Nani's red card finished him off.
Hopefully there aren't too many Venezualans on here to be offended.
Heart attacks and that
But then, have a look around at your average 50-something football fan,imagine them in a high stress situation, getting all worked up and stuff and then 2 heart attacks doesn't seem that unreal.
On a slightly related note, my grandfather used to work for the coroner's office in the '80s. He once told me that on the first really cold day of winter, they'd be really busy with the bodies of middle-aged men who'd died from heart attacks. This was because cars were shit and would refuse to start in the cold, so men who'd done no exercise all year suddenly leap into action and tried to push half a tonne of metal up a hill, first thing in the morning, in the freezing cold.
but I've been playing football before and someone died mid-game of a heart attack. It was surreal, you just don't expect that kind of thing to happen. His family were watching and everything, so incredibly sad. Whenever our club play their club on our grounds we still have a moment of silence for him.
Wallsall V someone
Had a heart attack just as they scored a last minute winner
Had to give CPR pitchside. Grim
IS MARCKEE PSYCHIC?
so I didn't feel it was appropriate.
I actually came across this while googling for something else, and couldn't resist a topical bump.
To be honest the real question here is whether you can justify exactly how you knew she was about to pass away. I think you've got some explaining to do.
I hope he's got a decent alibi.
last thing SA needs is a civil war in its largest oil producer.
And it's ok because he already gutted the oil industry during one of his paranoid purges, so it's the least efficient, most polluting in the world.
And you'll find a handful of extremely talented Venezuelans as high ranking engineers and managers. Who got fired by Chavez because they worked for the Americans at one point.
so you can see why he'd have a gripe.
is an entirely reasonable response to this just because they had been put through intensive training by ExxonMobil or whoever as part of the PSA Venezuala had in place.
Eye for an eye is a great political methodology of course.
I do wonder if his opponents might not have treated Chavez' supporters similarly though, had they been successful. I mean, overthrowing a democratically elected gov't is a pretty authoritarian first move.
but I'm not sure he really has. Stability over populism, always.
But I guess I'm just boring and increasingly jaded. I like technocrats.
One of the top 4 things in his life, in fact.
For all it's faults - which he undoubtedly had - he's been instrumental in showing a country can take a different political direction to freemarket capitalism in modern times and be successful. Obviously his model wouldn't work for every country (and wasn't without flaws) but he deserves to be remembered for showing alternatives do exist...
Give me some sources to back that ridiculous assertion up. Figures please.
It just seems like a thing to say to pretend I knew what I was talking about - usually works. :p
I'm not sure of exact policies in Venezuela and, from what I know, would see his importance more of the fact he's been a figurehead for more socalist policy than anything else but I thought, at the very least, left-leaning SA governments elected elsewhere after Chavez have been more successful in addressing poverty and inequality than the West?
Extreme decrease in poverty agreed. Good redistribution all policies, for sure. But all that GDP growth can be pretty much tied to the oil export increase. And who's he exporting to? That's right, the global capitalist market!
Also a classic case of Dutch disease: outrageous inflation and currency devaluation with increased oil exports.
That's not even mentioning the corruption problems, the incredibly high homocide and violent crime rates and everything else. He started out great, but increasingly lost the plot and tried to do too much himself
I don't really see what else his government could have done. You can't just withdraw unilaterally from the global capitalist market and go it alone because that would be economic suicide - socialism in one country is a non-starter. Despite pretences the Soviet Union didn't go it alone and its economy was largely integrated into the global capitalist system. The North Koreans sort of tried it but obviously that was a disaster and even then they had to be propped up by Soviet/Chinese subsidies.
Plus, there are lots of economies which are largely dependent on oil exports (just look at the Middle East). Okay, it's not ideal, I don't really see any other country besides Venezuela being criticised for that. To be honest I doubt the Venezuelan economy would be any more diversified if Chavez had never been in power. But you're right that crime rates are still astronomical in Venezuela and that has to be seen as one of Chavez's biggest failures.
I don't deny that, but he's been far less successful at making some long term and durable out of the oil money, whilst he's completely fucked up the production system through a focus on elevating exports and diminishing investment. Read some of the stuff the environmental watchdogs have to say about their oil fields and the Orinoco tar sands...
but like I say, Venezuela isn't the only economy in the world that's heavily unbalanced in its dependence on a particular export. For all Chavez's faults, I really don't think much of that oil money would have found its way to the poorest people in Venezuelan society without him. I mean, the old oligarchy really ran that country into the ground over a period of decades.
the "be successful" bit?
