Chavez unveils new flag

[Saddle Bronc 124]

New Venezuela flag divides nation

Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chavez has officially unveiled the country's controversial new flag.

Parliament last week approved changes to the 200-year-old design, including the addition of an eighth star to honour the province of Guayana.

A white horse on the national coat of arms that appears on the flag now faces left instead of right.

The opposition has condemned the new flag as illegitimate, saying there had been no proper consultation.

Venezuelans have two flags - one of totalitarianism, autocracy and communism... and one of democrats.

Oscar Perez

opposition spokesman

Mr Chavez used the 200th anniversary of Venezuela's first flag to present the new one to the general public.

Ordinary Venezuelans caught a first glimpse of their new flag at a large military parade.

Soldiers carrying the flag goose-stepped past the podium of Mr Chavez who himself hoisted the new banner.

The eighth star was added in line with the thinking of Mr Chavez's idol, the 19th century independence leader Simon Bolivar.

Praising the new design, Mr Chavez said the white horse had now been "freed".

Rival banners

But on the other side of Caracas, around 1,000 opposition members were demonstrating against the new national symbol.

They say they cannot accept the changes because they were not consulted and spokesman Oscar Perez said the opposition would go on using the old banner.

"We will continue using our flag of seven stars, the flag that we democrats recognise.

"At this moment, the Venezuelans have two flags - one of totalitarianism, autocracy and communism, that is the eight stars, and one of democrats - that is seven stars, which is the only one we recognise."

The government wants to keep the changeover costs down by allowing a five-year transition period.

Within that time frame all public buildings will have to switch to the new flag.

Stamps, coins and passports will also have to be revamped.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4800202.stm

Note: how apt that Chavez' soldiers goosestepped to unveil the new flag--since Chavez, like Hitler, is a chopf#ck!

Edited March 13, 2006 by sriniv

[internetkafe 0]

Chavez has proved that he is a respectable statesman, an honorable person.

In my opinion he is one of the best in the world.

I will give you just one example. I read on the newspaper that Chavez is supporting low income families in the US through subsidized heating fuel. He also subsidize Chicago Mass Transit through Citgo, a Venezuelan Company.

I admire Venezuelan President although I have not benefited from his subsidies.

Power to Chavez!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Note: how apt that Chavez' soldiers goosestepped to unveil the new flag--since Chavez, like Hitler, is a chopf#ck!

I see. Problem with your comparison is that the latter's opposition didn't get to demonstrate.

But on the other side of Caracas, around 1,000 opposition members were demonstrating against the new national symbol.

Chavez might be a lot of things. A Hitler he's most certainly not.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

New flag

Old flag

[Anyta Holland 1]

Chavez has proved that he is a respectable statesman, an honorable person.

In my opinion he is one of the best in the world.

I will give you just one example. I read on the newspaper that Chavez is supporting low income families in the US through subsidized heating fuel. He also subsidize Chicago Mass Transit through Citgo, a Venezuelan Company.

I admire Venezuelan President although I have not benefited from his subsidies.

Power to Chavez!

You must be truly out of your mind! Just because in your opinion he has done some things good does not mean that he is the best in the world. Charity begins at home, and once he understands that we will be better off.... He keeps being charitable to other countries, but in Venezuela, children live in the streets and snif glue to get by....

Go and spend some days in Caracas, in fact, go and live there, and then come back to me saying that you still think he is the best in the world....

I can't stand the ignorance of the world sometimes!

Edited March 13, 2006 by anytaholland

[internetkafe 0]

Chavez has not been charitable to the affluent. If I were a rich Venezuelan I would not like Chavez either.

By: James Petras - CounterPunch

Between rightwing frustration and leftwing euphoria, little has been written about the complex and contradictory reality of Venezuela politics and the specificities of President Chavez policies. Even less discussion has focused on the division between ideological Washington and pragmatic Wall Street, between the politics of confrontation and conciliation, and the convergences and divergences between Venezuela and the rest of Latin America. Both the right and left have substituted myths about the Chavez government rather than confronting realities.

Myth 1--Chavez is an unpopular President who the rightwing opposition is capable of defeating in the referendum.

