Hugo Chavez, a Green President.

Viva Venezuela verde!
Derek Wall
April 11, 2007 5:00 PM

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/derek_wall/2007/04/viva_verde_venezuela.html

My only transatlantic flight in the last decade was a return trip to Caracas, Venezuela at the invitation of my friend Cesar who works in the ministry of the environment. I was promised a chance to see a green revolution in progress and I was not disappointed. President Hugo Chávez, deposed in a CIA backed coup in 2002, back in power a week later after huge protests in the barrios (the slums) and recently re-elected with a whopping 63% vote, is a green.

This is pretty astonishing because Venezuela is a petro-economy, the fifth largest oil producer in the world and with gas just a few thousand bolivers a gallon (about 20p) the Venezuelan's love to drive huge ancient, battered and polluting cars (at speed). However Chávez knows that climate change is a reality, one that is likely to hit countries near the equator, like Venezuela, hard. He also knows that the great car economy is a source of choking fumes and urban vandalism.

There is a huge organic farm right in the centre of Caracas between the freeway and the Hilton. This is part of a drive towards green agriculture. I visited an ecological high school outside the city, in thousands of similar schools in the country pupils are taught organic farming based on the use of worm bin compost. Venezuela has also banned energy wasting light bulbs. Another green initiative is Misión Arbol, which aims in five years to collect 30 tonnes of seeds, plant 100 million plants, and reforest 150,000 hectares of land.

Chávez, with his usual passion, has observed: "One car each? Our planet won't stand that - that model of capitalism, extreme individualism and consumerist egotism. The destructive so-called developmentalism destroying the planet is, quite frankly, a thing of stupidity."

While greens are rightly suspicious of oil deals, Chávez's plan to barter cheap oil with Ken Livingstone in return for advice on dealing with congestion in Caracas, strikes me as the right thing to do. Incidentally the oil will be sold for cash and used to fund the scheme, rather used to fuel buses in Camden, Barnet or Hackney. Ken Livingstone's congestion charge is admired by Chávez, who aims to buy in the Mayor's expertise in reducing car use in return for a cash payment to reduce oyster card fares for low income Londoners. Already a new railway out of Caracas has been built and it will be free for the first few weeks to get commuters out of their cars. This is just one part of the Venezuelan plan to reduce their long-term dependence on oil revenue, so as to build a future that is economically sustainable and ecologically sound.

The debate that could have been, but wasn't.