I think you can chalk it up to a fucktonne of oil
The high inflation rate indicates that the oil money isn't being sensibly invested, like Holland in the 1970s and 80s
i laud Chavez for What he started out as, but what he ended up as, for whatever outside factors, was not particularly pretty
i thought he was saying that it is possible to take a different political direction on a national scale and still be successful (dependent on all sorts of country-specific factors which will obvi be tied to the fact that the rest of the world is a capitalist economy) which is different, and important in the sense that the very notion of anything resembling a non-capitalist economy is still almost exclusively framed as an inevitable road to stalinism/being north korea
idk that much about venezuela but. uruguay is obviously the coolest SA country atm anyway http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20243493
i don't have enough in-depth knowledge of latin america to comment, but that particular article offers zero actual evidence or convincing arguments, beyond vague handwringing about 'radical' politics and vague admiration of moderate centre-leftism, to help me decide whether or not brazil is doing it more right
You can look at Brazil's growth figures and compare them to Venezuala. You can look at the levels of violent crime and compare it to Venezuala. You can look at investment figures etc.
Venezuala is currently in a gigantic and crippling recession. And it is purely because of Chavez. It has nothing to do with the global crisis. It has to do with chronic mismanagement of the economy and complete oil centrism at the expense of everything else.
but I wonder if the poverty level in Venezuala can be maintained. I don't get the sense he's built anything of long term value or which can provide meaningful capital for the average venezualan.
but have brazil not
a) got a fucktonne of rainforest and mineral resources and ultra fertile soil
b) managed to appear to be less capitalist (and do not indulge in capitalist vernacular) because of the huge amount of consessions that they are selling off to the chinese (who would be uncomfortable about calling their oversees operations as being capitalist venture)?
c) have they really tackled their inequality
d) is there not really high levels of violence in some areas
e) is the 'respect mah propertah" supporting that brazil done an entirely good thing, bearing in mind that this can ammount too......'ooh there is a piece of land with some trees on that no one owns....Ill have that' (simplified to the extreme I know, but you can catch my drift)
f) etc....i dunno
But Brazil Is a more open system than Venezuela, which long term means those kind of questions will have to be answered. I want to work in Brazil, for anyone interested in electricity markets it's very interesting in terms of the scope of their ambition and the money they're willing to spend on something concrete and tangible.,
new statesman blog with something about brazils probs/issues
I have heard of loads of stuff about brazillian willingness to try new innovative ideas in terms of food production, energy production and manufacturing and so I do not have a downer on it, because it does seem to be a country that will come up with many solutions to problems/issues
Also, on your china point. China is everywhere now. Arguably their presence in Venezuala which is very significant is more interesting than that in Brazil. Brazil is mostly PSAs and agreements on a tarditional business sense,whereas in Venezuala it was much more politicised, loans for oil, direct government to,government. Their presence there is much much more suspicious if you're going down that route.
– about an attempted coup against Chavez in 2002
what happened after - not wholly so much
I know the economy has been mismanaged under him in a lot of ways, and a lot of people got dicked over. But that's happened in various ways in pretty much all countries. At least in Venezuela it happened while also alleviating a lot of poverty and crapiness and following an alternative path to neoliberalism.
that's a good thing
But defining yourself as what you are not is an incredibly narrow and damaging strategy. And it drives you crazy paranoid, as you saw in the last few years of Chavez
Don't forget that the US were openly and covertly funding his political opponents and repeatedly trying to instigate coups.
But his response was not exactly measured or appropriate. I just don't think Chavez is anything near the saint that certain members of the liberal left in this country would like you to believe.
I think there's far more shades of grey. We won't be able to success as to whether he really had an impact for a good few years; if he's provided long term stability or if he cashed in. In economic and political terms, 14 years is a very long time and a very short time all at once.
but I've got to say I had the impression that he was the best thing the people of Venezuela were going to get, all things considered. And if that sounds like damning with faint praise, it's not meant to be.
The CIA drove him batshit, no doubt.
I just think it's so easy to forget that he failed to instil the rule of law, showed a healthy disrespect for press freedom, mismanaged an oil based economy to the point of current crippling recession during the highest period of oil prices in the history of the world and did not invest sustainably for the future. I'm dubious as to what he's done to alleviate long term poverty, a concern shared by a variety of critics, who claim he hasn't really built anything concrete. Subsidies are important, but they're just a sticking plaster, education is incredible, but if there's nothing afterwards then you end up in an Arab Spring situation.
which were supposedly much more wealthy than Venezuela have been hit hard by the recession.