But the rightwing and its backers in Washington miscalculated on several counts. First the weakest moment of the Chavez government was right after the PVDS executive lock-out (December 2002--February 2003), when oil prices were much lower, the economy was devastated, the social welfare programs of the government were under funded and grass roots political organizations were weak. By the time the referendum took place (August 2004), one and a half years later, socio-economic and political conditions had dramatically changed. The economy was growing by 12%, oil prices were at record highs, social welfare expenditures were increasing and their social impact was highly visible and widespread, and the mass social organizations were deeply embedded in populous neighborhoods throughout the country. Clearly the initiative had passed from the right to the left, but both the US and its opposition collaborators were blind to the realities. Having lost control over the state petroleum industry and allocation of funds via the failed lockout in early 2003, having lost influence in the military after the failed coup of April 2002, the opposition possessed few resources to limit the government's referendum campaign and no leverage in launching a post election 'civic-military' coup.

Myth 2--According to the rightwing analysts the referendum was based on the issue of Chavez 'popularity', 'personality', charisma and 'autocratic' style.

In reality the referendum was based on class/race divisions. Non-opposition trade union leaders indicated that over 85% of the working class and working poor voted for Chavez, while preliminary reports on voting in affluent neighborhoods and circumscriptions showed just the reverse over 80% voting for the referendum. A similar process or class/race polarization was evident in the extraordinary turnout and vote among poor Afro-Venezuelans: The higher the turnout, the higher the vote for Chavez, as an unprecedented 71% of the electorate voted. Clearly Chavez was successful in linking social welfare programs, class allegiances to electoral behavior.

Myth 3--Among both the Right and Left there is a belief that the mass media control mass voting behavior, limit political agendas and necessarily lead to the victory of the Right and the domestication of the Left.

In Venezuela the Right controlled 90% of the major television networks and print media and most of the major radio stations. Yet the referendum was crushed by an 18% margin (59% to 41%).

The results of the referendum demonstrates that powerful grass roots organizations built around successful struggles for social reforms can create a mass political and social consciousness which can easily reject media manipulation. Elite optimism in their 'structural power'--money, media monopoly, and backing by Washington--blinded them to the fact that conscious collective organization can be a formidable counterweight to elite resources. Likewise referendum results refute the argument put forth by the center-left that they lose elections because of the mass media. The center-left justify embracing neo-liberalism to "neutralize" the mass media during elections. They refuse to recognize that elections can be won despite mass media opposition if previous mass struggle and organization created mass social consciousness.

Myth 4--According to many leftist journalists, Chavez victory reflected a new wave of popular nationalist politics in Latin America.

Evidence to the contrary is abundant. Brazil under Lula has sold oil exploration rights to US and European multinational corporations, provides a contingent of 1500 troops (along with Argentina, Chile etc) to Haiti to stabilize Washington's puppet regime imposed through the kidnapping of President-elect Aristide. Likewise in the other Andean countries (Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Colombia) the elected regimes propose to privatize public petroleum companies, support ALCA and Plan Colombia and pay their foreign debts. The Broad Front in Uruguay promises to follow Brazil's neo-liberal policies. While Chavez promotes the regional trading bloc MERCOSUR, the major members Brazil and Argentina are increasing their trade relations outside the region. In effect there is a bloc of neo-liberal regimes arrayed against Chavez's anti-imperialist policies and mass social movements. To the extent that Chavez continues his independent foreign policy his principle allies are the mass social movements and Cuba.

Myth 5--The defeat of the referendum was a major tactical defeat of US imperialism and its local vassals.

But a defeat of imperialism does not necessarily mean or lead to a revolutionary transformation, as post-Chavez post-election appeals to Washington and big business demonstrate. More indicative of Chavez politics is the forthcoming $5 billion dollar investment agreements with Texaco-Mobil and Exxon to exploit the Orinoco gas and oil fields. The euphoria of the left prevents them from observing the pendulum shifts in Chavez discourse and the heterodox social welfare--neo-liberal economic politics he has consistently practiced.

President Chavez's policy has always followed a careful balancing act between rejecting vassalage to the US and local oligarchic rentiers on the one hand and trying to harness a coalition of foreign and national investors, urban and rural poor to a program of welfare capitalism. He is closer to Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal than Castro's socialist revolution. In the aftermath of the three political crises--the failed civil-military coup, the debacle of the oil executives lock out, and the defeat of the referendum--Chavez offered to dialogue and reach a consensus with the media barons, big business plutocrats and US government, on the basis of the existing property relations, media ownership and expanded relations with Washington.

Chavez's commitment to centrist-reformist policies explains why he did not prosecute owners of the mass media who had openly called for the violent overthrow of his government and also why he took no judicial action against the association of the business leaders (FEDECAMARAS) who has incited military rebellion and violent attacks on the constitutional order. In Europe, North America and many other regions, democratically elected governments would have arrested, and prosecuted these elites for acts of violent subversion.

President Chavez has constantly reiterated that their property, privileges and wealth is not in question. Moreover the fact that these elites have been able to engage in three unconstitutional efforts to overthrow the regime and still retain their class positions, strongly suggest that President Chavez still conceives of their playing an important role in his vision of development based on private-public partnership and social welfare spending. After 5 years of government and after 3 major "class confrontations", it is evident that at least at the level of the government, there has been no rupture in property or class relations and no break with foreign creditors, investors or oil clients. Within the fiscal framework of foreign debt payments, subsidies to private exporters, low-interest loans to industrialists, the government has increased the allocation of state spending for social programs in health, education housing, micro-enterprises and agrarian reform.

The Venezuelan government can maintain this balance between big business and the poor because of the high prices and revenue from petroleum exports. Like President Roosevelt, Chavez's positive social welfare programs attract millions of low income voters, but do not affect money income levels, nor create large scale employment projects. Unemployment is still in the vicinity of 20% and poverty levels still remain over 50%. Comprehensive social spending has positively affected the social lives of the poor but has not improved their class position. Chavez is both confrontational and radical when his rulership is threatened and conciliatory and moderate when he successfully overcomes the challenge.

Myth 6--The Left and Right have failed to recognize a divergence of tactics between an ideological Washington and a pragmatic Wall Street. The US political class (both Republican and Democrats, the Presidency and Congress) have been actively threatening, intervening and supporting destructive lockouts, violent coups and a fraudulent referendum to oust Chavez.

In contrast the major US and European oil companies and banks have been engaged in stable, sustained and profitable economic relations with the Chavez government. Foreign creditors have received prompt and punctual payments of billions of dollars in payments and have not spoken or acted in a fashion to disrupt these lucrative transactions. Major US multi-national oil companies project between $5 billion and $20 billion in new investments in exploration and exploitation. No doubt these MNCs would have liked the coup to succeed in order to monopolize all Venezuelan oil revenue, but perceiving the failures of Washington they are content to share part of the oil wealth with the Chavez regime. The tactical divergences between Washington and Wall Street are likely to narrow as the Venezuelan government moves into the new conciliatory phase toward FEDECAMARAS and Washington. Given Washington's defeat in the referendum, and the big oil deals with key US multinationals, it is likely that Washington will seek a temporary 'truce' until new, more favorable circumstances emerge. It will be interesting to see how this possible "truce" will affect Venezuela's critical foreign policy.

Myth 7--The main thrust of the current phase of Chavez revolution is a moral crusade against government corruption and a highly politicized judicial system tightly aligned with the discredited political opposition.

For many on the Left, the radical content of the 'No' vote campaign was rooted in the proliferation of community based mass organizations, the mobilization of trade union assemblies, and the decentralized democratic process of voter involvement based on promises of future consequential social changes in terms of jobs, income and popular political power.

Moralization campaigns (anti-corruption) are commonly associated with middle class politics designed to create "national unity" and usually weaken class solidarity. The Left's belief that the mass organizations mobilized for the referendum will necessarily become a basis for a 'new popular democracy' has little basis in the recent past (similar mobilizations took place prior to the failed coup and during the bosses' lockout). Nor do government-sponsored moralization campaigns attract much interest among the poor in Venezuela or elsewhere. Moreover the focus of the Chavista political leaders is on the forthcoming elections for parliament, not in creating alternative sources of governance. The Left's facile projection of popular mobilization into the post-referendum period creates a political mythology, which fails to recognize the internal contradictions of the political process in Venezuela.

Conclusion

The massive popular victory of the 'No' vote in the Venezuelan referendum gave hope and inspiration to hundreds of millions in Latin America and elsewhere, that US-backed oligarchies can be defeated at the ballot box. The fact that the favorable voting outcome was recognized by the OAS, Carter and Washington is a tribute to President Chavez strategic changes in the military, guaranteeing the honoring of the constitutional outcome.

At a deeper level of analysis, the conceptions and perceptions of the major antagonists among the Right and the Left however are open to criticism: The Right for underestimating the political and institutional support for Chavez in the current conjuncture and the Left for projecting an overly radical vision on the direction of politics in the post-referendum period.

From a 'realist' position, we can conclude that the Chavez government will proceed with his "New Deal" social welfare programs while deepening ties with major foreign and domestic investors. His ability to balance classes, leaning in one direction or the other will depend on the continued flow of high returns from oil revenues. If oil prices drop, hard choices will have to be made--class choices.

James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50 year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless in brazil and argentina and is co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed). He can be reached at: jpetras@binghamton.edu

[Anyta Holland 1]

Chavez has not been charitable to the affluent. If I were a rich Venezuelan I would not like Chavez either.

I am a Venezuelan, but I am certainly not rich... And just for your info there are loads of poor people who do not support him....

Get your facts right my friend, don't just go on reading pro-chavez news!

Oh! And by the way, try and go to the source itself, not to international sources that distort what is really happening IN the country....

Edited March 13, 2006 by anytaholland

[Daniellecc 0]

Hello...

well... I happened to be looking for something else and came across this post.... not too happy about it... you see, i am from venezuela, a beautiful country yes... with a terrible President. It is easy for peopel that live outside Venezuela and only read or listen to the news that he is teh best president in teh world, I probably would say teh same thing too if I didn't live there, actually when he ran for president I thought he was teh best thing taht coudl happen to us, now I am ashamed I thought that.... I am trying not to be angry with those of you who said that Chavez is one of teh best in the world, everyone has teh right to express their opinion ans uport whatever they think and feel si right... Now, yes, he is giving heating fuel at low pirces to those who need it in the US, he helped Argentina pay their "deuda externa" (debt, not sure teh right term in english)... but... come visit Venezuela, come see how every single road on the street is completely messed up, wich makes no sense if we are an oil producing country, come see the poor people walking aroudn teh street trying to seel you soemthing or asking for money, come see how we work 16 hour days 6 or 7 days a week for $200 a month, and can not even afford teh buy food becasue the cost of living is still high... Yes, I will say I am not one of those poor people, but I see them everyday, I have worked with a lot of them, no one at home has gotten any benefit out of having Chavez as a president, except those who are in power with him... how come he talks about everyone being teh same (poor, becasue he doesn't want everyone to have a decent dignifying life, he just wants everyone to be poor, Cuba lika) but yet, buys a new airplane, has extremely expensive bullet proof outfits, does more unnecesary traveling around tehw orld than any president I have heard of.. etc etc... I am a bit disturbed byt what I read it is hard trying to get my point across... Anyways, my country, is in deep trouble, I have to admit he has had relly good ideas, taht if put to work teh way it should be they would be great for our country, unfortunately he only does it for appereance so ignorant people in our country and people outside think he is teh best in teh world, he doesn't do it for the right reasons, becasue he loves his country and his people, yes, he says it, but he doesn't mean it, if he meant it... do you think he would've the millions of dollars he spent giving money for a carriage for the Carnival in Brasil?? why give a Samba school in Brazil millions of dollars when he has millions and millions of peopel taht are living in missery and have o hopes... why whould he pay off Argentina's debt if we have a huge debt that makes our economy a big mess.... why would he change the flag we have had for years and years when there are way mor eimportant matters to take care of... I coudl keep going but I would get more upset and I stillt hink I amnot gettign my point across, I am just saying, to teh outside, Chavez is great, to teh inside, Chavez is a big mistake, everyday teh rich people get richer (teh ones with him), the middle class people goes poor (like my family) and teh poor people just goes more into misery... that, is the best thing in the world, is it? ... I know it is hard to understand that when you just read about his good plans and misions, but it is a very different situation when you read it... Cahnging the flag, teh seal and even teh name of teh country, does not seem very patriotic to me... that is just me.

Danielle Centeno

[internetkafe 0]

Chavez has not been charitable to the affluent. If I were a rich Venezuelan I would not like Chavez either.

I am a Venezuelan, but I am certainly not rich... And just for your info there are loads of poor people who do not support him....

Get your facts right my friend, don't just go on reading pro-chavez news!

Oh! And by the way, try and go to the source itself, not to international sources that distort what is really happening IN the country....

In reality the referendum was based on class/race divisions. Non-opposition trade union leaders indicated that over 85% of the working class and working poor voted for Chavez, while preliminary reports on voting in affluent neighborhoods and circumscriptions showed just the reverse over 80% voting for the referendum.

Yet the referendum was crushed by an 18% margin (59% to 41%).

The percentages tell all.

[almaty 19]

i think he is a self serving chopf##k//probably no worse than 1/2 the leaders in this hemisphere....if he had no oil..the usa would not give a rats azz about him

[internetkafe 0]

Chavez Fights Poverty, and Succeeds – Part III

Saturday, Nov 05, 2005

By: Oil Wars

A couple of weeks ago I did a post showing how according to the Venezuelan National Institute of Statistics (I.N.E.) poverty has now been decreased to below the levels of when Chavez first came to office. This accomplishment is all the more significant due to poverty having been artificially increased by the opposition coup and economic sabotage in 2002 and 2003.

Of course, the opposition types were not at all happy with the new numbers as they make the Chavez administration look, well, good. So they immediately set out to attack them. First they claimed that they were calculated using new metrics and therefore not at all comparable to the old numbers. But then one of them called up the I.N.E. and found out they were indeed calculated using the same metric as before – income. Then we were told they weren’t valid because we were just given them in newspaper interviews and they weren’t published on the I.N.E. web page, so presumably the government was hiding something.

This last, and rather bizarre, accusation prompted me to look at the I.N.E. web site and there they are – in a report under the “Indicadores Sociales” section. The report talks about the new poverty reporting system that is being worked on but also gives the current statistics and how they were calculated. So lets have a look: (click on image for a larger version)

This report, entitled “Poverty as a multidimensional phenomena”, starts off describing how a true measurement of poverty should include not only direct income but other benefits such as health care, education, housing and other factors.

It then goes on to describe how monetary poverty is defined and calculated. It is calculated based solely on income. According to the chart, income includes gross salary and any job related reimbursement, bonuses, tips, and commissions. It also includes such non-job income as interest, dividends, financial support from your family, scholarships, pensions, and rent from property among other items. All this is added up and it determines how much a persons income is.

This income is then compared against two metrics to determine if the person is considered poor or not. The metrics are the “Canasta Basica” (Basket of Basic Expenses) and the “Canasta Alimentaria” (Basket of Food Expenses). The “Food Basket” includes only the cost of purchasing the amount of foodstuffs that is considered necessary to keep a person healthy. As described in the above table any family that has income below the “Food Basket” is considered to be in Extreme Poverty. The “Basic Basket” includes all the foodstuffs from the “Food Basket” but also includes other necessities such as housing, transportation, and clothing. A family that earns enough to afford the “Food Basket” but not enough to purchase the “Basic Basket” is considered Poor. Those families that earn enough to purchase the “Basic Basket” are considered to not be poor at all.

So as this table shows the computation of poverty is very straightfoward – tabulate a families income and then see how that income compares to the various baskets to determine if a family is Extremely Poor, Poor, or not poor at all. This then leads us to the next page in the report: (click on image for a large version)

In this page we first see a graph showing how Poverty and Extreme Poverty, as previously defined, have evolved since 1998. The gold colored line shows the percent who are extremely poor and the blue line shows those the percent who are poor. Please note it matches the table given in my previous posts and again shows the trend of poverty being reduced during Chavez’s first years in office, it shooting up during 2002 and 2003 as the opposition sabotaged the economy, and now going down again as the economy has been revitalized.

There are two other things to note about the graph. First, note that in the past year the number of people who are extremely poor has been sharply reduced whereas the number of those who are simply poor has actually even gone up a bit. This doesn’t mean that none of those who are poor are moving into the ranks of the non-poor. Rather, it means the number of people moving up from extreme poverty to poverty is greater than the number of poor moving into the ranks of non-poor. This is still good as the most pressing need is to get people out of extreme poverty which is in effect mal-nourishment. Later they will hopefully leave the ranks of the poor entirely.

Secondly, note that the numbers for the first semester of 2005, which come to a combined total of 38.5% are listed as being estimates. This may be a mistake. In both the newspaper accounts and the bullets above the graph the 38.5% for the first semester of 2005 is listed as a actual number while it is the 35% given for the second semester of 2005 which is listed as an estimate. Hopefully, someone will clarify that.

To some up, here is what we have learned over the past few weeks regarding poverty numbers in Venezuela. First, while new poverty metrics are being devised to take into account many of the new social programs such as Mercal and Barrio Adentro poverty is still being calculated the way it always has been – solely based on monetary income versus the amount of money needed to purchase basic goods. Using that measurement poverty trended down during the first several years of Chavez’s tenure as he implemented social programs and boosted oil income. Poverty then shot up sharply as the opposition coup and oil strike sent the economy into a depression. It is those higher numbers from 2003 that the opposition keeps trotting out in their haste to make anti-Chavez propaganda. However, as can now be seen, since the Venezuelan economy began its revitalization in 2004 poverty has dropped sharply and is now below the levels of when Chavez took office in 1999. And given the Venezuelan economy’s continued strong growth and the massive social programs being implemented it is reasonable to assume poverty will continue to decline significantly.

So Chavez has done exactly what he said he was going to do when he campaigned in 1998. He has fought poverty implacably. And it is clear that while poverty is far from being eradicated this war against poverty is one that Chavez and Venezuela are winning.

I wonder if anyone read the articles? These articles give numbers and percentages...not subjective assessments.

[Anyta Holland 1]

Chavez has not been charitable to the affluent. If I were a rich Venezuelan I would not like Chavez either.

I am a Venezuelan, but I am certainly not rich... And just for your info there are loads of poor people who do not support him....

Get your facts right my friend, don't just go on reading pro-chavez news!

Oh! And by the way, try and go to the source itself, not to international sources that distort what is really happening IN the country....

In reality the referendum was based on class/race divisions. Non-opposition trade union leaders indicated that over 85% of the working class and working poor voted for Chavez, while preliminary reports on voting in affluent neighborhoods and circumscriptions showed just the reverse over 80% voting for the referendum.

Yet the referendum was crushed by an 18% margin (59% to 41%).

The percentages tell all.

They do when they have been tampered with! Venezuela was sold in that Referendum and it was sold to Chavez...

I am not going to argue about this anymore, because as I said you are not going to the real source, you are just basing your knowledge in whatever another ignorant person has written....

Danielle pictures it very well, her sentiment is the sentiment of many Venezuelans. I never believed in him, and am glad I didn't, because it hurts like hell to see the country in the way it is!

So before saying all the rubbish you are saying, I invite you to go to Venezuela and live there for 6 months, not more than that, and we'll see how you cope!

Danielle- Gracias por describirlo de una manera tan real. Es terrible que la gente crea que estamos en ventaja con Chavez como Presidente.... Esperemos que las cosas mejoren pronto... Un saludo de parte de una Maracucha!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The percentages tell all.

That's a rather naive statement to make as it assumes that which cannot be assumed...

[Saddle Bronc 124]

...

The percentages tell all.

Actually, all those percentages tell is what percent OF THOSE PARTICIPATING IN THE VOTE voted which way--and does not tell if others were intimidated FROM participating (a tactic that is used frequently by insurgent groups especially including Maoists/Naxalites), nor does it include those who believe "it makes no difference".

[Daniellecc 0]

Well...

I can see that some of you are very set on teh way of seeing this matter, I guess like me or Ana, teh difference between us and the ones expressing their feelings of liking to Chavez is that we have lived teh situation, we have seen it every day, we have suffered it, we have cried it, we have fought it... we don't just read it... we suffer it every single day, just by driving or walking around in teh streets of Caracas, by seeing the misery surrounding us, and living teh dificulties of not being able to afford soem of teh basic needs... as I said, yes, he might apprently do good things everyonce in a while, but it is just for appereance... it is not from his heart, the referendum was cheated, every sort of election was a scam, they cheated us, so to the outside world the real life Venezuelans are going trhough right now willnever be understood, becasue you only read, you don't live, Ana is right, don't just read teh pro Chavez news, read the real news, I am nto goign tosay that the Pro Chavez or against Chavez news are all real or unreal, just read different things, you will see you will get confused, teh reality?? you can not read it, as Ana says it can only be lived and suffered, it hurts very much to see what is happening to our country, a country that should be on top of the world becasue of its natural resources, we could be a first world country, but becasue of us and all teh leaders we have had we are still a "country in develpment" teh worse thing about Chavez... he is making us go from being acountry in development to a third world country, all becasue of his own personal interests and beleives... Well, that is it for now, I can not change what peopel think, I can only try to shed some light and understanding in the things that I know for a fact are being seen completely wrong... you are welcome to go to Venezuela and visit the Barrios, not even, just go Downtown Caracas and you will understand what we are talking about.

Danielle

Ana... q fino una maracucha!!! mira chama metete en el foro de regionales de gente de venezuela, habemos varios ahi.... Saludos!!!!