Go to Venezuela, You Idiot!

By Jeff Cohen

07/06/06 "Commondreams" --- I don't usually take the advice of rightwingers. But I did this time. After receiving inflamed email messages from dozens of angry rightists that I should get the hell out of the USA and go to Venezuela, I accepted their challenge and flew to Caracas.

"Would you like me to start a fund to ship your ass down there, Comrade Cohen?"

What had provoked the often-abusive emailers was my 2005 my 2005 Internet column urging U.S. residents to buy their gasoline at Citgo, a subsidiary of Venezuela's state oil company. I called for a Citgo BUY-cott, to protest Bush's interventionist foreign policy while supporting innovative anti-poverty programs in Venezuela. (Last winter, Citgo started a program that provided discounted home-heating oil to low-income families in the U.S.)

"Hey moron, if you hate America so much and love Venezuela, why don't you go there?"

I'm glad I listened to the conservative chorus. In late June, I headed to Venezuela with a fact-finding delegation sponsored by the respected U.S. human rights group, Witness for Peace. The grueling trip covered much ground and all sides of Venezuela's social/political landscape. It is a complex country, headed by sometimes volatile President Hugo Chavez, a leftist and harsh Bush critic who was first elected in 1998.

As soon as I returned home, I headed to the nearest Citgo to fill up my tank -- more committed than ever to send a few dollars toward Venezuela's poor.

"You, sir, are as un-American as they come."

For decades, Venezuela's vast oil wealth had been squandered and hoarded by its light-skinned elite, while most Venezuelans -- largely of indigenous, African and mixed descent -- lived in dire poverty. Today, oil revenue from Citgo and elsewhere is funneled into social programs (called "missions") to benefit the country's poor majority. They're reminiscent of FDR's New Deal programs. . .born of our economic bust. But Venezuela's missions are fueled by a boom -- a boom in oil prices that is likely to persist for years.

"Because of Chavez, communism is thriving in South America."

From what I could see, capitalism is thriving. Foreign oil interests continue to profit handsomely from Venezuelan petrol, but they now pay a fairer share of taxes and royalties. So do the 80 McDonald's restaurants in Venezuela, which were briefly shut down last year over alleged tax cheating.

Multinational companies and the old elite are doing fine in today's Venezuela. So well that some Venezuelan leftists denounce Chavez -- despite his talk of building "21st century socialism" -- as a tool of corporate imperialism.

Like other oil-exporting countries, Venezuela in the past allowed its domestic productive economy to atrophy. Besides oil, it produced little -- with food largely imported. Today, people in poor areas are organizing themselves into productive and agricultural co-ops, supported by low-interest government loans. We visited a federal bank that underwrites women-run businesses nationwide.

My guess is that if Chavez succeeds in Venezuela -- a big "if" in a country of endemic corruption, poverty and crime, in the backyard of the U.S. superpower -- its economic system will end up looking more like Sweden than Cuba.

What's not debatable is that the poor have found hope in the Chavez administration -- which is why he's perhaps the most popular president in our hemisphere. So popular that Chavez critics in the U.S. government and Venezuelan opposition concede that they won't be able to defeat him in December when he seeks reelection.

"The trouble with all you liberals is that you're anti-American and hate democracy."

Participation in democracy is booming in Venezuela under Chavez. That's partly due to polarization, but also because so many poor people feel empowered enough for the first time to get active in politics. A massive 2005 Latinobarometro poll conducted in 18 Latin American countries showed that Venezuelans are among the top in preference for democracy over all other forms of government, in satisfaction with how their democracy is functioning, and in belief that their country is "totally democratic."

"The oil money never gets to the poor. . . . You must have been paid by Chavez to write what you wrote."

Across Venezuela, it's hard to miss the new investment in public education. Schools are being upgraded in urban and rural areas and are required to offer free breakfasts and lunches, arts, music and after-school activities. Unlike the U.S., these are well-funded mandates. Illiteracy has been virtually wiped out, according to UNESCO, thanks to adult education that has penetrated the poorest neighborhoods.

In poor communities, federally-subsidized stores called "mercals" sell food at half the market price. In the capital of Caracas, thousands of government-funded soup kitchens offer free lunches every weekday to the indigent; our delegation was headquartered in a church that served 150 free lunches per day. Across the country, new housing is being built to replace shantytown "ranchos" that so many Venezuelans live in.

Thousands of free ("Barrio Adentro") medical clinics have been built inside neighborhoods that never had doctors before -- so many clinics that you can spot them from the highway. These are staffed largely by doctors from Cuba; in return, Cuba receives Venezuelan oil. When we asked a community leader how local residents reacted to the Cuban doctors, he explained that most Venezuelan doctors won't serve in poor barrios: "People in our community don't care whether the doctors are French, German, Canadian, Mexican or Cuban -- as long as they're here to help."

"Go to Venezuela and kiss up to the anti-American dictator."

If Venezuela is a dictatorship, it must be the first in world history in which the opposition controls most of the media. And the first in which demonstrations occur regularly outside the presidential palace (organized by various groups, especially low-income activists complaining about broken promises and government inefficiency).

Dissent is alive and well in Venezuela. Any casual viewer can see anti-Chavez criticism all over TV, the country's dominant medium and largely in the hands of conservative business interests. The opposition used its power on TV to support a short-lived military coup in 2002 (strike 1), an employers' oil lockout in 2002-3 (strike 2) and a failed recall election in 2004 (strike 3). Chavez won nearly 60% in the recall vote -- which was monitored closely by international observers.

Efforts to bring down Chavez -- through democratic and undemocratic means -- have been supported by the Bush administration. Which makes it ironic that the American Family Association, a U.S. religious ultra-right group, has organized a Citgo boycott on the basis of its Internet hoax: "Venezuela Dictator Vows to Bring Down U.S. Government." The headline tends to reverse reality; Chavez has made no such vow. But AFA true believers have targeted my email inbox for months with the hoax.

"Try Jesus. If you don't like Him, the devil will always take you back.. . . .What terrorist group are you affiliated with?"

If you think the U.S. is politically polarized, you haven't been to Venezuela. Clinton's impeachment by the religious right over sex is child's play compared to what's gone on in Venezuela, where Chavez has survived near-death experiences at the hands of a conservative opposition that has never accepted his presidency.

Columnist Paul Krugman talks of a "New Class War" in our country. In Venezuela, it's old-fashioned class war. Political and media confrontation between Chavez and the opposition is vicious, personal and bare-knuckled. While independent human rights monitors in Venezuela complain about isolated cases of government intimidation of opposition figures and journalists, they scoff at claims that democracy is in jeopardy or that dictatorship is coming.

Today, Chavez is popular (his approval ratings dwarf Bush's), rambunctious in whipping up his base against both domestic opponents and Bush, and prone to hyperbole in his hours of extemporaneous speaking each day. He has waged a war of words against U.S. Empire and Bush, whom he calls "Mr. Danger." But that's polite in light of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld having compared Chavez to Adolph Hitler. Or Rev. Pat Robertson having called for Chavez to be assassinated.

"You can write your articles about how great he [Chavez] is, but I know, as well as other true Americans, that he is not a good man and he does need to be taken out of power as soon as possible."

To me, the issue is less about Chavez than about the social initiatives his government has unleashed. When I first wrote about Venezuela 14 months ago, I urged a simple economic action: filling up at Citgo so that our money at the pump helps Venezuela's poor instead of Middle East oiligarchs. That remains a good idea.

Nowadays, I also urge political action: that we contact Congress to demand that the U.S. stay out of Venezuela's political contest. That's up to Venezuelans to decide. Not us. The U.S. should stop its efforts to back the conservative opposition and cease all ("National Endowment for Democracy") funding of Venezuelan groups.

And finally, I want to join my rightwing critics in one recommendation: Go to Venezuela. If you can arrange it, examine the social transformations for yourself. Study Spanish there. See the decades of poverty, neglect and corruption that led to the election of Hugo Chavez -- and whether his government is improving things.

There's an added bonus for anyone who can get down there: gasoline at 18 cents per gallon. Expect to hear Venezuelans complaining that the price is too high.

Jeff Cohen is a media critic and former TV pundit. His newest book, "Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media," can be pre-ordered at http://jeffcohen.org/

Bush's incompetence (although his administration has been incompetent
beyond belief). Nor is it a response to the president's principled lack
of intellectual curiosity and pitbull refusal to admit mistakes (although
those character flaws are certainly real enough). And the orgy of bribery
and special-interest dispensation in Congress is not the result of Tom
DeLay's ruthlessness, as impressive a bully as he was. This conservative
presidency and Congress imploded, not despite their conservatism, but
because of it."
A bit on the long side, but very comprehensive--send this one to
EVERYBODY you know.

