize a nations sovereign resources, duh!

Nevermind the fact that Chavez oversaw a period where many Venezuelans were lifted out of poverty while securing a new South American economic bloc with tremendous popular support. Nah, he was just a dictator. Unlike the honorable president before him who barely spoke Spanish and had the explicit support of the United States.....a country well known for participatory democracy, of course.

3/6/2013 12:31:53 AM

He said Bush was the devil, I'm sure he has found out otherwise by now

3/6/2013 12:39:37 AM

Virtually all countries in South America have seen large drops in poverty over the past decade similar to Venezuela. Hard to give Chavez any credit there, especially when oil prices have risen from $10/barrel to over $100.

Chavez showed how much he cares about democracy when he tried to stage a military coup of the democratically-elected leader in 1992. And again when he unilaterally rewrote the constitution to expand his powers. And also when he began shutting down media sources and jailing reporters who disagreed with him.

3/6/2013 12:49:59 AM

And how can you not give him credit for the decline in poverty while simultaneously noting the rise in oil prices? It was the profits from oil that he used for programs of social uplift that lead to the decline in poverty. If he hadn't, those profits would have been privatized and shared only among the boardrooms of Exxon.

You also cite his coup to power, which is accurate. And yet, you also ignore the coups he survived with the support of the military (which were backed by the US, who was one of the only countries to "acknowledge" the change in regime just hours after it happened -- fancy that).

Chavez is a controversial dude, no doubt. But simply painting him as a dictator is a weak-ass analysis of his presidency.

3/6/2013 1:11:13 AM

If you can give us any evidence that he was involved in shifting oil money to social programs, we are all ears.

3/6/2013 2:24:19 AM

Education is the most critical element to a functioning democracy. Give your people all the food, water, and shelter they can use, but for the love of God, don't educate them.

3/6/2013 3:00:12 AM

I have no strong opinions about the guy.

He integrity was no better and no worse than what we would expect of any leader in the region in his time. His championing of the poor was the same rhetoric we saw from plenty of other Latin American politicians.

If anything, I don't understand why people think he's so important. I recon it's because he was in charge for a long time in a place with lots of oil.

3/6/2013 8:20:20 AM

Quote :

"Was he elected? Then it was democratic."

imma invoke godwin here

Ahmadinejad (granted, not the most powerful figure in Iran) was elected, and the vote was provably rigged

also Hitler's NSDAP got elected and broke the system from within (similar to but more profoundly than Chavez): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933

[Edited on March 6, 2013 at 8:58 AM. Reason : sham elections do not imply democracy

3/6/2013 8:58:32 AM

How do you define sham? I'm sure onlookers think our electoral college that picked Bush was also a sham.

3/6/2013 9:23:56 AM

The US has been trying to undermine and/or remove him for ages. His outpsoken criticism of US policy and colonialism was very much spot on. Don't mistake that for me endorsing the way he ran his country though. I can't say I'm very interested in watching this unfold because I'd rather spend my popcorn time watching the Catholic church implode.

3/6/2013 9:47:43 AM

I'm more interested in how Cuba reacts to this than how Venezuela reacts to it.

3/6/2013 10:09:25 AM

^^^^People have accused Chavez of buying votes with social programs (so has Obama) and exerting control over state-run media, but never of "rigging the vote". As far as Hitler, again democracy doesn't mean electing the guy you like, or even not electing a bad guy. There are problems in democracy, you can't skirt them by saying anything that goes wrong in a democracy makes it not a democracy.

Quote :

"If you can give us any evidence that he was involved in shifting oil money to social programs, we are all ears."

Here's where he bought a bunch of laptops for poor kids, not to hard to guess where the money from that came from.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x44605

Here's an article about his subsidized grocery stores for the poor
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/12/02/275742/chavez-increases-subsidized-food-budget-by-41-percent/

If you want broader more general things you can look at the unemployment, poverty, or infant mortality rates, or better yet the GINI coefficient.

His policies are debatable (as pretty much any policies anywhere are), and he has placed himself right in the middle of controversy, but he certainly hasn't been the villian many make him out to be.

[Edited on March 6, 2013 at 10:20 AM. Reason : ]

3/6/2013 10:20:12 AM

Yeah, he's been unfriendly to America, but I didn't view him as a despot or anything. I don't care for socialists, but if that's what Venezuela wants, that's their business. Censoring media isn't good, but that makes him a douchebag, not a villainous tyrant on par with the true bad guys of the world. About the worst thing about him was his defense of and cozy relationship with leaders like Ahmedenijad (sp?) and Assad...but we've done plenty of similar things.

Quote :

" How do you define sham? I'm sure onlookers think our electoral college that picked Bush was also a sham."

Oh fucking please, that's not even close to the same thing as the rigged "elections" in many places.