This Thursday 7 of June, competing student leaders had the opportunity to attend the National Assembly of Venezuela (the congress of the country) to expose their ideas on the motivations of the protests that have affected the country soon of the aim of the concession of RCTV. Also, bolivarianos student young people attended to give their own impressions.Although the opponents had originally requested a debate, in this occasion went to the place with red franelas (put them by own decision) and, after making an intervention and clearing them to it in revolt signal, they left the enclosure without wanting to debate with chavistas his contrapartes.Nevertheless, the day was described as historical and a forceful victory for the chavistas forces. In a country accused of dictatorial, the competing students attended to the maximum legislative enclosure of the country, expressed their ideas and soon they went by own decision, although the invitation was to debate with the chavistas students in equality of conditions, in a debate that was transmitted in national chain of radio and television where they said to million people everything to him what they wanted.They do not lose the review of Carlchucho, that was in the place working arduously. Next I leave all the interventions them of the students, as much of a side as of the other.
Introduction of Cilia Flowershttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vNzJvxxwlQ
Douglas Districts (competing, Univ. Metropolitan)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xpPDeMZXfA
Andreína Tarazon (bolivariano, UCV)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCeuB-S_HkM
John Goicochea (competing, UCAB; after their speech the opponents go away)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gor6sekgjQw
Robert Serra (bolivariano, UCAB)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0kZXCVn8yM
Freedom Velasco (Bolivariana, UCV)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdyziSWssCw
Yahir Muñoz (bolivariano, USM)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8bHmQSDYRY
Caesar Trompiz (bolivariano, UBV)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl9ZPim4JGs
Mayerling Aryan (bolivariana, UBV)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWCZrfaZZmI
Manuel Dum (bolivariano, UNEXPO)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-TgQSRRSMA
Osly Hernandez (bolivariana, UCV)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INXZ3vMLazE
Eder Dugarte (bolivariano, Licero Bolivariano Eduardo Cream)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-Y3Kn8ilG4
Hector Rodriguez (bolivariano, UCV)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8Kq4_wuhukHe was the one that denounced the one of ARS Publicity. Inluye hymn and aim of the chainThe bolivarianos students left and celebrated, whereas the opponents were accompanied and protected by the Metropolitan Police and the National Guard until a safe place, since the Legislative Federal Palace were surrounded by hundreds of compatible people the revolutionary process who tooted and booed the opponents.One of the student leaders, Stalin González, could not enter because it arrived late. Other interesting things happened very in the outside from the building to hands of a journalist but very altered, according to a journalist of Avila caught TV. Cilia deputy Flowers also had her own collision with the right press, that knew to handle very well.The competing students soon did a press conference twisting some of the things that had requested originally. On the other hand, President Chávez invited the ten bolivarianos young people who took part to a special act, where congratulated them and he called "the ten heroes".The lamentable thing in all this is the attitude of the main competing digital means, News Digital and Noticias24, which have attacked several of the young people, having published the direction and the telephone of Andreína Tarazón and Héctor Rodriguez. Noticias24 calls "ladronzuela" to Andreína in a holder, of a form that violates its dignity like woman. This explained Mario Silva in the Hojilla. All this because Andreína took a leaf that left to Douglas Districts in the lectern so, and seems that that leaf served to discover that the speech of Districts had been advised by ARS Publicity, a well-known Venezuelan agency.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette Editorial On Venezuela Makes Sense.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07127/783961-192.stm

Chavez's chafing: The state of U.S.-Venezuela relations needs repair
Monday, May 07, 2007

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

President Hugo Chavez has nationalized the control of four oil fields and a refinery in Venezuela's Orinoco River Basin, affecting foreign companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, France's Total and Norway's Statoil ASA.

The assets are worth $30 billion, with compensation by Venezuela to the companies yet to be worked out.

In taking the action last week, Mr. Chavez continued to carry out a policy that melds his own personal attitude toward the United States with a course he has set to free Venezuela as much as possible from external control. He includes in this category influence from foreign governments and companies, in particular the United States, and any future need on Venezuela's part to toe the line in dealing with international financial institutions. On Thursday, he said that he plans also to nationalize Venezuela's banks and a steel company.

He also announced that Venezuela would be withdrawing from both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. It has paid off its loans to both with revenue from the high oil prices of this decade.

Some of what Mr. Chavez is doing changes little for Venezuela. Its oil industry was under national control from 1975 to 1992, when privatization resumed. Greater national control of development of the country's oil resources could mean that investors will be less likely to provide the necessary funds to keep Venezuelan oil production up to date.

On the other hand, world market demand for oil -- largely depoliticized in nature -- is such that Venezuelan nationalization of its reserves will likely make almost no difference, in sales or investment. Three-quarters of the world's oil reserves are under state control in any case.

Mr. Chavez's actions are another step in a resurgence of socialism as the governing theology of economics in Venezuela, and potentially at least in some of the rest of Latin America. Looking around the world, it is probably fair to say that the economic philosophy of a government has little to do with actual oil production. An expansion across Latin America of Mr. Chavez's approach, however, would probably mean that more American companies would lose parts of their concessions and other positions in the region.

Mr. Chavez's own basic problem with the United States is political and goes back to 2002, when the administration of President Bush prematurely recognized an ultimately unsuccessful coup d'etat against Mr. Chavez. He is also no doubt aware that across the years some other Latin American leaders have come to premature, sticky ends for their opposition to the United States. He is noisy about this subject on the world stage to try to ensure himself against such U.S. action against him.

The state of U.S.-Venezuela relations is painful. It would be unfortunate if Mr. Chavez and his country became another Castro's Cuba stuck in America's craw as time goes by. It is hard for Washington to take steps toward Mr. Chavez while he lambasts the United States publicly. On the other hand, the United States is the big power and Venezuela the small one. Venezuela is also the fourth-largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States.