Paul A. Stark Jr.
starkp1@juno.com

This was sent to me by a member of my email group, Please feel free to copy and paste this letter and send it to every member of Congress you can find an address for.
Martha
_________________________________________________________________
You Swore on the Bible: An Open Letter to the Members of Congress
by Andrew Bard Schmookler

Dear Members of Congress:
Each one of you who serve in Congress took an oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I
take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the
office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
A Promise to God
You promised us -you promised God-to defend the Constitution.
An oath is supposed to mean something. In our civilization, an oath is
understood to be
"a special appeal, an expression of sincerity backed up by the threat of
divine retribution should the uttering prove false-hence the term
'oath-breaker'. An oathbreaker was assumed to have committed a crime
against God or of some divine entity, which would lead to damnation or
another form of severe penalty."
Did you take your oath seriously? Or were these just meaningless words
you spoke so that you could step into your position of power?
From some of you, we sometimes hear the expression "God-fearing," but can
anyone who can swear on the Bible "So help me God," without meaning what
he says, be God-fearing?
The Constitution Now Needs Defending
Most of the time, that oath of office does not require the Members of
Congress to do much. That's because the Constitution doesn't generally
need defending.
But has there ever been a moment in American history when the
Constitution has needed defending more than now?
Has not a disturbing pattern emerged? From what we reliably know, and
from what the administration itself has disclosed, is there not already
discernable a pattern of disregard for the law and of presidential
power-grabbing?
We see this in the warrantless searches; in the apparent practice of
torture; in "signing statements" numbering over 700; in the deception of
Congress on vital national issues, including matters of war and peace;
and in the succession of bogus arguments advanced by this administration
to justify its usurpation of power and its assault on our system of
checks and balances.
Is there not more than enough evidence to require you at least to suspect
that the Constitution stands in need of defense? Yet you are not rising
to its defense.
Would not a Congress that kept faith with its oath of office at least be
seriously investigating this apparent assault on the Constitution? Yet
serious investigations have not been conducted, and indeed have been
repeatedly blocked.
But really, on some matters, there's grounds for more than mere
suspicion. The American Bar Association felt it had enough information,
for example, to declare unequivocally that the administration violated
the FISA law. Moreover, this administration has advanced claims -in
written documents, and in public statements-- that it doesn't have to
obey the laws passed by Congress. And it has declared that itself not
subject to judicial oversight. If such claims are not an assault on the
Constitution, what would be?
Under these circumstances, your failure to defend the Constitution, after
taking such an oath, is simply dishonorable.
What Honor Requires
The oath you take is directly descended from such oaths of fealty as
knights took to defend the King. Such oaths left no room for anything to
take precedence over doing one's utmost to protect one's lord. Not just
when it's convenient, but whenever it's needed. Not just to the extent
that's comfortable, but all-out, even at the cost -if necessary-of one's
life.
To betray such an oath was to forfeit all honor, to be faithless and
worse.
Your oath puts the Constitution in the place of the King. The pledge
remains one of the highest moral and legal seriousness. It is said:
"It is often considered a treasonous or highly illegal offense to betray
one's oath of office"
You've been entrusted by the people of the United States with the defense
of our American birthright to live in a free society under the rule of
law. Have you considered that your betrayal of that trust -in failing to
rise to the defense of our American constitutional democracy-might
reasonably be regarded as treason?
The Oath Does Not Allow You to Weigh the Cost
An honorable person, taking an oath -like the knight who swears to
protect the king-risks all to fulfill his oath. But you -members of both
parties-are treating other considerations as more important.
Those of you who are Republicans face a political difficulty in that the
assault on the Constitution comes from a president of your own party.
It's not easy opposing your own party's leadership.
But your oath gives you no honorable choice but to defend the
Constitution. It does not allow you to defend such a president against
the Constitution. It does not allow you to yield to the temptation to
ingratiate yourself with power at the cost of the Constitution. You are
obliged, by that oath, to defend the Constitution against all enemies,
foreign and domestic. Even if that risks your losing your present
proximity to great political power.
Those of you who are Democrats seem to have judged that you will pay a
political price if you make too big a stink about the fact that this
presidency is dismantling the Constitution and the rule of law. You may
be right about that (though I doubt it).
But it doesn't matter whether your fears are well-founded. Your oath does
not say you'll defend the Constitution only when it is politically
expedient. The pledge is unqualified. Just as the honorable knight is
prepared to die, if necessary to defend the king, so your oath obliges
you to be ready to commit political suicide if that's what the
fulfillment of your sacred pledge requires.
Even those among you who have come closest to fulfilling your oath have
not done so adequately. Not if the pledge to defend the Constitution is
understood, like the knight's oath of fealty, to require one's utmost
efforts. It is not enough, for example, to just introduce, in a
gentlemanly way, a motion of censure-and then walk away. The knight does
not just walk off the battlefield leaving his weapon behind. That is not
defending the Constitution to the utmost of your abilities. If your
colleagues do not rise to support your motion of censure, your oath
requires you to exert yourself more strenuously and escalate your
approach. Pick up your weapon (that motion of censure), raise your voice
a notch, and make your colleagues' failure to support it -i.e. to fulfill
their oath of office-- the issue.
Is there a one of you who has fully honored the oath you took? Have you
not all shirked, placing personal considerations ahead of your pledge?
What This is About
The true issue is not just that you took this oath. It's about what's
behind the oath-behind your being required to promise to defend the
Constitution.
This is not ultimately even about the Constitution. It's about what the
Constitution is about. And what the Constitution is about is the
prevention of tyranny.
There is a reason this country's Founding Fathers made the defense of the
Constitution the heart of the oath of office. They understood that the
natural tendency of political systems is to descend into tyranny and into
all the nightmarish corruption and destruction of human dignity and
rights that tyranny brings. And their genius lay in constructing a system
of protections against that natural downhill slide toward tyranny.
It's because they understood that their handiwork -the Constitution-is
the necessary bulwark to preserve the blessings liberty for their heirs
that they composed the oath of office as they have. By that oath, they
sought to bind you, our leaders, to perform the vital task of protecting
us, as a free people, against the unchecked power of the tyrant.
Your Choice: Which Will It Be?
But the oath does not enforce itself. It requires either your honor in
fulfilling your promise, or our wrath in driving from office those who
break their oath.
We, the undersigned citizens of the United States, would like to ask you:
Which will it be? Are you going to confront this apparent pattern of
presidential lawlessness by conducting investigations and following them
wherever your oath of office may require you to go? Or are we going to
have to find other political leaders to protect our freedom under the
rule of law?
[Readers are encouraged to circulate this open letter as a petition to
Congress.]
Andrew Bard Schmooker is the creator of the Web site www.NoneSoBlind.org.
His lives in Albuquerque, N.M. Email to: andythebard@comcast.net.