Have black gold doesn't make you immune from the US-originated economic crash.
Arab states also mismanaged their economies. See reference to Arab Spring.
and making venezuela not being as successful as the left would have liked.........as being a WIN for the CIA and the US policy of disrupting his vision by making him have to worry about other stuff
but I do think it's safe to say he was a considerable improvement on what came before him.
Put it this way, I don't think the Venezuelan people will be seeing as much of the benefit of that oil money if the old oligarchy manages to wheedle its way back into power.
Nani got sent off??
I've been busy this morning so the first I heard of it was this status: "Hoy es un dia de jubilo y un Nuevo comienzo para mi país!!!!!! Viva Venezuela!!! So happy!" I knew what had happened immediately.
But was an utter Galloway. Had a tendency to actively embrace the vilest regimes solely due to their anti-Americanism. Proper egomaniac too- my friend was in Caracas a few years back and said the personality cult that he'd built around himself was quite sinister.
featuring Ahmajinedad touching the coffin and raising a fist.
and of course, had Gaddafi still been around, he would have also been in attendance.
Carroll has a lot of form for highly questionable and biased reporting of events in Venezuela. Not a reliable source.
A lot of their more leftie professors even recommended it apparently. But thanks, will bear in mind.
all I'm saying is that if you want an even-handed assessment of Chavez's time in office, you won't get it from Rory Carroll. I totally accept that Chavez made mistakes and did and said questionable things. His government was certainly considerably more authoritarian than I would have liked. But Carroll is little more than a propagandist imo.
obviously you think that Chavez did not 'win' at making venezuela successful.
could you not equally attribute this to a CIA/US interferance 'WIN' in that the leftist experiment can be held up to be a failure by some people, due to them having successfully distracted Chavez from a vision of a future not based on suspicion and having to battle against a press which was also used as a tool to try to destabalise the government?
(PS I am a Thomas Sankara worshiper rather than Chavez.....because it is all too muddy to see clearly in Venezuela)
I don't disregard the impact of the CIA being their usual nefarious selves. But Chavez's economic plan appears to have been fundamentally shallow, which has zilch to do with the CIA. I can see some,alibi for the human rights violations and press freedom issues, but to me they're not actually excuses. i don't believe in eye for an eye.
He used the economy to win elections, as do all politicians ro some degree, but to an extent which is dangerous and deceptive for those Venezuelans who believe he has eliminated poverty, long term. Again, erring on the side of caution it's maybe too soon to tell , but I am sceptical, to say the least.
I just think he was an ideas man who was too bullish in his own abilities and wasn't successfully ever able to hand over decision making to others who are more qualified. He was an authoritarian due to his immense belief in what he was doing, he was a democrat insofar as he worked for the people. It was an odd mix. As a friend pointed out, what democratic politician states that he wants to 'rule for 20 years'?
remember that bit in South Of The Border where Nestor Kirchner tells Chavez that he needs to ensure that his country develops a thousand people like him to run against each other in elections when Chavez dies? That's pretty much my feelings on Chavez
Dunno. You think Roosevelt would have sought a fifth term if he'd lived to 1948?
Not the meaning so much. His language was not that of a democratic leader as far as I can tell. I've spent a lot of time looking at Venezuela, due to afore mentioned friends studying it, the number of (definitely biased) expats in Paris, and because its of specific interest to anyone studying energy and economics. But I don't think I'm an expert. These are just my views and opinions. But I like to think I have a little bit more grounding in the actual policies than the standard whitewash left liberal who praises Chavez as this generations Guevara without really looking at the concrete evidence, just because he gave Ken lots of money to pay for bus travel for the unemployed in London.
i.e. not the perfect saint that people want him to be.
Now there was a true Bolivarian revolutionary
I wasnt being an apologist I was genuinely after for your judgement call on whether he might have looked a lot better too you if he hadnt been so affected by 'outside interferance'.
I know that doesn't stop most people here, but I think that means I'll sit this one out.
but i'm sure he was a jerk, a complete jerk
'Yet it depends even more on Obama, whose first term, after a promising start, ended up perpetuating Washington's historical neglect of Latin America.'
'Historical neglect' is a remarkably benign way of categorising repeated attempts to destabilise popularly-elected governments and propping up a string of vicious death-squad 'democracies' across the continent for years.
(Didn't mean to this this, before anyone accuses me of being too pleased with myself.)
worth contrasting with its respectful treatment of Saudi autocrat Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz in 2011:
Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild |