RE: [OPE] Venezuela and the goal of Socialists.

> many people will remain skeptical.
 
 
Hi Paula:
 
Yes, as I noted earlier (and Alejandro agreed) , no amount of evidence will
satisfy the right-wing opponents of Chavez. I wonder, though, if the same
thing can be said about the "Left" critics of the Bolivarian revolution. I am
struck by an irony: many of the "anti-authoritarian" leftists are willing
to accept the HRW claims without any evidence whatsoever. Indeed, they
have accepted - uncritically - the authority of HRW! I think it's simply a matter
of HRW telling them something they wanted to hear and were pre-disposed
to.
 
I recall there were also leftists who accepted the claim that Iraq had WMDs.
Why? Because it sounded plausible to them.
 
Let's start another rumor, shall we? Bearing in mind that I'm about to
entirely fabricate the following: let's say that there is a secret dungeon below
the presidential palace in Caracas where opponents of Chavez are tortured,
raped, and killed. How would one go about proving that such a claim was false?
Suppose that inspectors were allowed to look below the palace and see for
themselves if there was a dungeon and then said that there wasn't.
Would that satisfy the opponents of Chavez? Of course not. They would
say - quite predictably - that it is a _secret_ dungeon and that the "regime" had
hid it from the inspectors. No amount of evidence would satisfy them
and the claim - once made - would hang forever over the accused. Where
are our standards for justice? Are we simply willing to accept *on faith* that because
some organization or state has accused another of wrongdoing that it must be true?
Chavez, evidently, has been judged to be guilty until proven innocent.
 
In solidarity, Jerry
 
PS: what you called "ad hominem" would be considered in a court of law to be
legitimate grounds for challenging the testimony of a so-called "expert". Just
as corporations and the wealthy can hire "expert" witnesses to say whatever
they want, so too can states like the US. The "impartiality" of witnesses would
certainly be taken into consideration by any jury. Yet, challenging the "impartiality"
of HRW is dismissed as "ad hominem" in a rush to judgment.
 
 

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Sat Sep 27 07:19:10 2008