I want to thank everyone that has, and continues to send me articles to post in my Blog site
Martha
____________________________________________________________
Hoffman vs. Kennedy
In his June 22 column (``But that was yesterday, and yesterday's gone''), editorial writer Steve Hoffman criticized Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s exhaustively researched treatise on the 2004 presidential election, demonstrating that he wasn't really paying attention when he read it, nor had he spent any time with the numerous supporting citations. If he had, Hoffman would not have dismissed those of us who were paying attention by telling us in the subhead of this column that he has the truth about 2004 and -- in a masterful use of snark -- recommending that those of us who do not agree should simply ``deal with it.''

As an example of this intellectual flaccidity, re-examine paragraph six of the column, in which Hoffman wrote:

``Kennedy does admit the nation's voting system is a `messy patchwork of polling rules run mostly by county and city officials.' Yet in the next paragraph, he asserts that `the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people.' In other words, the messy patchwork suddenly became a well-oiled machine.''

Kennedy did nothing of the kind, because, unlike Hoffman, he does not confuse governmental and legal machinery with political machinery. If Hoffman aspires to credibility on an issue like this, it's time for him to learn the difference. It was the very patchwork nature of the voting system that made it vulnerable to political assault, and this also made detection more difficult, since the attack took different forms in different places: fraudulent mailings for ``address verification'' in one place, machine shortages in another, phony challenges elsewhere. The attack would have been harder to carry out -- and detection easier -- had the rules, machines, procedures, and all the rest been standardized statewide.

Hoffman apparently also missed the story out of Cuyahoga County several weeks ago, in which it was reported that the election workers deliberately sabotaged the recount there to avoid the extra work.

He's partially right, though, about one thing: These issues will have to be ``dealt with'' sooner or later. But if his attitude is any indication of statewide sentiment, it will be later -- several stolen elections later -- rather than sooner. And that is a luxury we cannot afford.

Paul A. Stark Jr.

Canton

This is a good example of the way most Conservatives think, "I guess most of you remember the story of the Goose and the Golden Egg", It seems that the Republicans are going to kill the Goose if they are let alone to do as they please.
This a the letter I received from
ODell2115
I didn't post their return address because I don't want to cause them to get unwanted emails
______________________________________________________________________
From ODell2115
I guess in your mind, the liberal democrats who refuse to allow us to drill
for oil in our own country have no blame in the high gas prices. Suuure,
it's all George Bush's fault.

Please remove me from your email the next time you decide to praise real
dictators, and trash the free market economy.
(They have never been in my mailing list)

LET ME REMIND EVERYONE OF THE CONSERVATIVES VIEW OF FREE MARKET ECONOMY.

Look at the jobs that have been lost because of us outsourcing our resources
Think what it is going to be like when we no longer have borders between Mexico and Canada? See page 2 {report to leaders}
The next time you see your lawns dry up think about Global warming and the cause of it. they would ravage the Oceans, State Parks, and the Forests to line their pockets, but future generations would pay the price.
Martha