3/6/2013 10:44:32 AM

I always thought of Chavez as the kid who tried really hard to challenge the establishment, but who ended up just hosting alternative prom in his parents garage.

3/6/2013 10:50:01 AM

^^ yeah i get that.

But it's also hard to stand on the outside looking in for Venezuela and say what he's doing is definitely corrupt.

It may be the case, but it would require more in depth knowledge of Venezuela's internal political structure, just like it would require some knowledge of how our electoral college came to be to believe Bush DIDN'T steal the 2000 election if you were a foreigner.

3/6/2013 10:58:37 AM

http://truth-out.org/news/item/12074-independent-observers-venezuelas-election-a-model-of-democracy

3/6/2013 11:03:42 AM

our election process is pretty terrible

3/6/2013 11:10:12 AM

Our lack of standardization is absolutely pathetic.

3/6/2013 11:51:39 AM

When Chavez came to power, oil extraction taxes were at 67%. Even with this high tax rate, Exxon and ConocoPhillips, in partnership with the state-owned PDVSA, invested hundreds of millions into building up petroleum and gas infrastructure at the Orinoco oil field, because it contains the second biggest reserves in the western hemisphere. This culminated with Venezuela producing over 3 million barrels of oil per day in 2000, even before the massive run-up in gas prices.

So what happened after Chavez kicked Exxon and ConocoPhillips out without any compensation for the hundreds of millions they invested? Production dropped rapidly, as PDVSA showed no ability to bring new fields online. Operating efficiency dropped precipitously even as Chavez travelled the globe trying to model the industry after other, more successful OPEC producers. The major ingredient he was missing? Foreign investment and expertise. Deep water oil drilling is expensive, not to mention hard to start up when foreign investors and contractors have been scared away by your actions. So instead of being a slave to the long dick of US corps, Chavez decided to ride the tiny dick of the Chinese. But even with Chinese (and Brazil-owned Petrobras) help, Venezuela is still only producing about 2.5 million barrels per day in a highly inefficient manner, with regular shutdowns and plant explosions. In contrast, the US, which has far fewer reserves of crude and tougher environmental regulations, produces almost 12 million barrels a day. Chavez would've been much better off leaving Exxon and ConocoPhillips in the country, and pocketing 67% of the profits of their production.

Also, this:

Quote :

"Hugo Chávez seems to be at the end of his presidency. He has been in power for over 14 years, longer than Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Margaret Thatcher or Tony Bair. Thatcher and Blair had to relinquish power because their parties thought they would be better off without them. Chávez need not fear that outcome: his party would never question his leadership. His demise is more likely to resemble that of FDR, who died in office, only six months after having won a landslide electoral victory. Chávez's sustained electoral success is remarkable because he managed to achieve it despite a dismal economic and social performance. Since 1999, the year he took over the presidency, Venezuela has had the lowest average GDP per capita growth rate and the highest inflation of any Latin American country except Haiti. It has also seen a fivefold increase in assassinations to arguably the highest murder rate in the world. In spite of having the largest oil reserves in the planet, he managed to reduce Venezuela's share of OPEC oil output from 4.8% to around 3%. He also managed to stimulate the largest out-migration of Venezuelans in memory. How can electoral success be achieved under such weak foundations? It is not easy. It helps if the price of oil increases fivefold. That way, consumption can increase even if domestic production does not. The government can distribute its increased oil rent to alleviate poverty, garner support and win favors. "

More here:

http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/25/hugo-chavez-venezuela-legacy

I know that some of you worldly, left-leaning free-thinkers want to believe that Chavez wasn't so bad, he just got a bad rap from the US media being manipulated by the government. Unfortunately, the truth was much more mundane. The guy was a piece of shit whose poor economic record was only matched by his disdain for democracy and anyone who dared to question his power. He crafted an image as a populist standing up for the poor against the imperialistic US because it was the source of his power. So before every election he had highly-publicized social programs and giveaways, all while warning the poor that they would lose everything if he wasn't reelected. The poor in Venezuela were his pawns, and he manipulated them the same way other strongmen do; with fear and bribes. It is the same playbook that Assad, Ahmenedijad, Un, Castro and others use; demonize the West, stroke the flames of nationalism and paint yourself as a man of the people.

[Edited on March 6, 2013 at 3:47 PM. Reason : 2]

3/6/2013 3:35:30 PM

Oh get out of here you!

3/6/2013 3:43:23 PM

but remember when he gave heating aid to poor americans?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6589473

3/6/2013 3:50:18 PM

Oh, what a crime! He wasn't able to get the oil out of the ground fast enough! It's as if the oil is going to go somewhere or something. Not only that, but he paints himself as a man of the people, you know, just like every leader that has ever existed has done.

3/6/2013 3:55:35 PM

Is it better to get oil faster with fewer people profiting or slower with more people profiting. Should speed and efficiency be the important metric, or impact to the nation/people?

3/6/2013 4:06:22 PM

^economically speaking, its obviously better for Venezuela to develop their resources and use the profits and tax revenues to invest in their country, rather than leaving the industry to the horribly inefficient PDVSA.


^^The point was that he doesn't deserve any credit for his very transparent populist bullshit that is nothing more than manipulation of the poor and socialists like you, Kris. His policies hurt the poor, as seen by the country's anemic growth and skyrocketing crime rate compared to its neighbors. He had a golden opportunity to turn Venezuela into a thriving economy and squandered it.



[Edited on March 6, 2013 at 4:09 PM. Reason : 2]

3/6/2013 4:07:07 PM

Quote :

"^economically speaking, its obviously better for Venezuela to develop their resources and use the profits and tax revenues to invest in their country, rather than leaving the industry to the horribly inefficient PDVSA."

PDVSA is still posting record profits, still part of Fortune 500, your evidence of them being inefficient is lacking.

Quote :

"His policies hurt the poor, as seen by the country's anemic growth and skyrocketing crime rate compared to its neighbors. He had a golden opportunity to turn Venezuela into a thriving economy and squandered it."

How is their growth anemic? In 2011 their rate was more than double that of Brazil or even the US. Their per-capita GDP is, and has always been greater than Brazil or the South American average. You have nothing to back up anything you are saying. I am not trying to defend Chavez's record, it's too difficult to seperate what has to do with him and his policies with what is not, but you are making things up to attack him.

It's just plain silly to compare him, as you have done, to a ruthless dictator like Assad. He's never used violence or fear to keep himself in power like Assad, and he hasn't bankrupted his country with terrible economic decisions like Kim Jong Il.

3/6/2013 4:32:25 PM

Quote :

"I don't care for socialists, but if that's what Venezuela wants, that's their business"

This should pretty much be the official US foreign policy. It's a shame it isn't, though.

Quote :

"The poor in Venezuela were his pawns, and he manipulated them the same way other strongmen do; with fear and bribes. It is the same playbook that Assad, Ahmenedijad, Un, Castro and others use; demonize the West, stroke the flames of nationalism and paint yourself as a man of the people."

You cannot honestly compare Chavez to Kim Jong Un (or Il), and you certainly can't compare him to Assad. Neither of those dudes pretend to be men of the people......I mean, seriously, man, this is busch league. Chavez is a socialist. He's not a despot. You can compare Chavez to Castro and Evo Morales if you want, but you can't just compare him to every leader that is vilified by an imperialist West.

3/7/2013 2:35:31 AM

I saw this guy fight once in Atlantic city.

3/7/2013 5:55:43 AM

^^oooh, that imperialist West!

My point was that his populist, fearmongering spiel was just a way to maintain and consolidate power. Not that he is in the same league as Assad or Un, but rather that he used the same tactics (accusing all opposition voices within Venezuela of being instruments of the US, creating an atmosphere of intense nationalism and paranoia, etc) to get his way. OK, he didn't wage war against his own people or enslave millions. But his attempted coup, his shutdown of opposition voices and rewriting of the Constitution were not the actions of a democratic Socialist. They were the actions of an Autocrat.

3/7/2013 9:46:28 AM

USA's track record at coups, insurrection, threats, violence, and terrorism in South America is so much worse than Chavez's, its not even close.

3/7/2013 9:49:00 AM

alright. But that doesn't make Chavez's legacy any less autocratic.

3/7/2013 10:24:55 AM

What about the independant election observers that have been there and claimed the election was free and fair? How does that make him an autocrat? It seems like you just don't like the way he campaigns.

3/7/2013 10:36:17 AM

Good read from Vice:
CHAVEZ: DESPOT OR SAINT?
http://www.vice.com/read/chavez-despot-or-saint?utm_source=vicetumblrus

3/7/2013 11:27:01 AM

^ good read, but it glosses over his very poor economic record, massive corruption and aggressive consolidation of power. I suppose the article was making the case that he was forced to do so.

^^No, I don't like the way he rewrote the constitution and then continued to violate it, arrested opposition leaders, undercut civil rights, corrupted the judiciary and silenced the media.

His elections were relatively free and fair, aside from his considerable manipulation of the media. I never stated otherwise. He was a democratically-elected autocrat. Similar to Putin.

[Edited on March 7, 2013 at 11:49 AM. Reason : 3]

3/7/2013 11:38:22 AM

Show me a poor economic record:
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_kd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:VEN&ifdim=region&tstart=952405200000&tend=1299474000000&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false&q=venezuela+gdp

[Edited on March 7, 2013 at 12:56 PM. Reason : ]

3/7/2013 12:54:54 PM