I am glad to finally read an article about Latin American politics and especially about Hugo Chavez that truly remains objective and doesn't sing leftist praises in between the lines. The writer seems to be in a similar frame of mind to mine: watchful and wary. Chavez talks a good game , time will tell if he's truly a people's politician with reform and progress in mind or yet another ego-filled tyrant and dictator abusing the fragile democratic structure in Venezuela and the rest of Latin America. I truly hope it will be the former, because Chavez seems to be one of those guys who IF and when he ever leaves, won't leave quietly.

I remember the US funded campaign of Violeta Chamorro which toppled the Sandanista revolution which had toppled the US funded reign of Samosa, the ultimate in US supported dictators that also included Batista in Cuba, Ferdinand Marcos of the Phillipines, the Shah of Iran, Augusto Pinochet of Argentina, the undemocratic regime of Egypt's Mubarak who had succeeded the undemocratic regime of Sadat, and the list goes on and on. And all these dictators really poured their ill-gotten wealths out to the poor and brought democracy to their impoverished lands? The question to ask is not whether Chavez is making money off of the subsidized oil he is doling out to these nations. None of the US supported dictators have ever been demonized by the US press as much as the leaders who have rejected US hegemony in favor of wealth distributed back to the people for better health care, education, and a better standard of living for the forgotten poor in this sorry world of ours. And also, please spare me the rhetoric of bringing democracy anywhere in the world.

Ortega grandly gave up his immunity and went before a Sandinista judge, who quickly concluded that the statue of limitations had run out.

I think you mean statute of limitations. Might want to fix that.

And Chhabili? Pinochet was dictator in Chile, not Argentina. If you're going to expound on Latin American politics, best you get the cast of characters straight next time.

In El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, misery plus surging violent crime has turned hope into one word: emigration, preferably to El Norte.

Ironic that three North American-style "success stories" (e.g., popular leftist movements brutally crushed through American intervention/interference and rightist regimes put in place) have led to countries in miserable condition, where the only recourse for the populace is flight!

From Washington's perspective, any Central or Latin American country that tries to take care of its own populace (versus, say, foreign creditors) is immediately on our blacklist. Our stance toward them goes from wary, to icy, to cold, to hostile.

Whereas the regimes that rely on paramilitaries and death squads to terrorize their countries into submission (or civil war), give corporations a free hand in exporting resources and wealth and let them wield undue political influence (aka, "embrace free market economics"), smash trade unions, kill journalists and teachers, have horrible human rights records, and have glaring social inequality -- well, our government likes those countries, so long as they embrace capitalism.

Good luck to Chávez, to Ortega, to the various countries down there who are trying to improve the lives of their citizenry, instead of marching to the tune of Washington, which is invariably bad for the country that does it, good for the corrupt government we're supporting (in terms of our aid to them), and terrible for the people forced to endure it.

Washington likes juntas and coups in the region, and that's not hyperbole, that's history -- it's policy (wrapped up in obfuscating language about democracy, of course)! Shows where our hearts really are in the matter of freedom and democracy, if it's measured in actual practice, and not simply in rhetoric and buzzwords. Never has our rhetoric strayed further from actual practice than in Central and Latin America.

A Laurel and Hardly Comedy:

Direct From FOX TV and the Paid Staff Infection; Back to you OLIVER NORTH!

By the way, I like that Security System around your Mansion,is that INS approved?

Perhaps you should run for SENATE, or run for.... ....!

sub sole sub umbra virens

You DO understand that Ortega blackmailed political party leaders to change electoral laws so that the threshold for winning an election was reduced from a 45% quorum to 35% - exactly equal to the number of votes Ortega got, in exchange for not pushing for prosecution of those party leaders for corruption and fraud, don't you?

Here's how I judge a national leader of any political persuasion:

- Is the gap between the poorest and wealthiest narrow enough that the majority of people have sufficient food, safe shelter, adequate health care, education and jobs?

- Are elections free and fair and open to all adult citizens?

- Is law enforcement large enough, professional enough and free enough of corruption to both control crime and maintain the confidence of the population in the criminal justice system?

- Is the press free and vigorous?

- Is the economy well balanced among agriculture, manufacturing, high-tech, service and extractive industries?

- Is the military strong as a defensive force and not bogged down in foreign adventurism?

- Is the immigration rate higher than the emigration rate?

According to what I've read about Venezuela under Chavez and what I see everyday here in the U.S., on all but the last measure, Chavez ranks a lot higher than the Usurper.

I traveled quite a bit in Central America and Mexico in l980. I remember

distinctly the sense of desperation and

hopelessness in Guatemala, El Salvador and Mexico, while in Nicaragua there was an attitude of optimism. Not that

everyone was completely happy with the

situation, but they had hope that things could get better in the future.

All of that disappeared after the Contra

disaster--it was back to business as usual, with Yanquis in charge. I have

confidence that, without our interference, the Nicaraguan people will

again have that sense of self-determination for a better future. I hope Ortega still has the spirit of Sandino in him.