Ko tad mēs varam, vai ne?

Vai kentam nav citas iespējas, kā parunāties ar Repši un tapt uzklausītam?

Only Americans who search out the alternative media discover that Hugo Chavez was elected President by a comfortable margin in 1998, survived an opposition-sponsored recall in 2004, and most recently was re-elected in December 2006 with more than 60% of the vote. International observers certified all three elections as fair and square. George Bush, on the other hand, was selected President by a partisan Supreme Court after losing the popular vote in 2000, and won re-election only because enough black voters in Ohio were disenfranchised by a partisan Republican official to keep the Buckeye State in the Republican column in 2004. Few observers believe Bush could survive a recall election today, but of course this basic element of democratic rule is not permitted by the US Constitution. Nonetheless, the only storyline ninety-nine percent of Americans hear remains: Hugo Chavez is a dictator and George Bush is the democratically elected leader of the free world. Similarly, only the small fraction of Americans who access the alternative media learn that RCTV was not shut down because it campaigns openly against the government -- which it has for nine years. Instead, when its license came up for renewal, its application was denied because it had violated 200 conditions of its licensing agreement -- many violations having to do with its role in helping to organize a military coup that nearly toppled the duly elected President of the country. Moreover, the station continues to broadcast on a cable network, and the opposition in Venezuela still broadcasts on more major TV channels than there are channels sympathetic to the government. In stark contrast, the alternative media in the US cannot be viewed on any major channel. Consequently the vast majority of Americans receive all their news from a mainstream media which never questions whether the US has any right to dominate other nations, but only debates the wisdom of alternative strategies for doing so, and would never dream of questioning the desirability of an economic system dominated by their corporate owners. Nevertheless the storyline most Americans hear remains: Freedom of the press is dead in totalitarian Venezuela, but alive and well in the democratic United States.

Under Chavez, social advances have been remarkable and consider two among many. According to Venezuela's National Statistics Institute (INE), the country's poverty rate (before Chavez) in 1997 was 60.94%. It dropped sharply under Bolarvarianism to a low of 45.38% in 2001, rose to 62.09% after the crippling 2002-03 oil management lockout, and then plummeted to a low of around 27% at year end 2007. In addition, unemployment dropped from 15% in 1997 to INE's reported 6.2% in December 2007. Morsbach also omitted how Chavez is tackling homelessness. He's reducing it with programs like communal housing, drug treatment and providing modest stipends for the needy. His goal - "for there (not) to be a single child in the streets....not a single beggar in the street." It's working through Mission Negra Hipolita that guides the homeless to shelters and rehab centers. They provide medical and psychological care and pay homeless in them a modest amount in return for community service. No mention either compares Venezuela under Chavez to America under George Bush (and likely Britain under anyone) where no homeless programs exist, the problem is increasing, nothing is being done about it, and the topic is taboo in the media.

Economic Progress Like most Latin American economies, the Venezuelan economy deteriorated during the 1980s and most of the 1990s. From 1998 to 2003 real per capita GDP continued to stagnate while the Chavez government survived two general strikes by the largest Venezuelan business association, a military coup, and finally a devastating two month strike by the state owned oil company. However, after Chavez survived the opposition sponsored recall election, annual economic growth was 18.3% in 2004, 10.3% in 2005, and 10.3% in 2006, and the unemployment rate fell from 18.4 % in June 2003 to 8.3% in June 2007. Moreover, most of the growth was in the non-oil sectors of the economy, as the oil sector barely grew during 2005 and 2006. While this impressive growth would not have been possible without the rise in international oil prices, it also would not have been possible had the Chavez government not ignored the warnings of neoliberal critics and pursued aggressive expansionary fiscal and monetary policies. At the height of the oil strike the poverty rate rose to 55.1% of households and a startling 62.1% of the population. However, by the end of 2006 the poverty rate had declined dramatically to 30.6% of households and 36.3% of the population, which compares favorably with a pre-Chavez rate of poverty in 1997 for households of 55.6% and for individuals of 60.9%. While much of this decrease in poverty was due to strong economic growth, it was also due to a dramatic increase in social spending by the Chavez government. Social spending per person by the central government increased by an average of 19% per year from 1998 to 2007. However, this does not include social spending by the state-owned oil company. If social spending by PDVSA is included, there was an increase of 35% per person per year since 1998. The most dramatic increase in social spending was in the area of health care. In 1998 there were over 14,000 Venezuelans for each primary healthcare physician, and few physicians worked in rural or poor urban areas. By 2007 there was one primary healthcare physician for every 1,300 Venezuelans, and many of the new physicians were working in clinics in rural areas and poor barrios that had never had physicians before.2 There are also now 16,000 stores in poor areas throughout the country selling staples at a 30% discount on average.

The Latinobarometro 2007 Report, a highly reputed Chilean publication which monitors opinion trends Latin America, in its annual report this year paints a very different picture of Venezuela than the one pumped by most of the mainstream media. Below its main conclusions: • Uruguayans and Venezuelans are far more likely to say they are "satisfied" with their democracy (66% and 59% respectively) than everyone else in the region. No other nationality hits the 50% mark. • Venezuela ties with Argentina for second place in believing that democracy "is the best form of government" (83% each, compared with 86% for Uruguay at the top and 49% for Panama at the bottom). • Responding to the question "Do you trust in democracy?" Venezuela and Uruguay tie for the top spot, with 77% of the population avowing their "trust," followed by Argentina and Bolivia (67% and 63%). Peru and Panama have 39% and 34%, respectively. If Venezuelans are content with their democratic system, they are even happier over the state of their economy: • 52% of Venezuelans say they are satisfied with the country's "recent economic condition," in a ranking in which the second slot is a three-way tie between Brazil, Ecuador, and the Dominican republic for 26%, or exactly half that figure. • Venezuelans are far more hopeful about their future economic sitch, with 60% believing it will get even better in the year ahead, compared with second place Uruguay. • When asked whether their government works for the well-being of the people, Venezuelans top the list with 70%, followed by Uruguay (67%), Bolivia (64%) and Nicaragua (63%). • Asked if they "trust their government," Venezuelans head the pack, with 66% trust ranking. Compare this with Colombians (41%), Brazilians (35%), Peruvians (22%) and Paraguayans 15%. • Asked if they trust their President in particular, Venezuelans come in second to Uruguay (61% vs. 60%). These massive achievemnts in democracy and social progress in Venezuela will just not be reported in most of the mainstream media.

www.amazon.com/Changing-Venezu ela-History-Policies-Governmen t/dp/1844675521/ref=sr_1_1?ie= UTF8&s=books&qid=1210761540&sr =1-1 Changing Venezuela: The History and Policies of the Chavez Government (Paperback) by Gregory Wilpert www.venezuelanalysis.c om/ www.handsoffvenezuela.org / www.venezuelasolidarity.org / www.venezuelasolidarity.org .uk www.rethinkvenezuela.com/ index.html www.latinobarome tro.org/ www.vicuk.org/index.php?opti on=com_content&task=view&id=21 0&Itemid=63

runaajot par procesu kas “izglaabj sirdsapzinju” “ljauj buut cilveekiem ne vienaldziigu liikju naacijai” tad GR vareetu skaust ka vinja nav venecueeliete (nevis angliete francuuziete) jo tieshi tur tagad notiek vitaalas, strukturaalas paarmainjas (kas izraisa absurdu histeeriju ASV valdiibaa un masu medijos) un cilveekiem ir ticiiba, dziivesprieks darbojoties briiviibas lietaa

Mani vairaak paarliecinaatu ja GR vairaak pieveerstos tieshi LV realitaateem – ne japaanjiem kjiinieshiem tibetieshiem angljiem francuuzhiem( un vinju intiimajaam attieciibaam ar vaacieshiem – pretinieku greekus vienmeer patiikami apspriest) ebrejiem – bet gan, teiksim ,krieviem Latvijaa un kaa kopt cilveeciskumu/ saticiibu “jeegu” “briiviibu” shajaa LV kontekstaa (lai latvieshi neiet ragos ar krievu jauno paaudzi kas runaa latviski deelj notikumiem pagaatnee) ne agonizeet/asinjot par “to” kas notiek “kaut kur tur” bet sheit – Latvijaa – un izmantot tieshus linkus ne pastarinaatos (Tibeta/ Eegjiptes mirusho graamata/ Kamii / ASV peshka Igaunijaa kam nevajag stundaam domaat – vienkaarshi piebalso gjedam Semam u.c.)

…Judt manages not to mention any of Camus’s ‘lucid’ insights: that Algeria did not rate a nation; that the Algerian independence struggle actually constituted an Arab-Soviet plot to undermine the ‘West’; that granting Algeria independence would result in the ‘historic death of France’, the ‘encirclement’ and a fate akin to Hungary for Europe, and the ‘isolation’ of the United States, etc. Judt praises Camus’s ‘rejection of violence, of terror in all its forms’ during the Algerian war, but forgets to mention that Camus evinced no such scruples – rather the contrary - when it came to the French resistance to the Nazi occupation, the Hungarian resistance to the Soviet occupation, and the Anglo-French-Israeli attack on Egypt, not to mention that, as O’Brien observes, Camus’s ‘position was necessarily one of support’ for France’s murderous repression in Algeria since he ‘consistently opposed’ negotiations with the actual leaders of the rebellion and independence. Camus’s hypocritical platitudes are subjected to withering scrutiny in Conor Cruise O’Brien “Camus”

nedaudz par kamii Asked to explain his silence as France waged a bloody, colonial war in Algeria, the French-Algerian writer, Albert Camus, replied: ‘I believe in justice, but I will defend my mother above justice’. Jules Roy, also a French-Algerian writer, answered Camus: ‘It is not a matter of choosing one’s mother above justice. It is a matter of loving justice as much as one’s mother.’ (the brutal French colonial war left some one million Algerians dead)