The importance of the relationship would seem to suggest greater efforts on the part of Mr. Bush and his administration to patch things up with Mr. Chavez and Venezuela.

From Oil Wars Blog- Commentary On A New York Times Opinion Piece by An FCC Official.- The Airwaves Need Government Oversight

If only the FCC could be more like Conatel
In all countries the government has regulalatory agencies that allocate and control the radio spectrum that broadcasters use. In Venezuela that agency is called Conatel and they recently created an uproar by not renewing the broadcast license of the RCTV television network.

In the United States the agency in charge of such matters is the FCC, or Federal Communications Commission. In today’s New York Times one of the commissioners of the FCC, Michael Copps, wrote an Op-Ed piece essentially wishing that the FCC would exercise more control and oversight over television broadcasters to push them to improve the quality of their programming – in other words, he wants the FCC to be more like Conatel. It is quite informative (and more than a little ironic) so even though it never mentions what recently happened in Venezuela lets have a look:


The Price of Free Airwaves

AS a member of the Federal Communications Commission, I often hear how fed up Americans are with the news media. Too much “if it bleeds it leads” on the evening news and not enough real coverage of local issues. Too little high-quality entertainment and too many people eating bugs.
It doesn’t have to be this way. America lets radio and TV broadcasters use public airwaves worth more than half a trillion dollars for free. In return, we require that broadcasters serve the public interest: devoting at least some airtime for worthy programs that inform voters, support local arts and culture and educate our children — in other words, that aspire to something beyond just minimizing costs and maximizing revenue.

Wow, talk about “handouts” – a half a trillion dollars worth of prime “real estate” just given away for free. And to very rich companies and individuals no less. How can this be? Why would something of so much value just be given away for free to private companies and people? What is the government getting in return? And can television broadcasters and the government really be said to be free of each other when one depends on the other for so much in giveaways? Its interesting how none of this ever seems to be questioned.


Using the public airwaves is a privilege — a lucrative one — not a right, and I fear the F.C.C. has not done enough to stand up for the public interest. Our policies should reward broadcasters that honor their pledge to serve that interest and penalize those that don’t.

“Using the public airwaves is a privilege… not a right” – try telling that to Marcel Granier. He and his supporters seems to think that it is his “right” to have his broadcast license automatically renewed and that unless he or the station is convicted of some crime he cannot lose it. Kudos to the F.C.C. which at least gets it that the license had to be earned through serving the public interest. And can any honest person say RCTV has worked in the public interest and is deserving of the privilege of having a lucrative broadcast license?


The F.C.C. already has powerful leverage to hold broadcasters to their end of the bargain. Every eight years, broadcasters must prove that they have served the public interest in order to get license renewal. If they can’t, the license goes to someone else who will. It’s a tough but fair system — if the commission does its job.
Hmm. So in the U.S. broadcasters only get their licenses for 8 years – not the 20 years Venezuelans got until recently. More on this in a minute.


The problem is that, under pressure from media conglomerates, previous commissions have eviscerated the renewal process. Now we have what big broadcasters lovingly call “postcard renewal” — the agency typically rubber-stamps an application without any substantive review. Denials on public interest grounds are extraordinarily rare.
Yup, that is what RCTV wanted too – “postcard renewal”. And when they didn’t get it Venezuela got their rock throwing hissy fit.


Just recently, the F.C.C. made news because it fined Univision, the Spanish-language broadcaster, a record-breaking $24 million. Univision claimed that its stations offered three hours of children’s educational programming per week — one of the few public interest rules still on the books — in part by showing a soap opera involving 11-year-old twins.

That was the right decision. But, viewed closely, it also illustrates just how slipshod our renewal process has become.

The fine was not levied at the ordinary time. In fact, the license term for one of the two stations initially at issue had expired 18 months earlier. This is typical — applications opposed by watchdog groups often languish for years while the broadcaster is permitted to continue business as usual. Then infractions are commonly disposed of with a small fine.

The commission paid attention to the Univision complaint because the station was part of a chain of 114 TV and radio stations being transferred from a public corporation to private equity firms. Without that, it is unclear when, if ever, the violations would have been acted upon. This even though scholars believe that one-fifth of what is billed as children’s programming has “little or no educational value” and only one-third can be called “highly educational.” Our children deserve better.
The FCC wants to promote better and more appropriate programming? Good luck. Just be careful. When Venezuela did the exact same thing a few years ago the screams of censorship came fast and furious. Sadly though, it does seem as if the broadcasters in the U.S. have the run of the place as they are sometimes allowed to keep broadcasting even with expired licenses. But don’t you try driving your car with an expired license!


It wasn’t always like this. Before the deregulatory mania in the 1980s — when an F.C.C. chairman described television as a “toaster with pictures” — the commission gave license renewals a hard look every three years, with specific criteria for making a public interest finding. Indeed, broadcasters’ respect for the renewal process encouraged them to pay for hard-hitting news operations. That was then.
Here things get interesting. Venezuela used to give its broadcast licenses for the absurdly long 20 years. They have now reduced the terms of the licenses to 5 years. Some opposition supporters see this as a sinister plot to exert political control over broadcasters.

Yet in the U.S. licenses are renewed every 8 years – that is sure a lot closer to 5 years than 20. Further, they used to review them every 3 years and as we’ll see in a few paragraphs this commissioner wants them to go back to that. Sounds good to me. And it shows that rather than having anything to do with politics Conatel reducing its licensing terms to 5 years is simply the government making sure it exercises appropriate oversight of its valuable broadcast spectrum.


Nowadays, a lot of people claim that because of the Internet, traditional broadcast outlets are an endangered species and there’s no point in worrying about them. That’s a mistake.

First, broadcast licenses continue to be very valuable. Univision’s assets — many in small markets — were sold for more than $12 billion. A single station in Sacramento, owned by Sinclair Broadcasting, went for $285 million in 2004. A station in a megamarket like New York or Los Angeles could easily fetch half a billion dollars or more.

Second, broadcast outlets are still primary, critical sources of information for the American public. Nearly 60 percent of adults watch local TV news each day — it remains the nation’s most popular information source. And so it’s imperative that broadcasters continue to provide high-quality coverage of local and national issues.
But ensuring they do so means putting teeth back into the renewal process. To begin with, shorten the license term. Eight years is too long to go without an accounting — we ought to return to the three-year model.

It sure is imperative that broadcasters “provide high-quality coverage of local and national issues”. No one ever accused RCTV of doing that. Too bad the Venezuelan government had to wait so long to be able to do anything about it. Fortunately, in the future they won’t.


Let’s also actually review a station’s record before renewing its license.


Whoa, you mean it shouldn’t just be automatic?!?! You mean the government should look at what is broadcast and possibly not renew a license if it doesn’t think it is appropriate? If so, they better watch themselves around Jose Vivanco of Human Rights Watch who seems to think it is a crime to “investigate” TV stations or to even to have standards for what types of things are appropriate to broadcast to little kids.



Here are just some of the criteria for renewal the F.C.C. considered in the 1990s but never put into place:

Did the station show programs on local civic affairs (apart from the nightly news), or set aside airtime for local community groups?

Did it broadcast political conventions, and local as well as national candidate debates? Did it devote at least five minutes each night to covering politics in the month before an election?

In an era when owners may live thousands of miles from their stations, have they met with local community leaders and the public to receive feedback?

Is the station’s so-called children’s programming actually, in the view of experts, educational?

All of this information ought to be available on the Web so people can see how their airwaves are being used.

These issues are even more pressing today: broadcasters are making the transition to digital technology that permits them to send several television and radio channels into our homes instead of the single channel they’ve had up to now. The F.C.C.’s next step after reforming the licensing process should be to address how this new digital capacity can increase local programs and also improve the generally shoddy coverage of minority and other underserved communities. New benefits for broadcasters should translate into public benefits, too.

If you need convincing that something needs to be done, consider that only about 8 percent of local TV newscasts in the month before the last presidential election contained any coverage whatsoever of local races, including those for the House of Representatives.

This low number is just one example of how poorly stations are serving their viewers. Do stations that make so much money using the public airwaves, but so plainly fail to educate viewers on the issues facing them, really deserve to have their renewals rubber-stamped?

Nope, no broadcaster should have their renewals rubber stamped. Venezuela has the good fortune to have a government that has already put a stop to that. If this editorial is any indication maybe there is hope for the U.S. on this issue too.

And though it is a little off topic it should be noted Chavez is a trend setter. He ramps up royalties and taxes on big oil and soon after even the U.S. did the same for oil pumped from federally owned lands. Chavez started putting in energy saving bulbs and now governments from Australia to California are falling over themselves to mandate them too. And now after the Chavez administration re-asserts government oversight the airwaves the FCC pines for the same. What can you say, Chavez is the ultimate trend-setter.

Is Chavez a dictator? Isn't he closing a TV station (RCTV- Radio Caracas Television) that is against his politics?

This video and fact sheet explain why RCTV is not getting its license to broadcast over the airwaves renewed in Venezuela. Practically every country on earth including the US regards the radio spectrum as public property owned by the government, and whoever uses it uses it with government permission. Ask Howard Stern if you can say whatever you want over the airwaves.

Press Freedoms in
Venezuela:

The Case of RCTV

Overview

In late 2006, the
Venezuelan government announced that it would not renew a 20-year license to
Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) to continue broadcasting on public airwaves.
Cable or satellite broadcasts however, would still be available for the
station’s use. Though the decision has faced criticism by some who say it is a
move to restrict press freedoms, most governments have the constitutional right
to make decisions on such licensing, a mandate that the U.S government also
enjoys with the U.S. media. In fact,
RCTV’s non-renewal does not violate legal norms in Venezuela, nor does it
significantly alter the balance of power in Venezuela's vociferous, opposition-affiliated
and privately-owned media. The decision
is not an isolated government action, but forms part of a larger policy program
for democratizing Venezuela's airwaves.

The Grounds for Non-Renewal

Throughout the years, RCTV
has demonstrated extremely poor business conduct and its frequent legal
infringements comprise the most important reasons for the non-renewal
decision. An editorial in the Houston Chronicle asserts that
"it's doubtful [RCTV's] actions would last more than a few minutes with
the FCC [in the U.S.]."[i]

In fact, RCTV has often
faced legal sanctions for its poor practices, and indeed has been closed or
fined numerous times by various administrations, including President Chavez's
most recent predecessors. This most
recent decision is not an isolated case, but is the first opportunity the
government has had to reconsider its licensing since the 20-year contract
began.

RCTV's Legal Offenses

1976	Closed for 3 days	Tendentious news coverage
1980	Closed for 36 hours	Sensationalist programming
1981	Closed for 24 hours	Airing pornographic scenes
1989	Closed for 24 hours	Airing advertisements for cigarettes
1991	Programming suspended	Program "La Escuelita" suspended

The television station is
also in default for tax payments spanning a three year period.[ii]

Most importantly though,
in 2002, RCTV ran ads encouraging the public to take to the streets and
overthrow the democratically elected president. Once the president was forcefully removed from office and an
interim government installed, the station continued colluding with the coup
government by conducting a news blackout and egregiously misleading the public
about important events occurring in the country. In fact, it is public knowledge that one of the managing
producer’s of Venezuela's highest-rated newscast, the RCTV program El
Observador, testified before the Venezuelan National Assembly that he had
received very clear instructions on the day of the coup from RCTV's owner,
Marcel Granier. On April 11 and the
following day that there should be "No information on Chávez, his
followers, his ministers, and all others that could in any way be related to
him."[iii] Instead the station reported that President
Chavez had resigned. Similarly, two
days later when poor masses of Venezuelans poured into the streets demanding
their president’s return, which occurred a few hours later, RCTV was silent and
aired only cartoons. [iv] A presidential guard at the palace
during those days overheard a group of media executives, including the
president of RCTV, at the palace to meet with the newly installed president,
saying “We can’t guarantee you the loyalty of the army, but we can promise you
the support of the media.”[v]

The Legal Right not to Renew

The government of
Venezuela, like most others throughout the globe, has the constitutional right
to make decisions regarding all public broadcasting. In the U.S., the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) controls
licensing and programming, and has regularly denied license renewals based on
public interest standards established in 1960.

A recent report by a
Spanish journalist looking at radio and TV station closures, revocations, and
non-renewals found that in 21 countries including the U.S. and Europe, there
have been 236 closures, revocations, and non-renewals in the last few decades.[vi] And out of the U.S. cases, not only have
there been non-renewals but there have been outright revocations of licenses by
the FCC. In 1969 a Memphis television station, also an NBC affiliate, had its
broadcasting license revoked for racial discrimination in its programming; in
1981 WLNS-TV was charged with being very selective in the hour it assigned for
political figures and had its license revoked; and in 1999 Trinity Broadcasting
Miami TV received a revocation. Fines
have also been issued to major televisions stations for airing inappropriate
scenes and programming. CBS was
recently fined 3.6 million for airing scenes with nudity that could easily be
considered pornographic and the WB television station has faced a similar fate.[vii]

Similarly, in Venezuela,
the Ministry of Telecommunication and Information grants and regulates access
to the broadcast spectrum in accordance with the Organic Law of
Telecommunications contained in constitutional Article 156 and is the body
responsible for compliance.

Democratization of the Airwaves

The decision not to renew
RCTV's broadcasting license will allow for a broader democratization of
Venezuela's airwaves, offering access to the broadcast spectrum. RCTV has long had a disproportionate
influence in the Venezuelan media by maintaining the most powerful broadcasting
signal in the country for more than 50 years and is currently one of two
private channels that together claim 70% of all TV revenues each year. RCTV's non-renewal will allow for a
redistribution of the airwaves, and may be used to provide community
programming and public television, allowing new voices and views to be heard in
Venezuela.

Revenue shares of television
companies in 2006

The Opposition and Freedom of Expression

With President Chavez's
landslide electoral victory as an alternative to the two major political
parties in 1998, the privately-owned media in Venezuela assumed the role of the
traditional political parties, and became an outlet for them to challenge and derail
the actions of the newly elected President.[viii] The fact that the media – which is majority
privately owned – is closely associated with the opposition is undisputed and
may shed light on why the government’s decision not to renew RCTV’s license is
currently being criticized.

In 2002, Human Rights
Watch found that, "Far from providing fair and accurate reporting, the
media by and large seek to provoke popular discontent and outrage in support of
the hard-line opposition." [ix] Several journalists have even noted, "the five main privately owned channels—Venevisión,
Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), Globovisión, Televen and CMT—and nine out of
the 10 major national newspapers, including El Universal, El Nacional, Tal
Cual, El Impulso, El Nuevo País and El Mundo, have taken over the role of the traditional political parties, which
were damaged by the president’s electoral victories. Their monopoly on
information has put them in a strong position. They give the opposition
support, only rarely reporting government statements and never mentioning its
large majority…Their investigations, interviews and commentaries all pursue the
same objective: to undermine the legitimacy of the government and to destroy
the president’s popular support…the media is still directly encouraging
dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president – if
necessary by force…”[x]

The Venezuelan private
media, then, plays a controversial role in the political life of that country,
but human rights organizations cite no deterioration of freedom of expression.[xi] In fact, the Venezuelan government has respected
and defended civil liberties, including freedom of expression and freedom of
the press. The decision not to renew a
broadcasting license that has run its course simply does not qualify as an
infringement on press freedoms.

Media Ownership in Venezuela

Television Of 81 stations	… 79 (97%) are privately owned
Radio Of 709 stations	… 706 (99%) are privately owned
Newspapers Of 118 companies	… 118 (100%) are privately owned

---

[i] "Chavez
as Castro? It's not that simple in
Venezuela," Houston Chronicle,
February 7, 2007.

[ii] "RCTV
ha sido el canal más sancionado en Venezuela," Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, March 29, 2007.

[iii]
“Venezuela’s Media Coup” by Naomi Klein, The Nation, February 13, 2003.

[iv] Eva
Golinger, "The Media War Against the People: A Case Study of Media
Concentration and Power in Venezuela," in Olivia Burlingame Goumbri, ed., The Venezuela Reader: The Building of a
People's Democracy (EPICA, 2005).

[v] Coup and Counter-Coup from The Economist
Global Agenda, April 16, 2002.

[vi] “Venezuela:
On the non-renewal of RCTV's open signal broadcasting license” by J. David
Carracedo, Axis of Logic, March 31, 2007, http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_24223.shtml

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Golinger,
p. 91.

[ix]
"Venezuela's Political Crisis," Human
Rights News, Human Rights Watch, October 9, 2002.

[x] Maurice
Lemonine, Le Monde Diplomatique,
August 2002.

[xi] Maurice
Lemonine, "How Hate Media Incited the Coup Against the President," in
Gregory Wilpert, ed., Coup Against Chavez
in Venezuela (Fondación Venezolana para la Justicia
Global, 2003), p. 158.

US Congressman Jose Serrano calls Posada a "known terrorist".

From the Los Angeles Times-

"Pressure grows to prosecute Cuban exile

MIAMI — Three months before the 1976 midair explosion of a Cuban plane off the coast of Barbados, CIA covert operative Luis Posada Carriles cabled his U.S. minders...

..."After learning that Mr. Luis Posada Carriles, a known terrorist, was released from U.S. custody and allowed to reside in the U.S. as a free man, I have become very concerned about our ability to protect our nation," U.S. Rep. Jose E. Serrano (D-N.Y.) wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on Wednesday.

Extradition sought

The Caracas government asked for the extradition of Posada soon after he arrived in Florida in March 2005 on a shrimp boat owned by wealthy Cuban American developer Santiago Alvarez, now serving time for weapons violations "

Of course the United States Government is in no posotion to lecture anyone about terrorism, especially as long as it protects Posada Carriles. The United States Government is no no position to expect a friendly Venezuela, or a Venezuela that respnds to US concerns, while Carriles if a free man under the protection of the US Government.

People live in Venezuela.

Sofia at her baptism.

My wife Marbella, me and our Godchild Sofia in San Joaquin,
Carabobo, Venezuela.



Sofia partying.


Our kids at an amusement park in Carabobo.

There are plenty or other pictures from my wife's and my voyage to her homeland, Venezuela.

26 million people more or less live in Venezuela. The majority has spoken through election and plebiscite over and over that they approve of the government led by President Hugo Chavez. I am doing this blog in part to stress to my country's people that Venezuela is a nation of human beings who have a right to decide their own fate and who is to lead them and for how long he is to lead them. My country has a history of bothering and killing people like the people of Venezuela- I wish we'd stop doing these things in Iraq and Afghanistan, like we did in Vietnam and Nicaragua and not start doing them in Venezuela or anyplace else.

Venezuela's oil belongs to the people who live there and is not "our oil supply." After our country helped a group of renegades kidnap the elected President Hugo Chavez, after our country gave aid and comfort to an economic sabotage/ oil strike and lockout replete with terrorism against people who wanted to work - a sabotage that set Venezuela back a decade or more in terms of its economy- Venezuela is reasonably shopping around for other customers for its oil. Also it has taken over the control of its oil fields, its telecommunications, and its electrical system. These are reasonable actions any government might want to take. The government there has made sure that the oil wealth is shared by the entire country's people, and not just a few rich and foreigners. The government has said that a television station that helped orchestrate a violent overthrow of the government that was reversed by the people and patriotic soldiers and that broadcasts advertisement for prostitution over the airwaves that belong to the people must stop broadcasting once its license expires. This is more than reasonable. Had the owner of this television station, RCTV done these things here in the US he would be in prison and his property sold off at auction by the government.

What the United States ought to do is apologize to Venezuela for interfering and threatening and ask to start a new chapter in our relationship. We ought to comply with Venezuela's request that is supported by most world public opinion to extradite Posada Carriles so that he can face trial in the terrorist bombing of a civilian airliner and mass murder.

Most Venezuelan people harbor no ill will towards the ordinary people of the United States and in fact they admire many things about our country.

Perhaps the next president will have the common sense and intelligence to take these simple steps.