Reply With QuoteHe seems as bad as Putin... only he's not in control of a superpower loaded with nuclear weapons.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ationworld-hed
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18903331/
Hehe, well now 2 of the 4 major broadcasters are in the hands of the state and the other two major networks will most likely continue to support him OR ELSE. One more step to dictatorship. The new station will apparently be used for indoctrination.
Chavez of course still has plenty of support. He is playing it pretty cool. Ever so slowly he is collecting more and more power into his hands and sapping the rights of his citizens. Control over the media is essential. Now that he has silenced his main opposition, he can set up his dictatorship with little or no local media outcry. Its only a matter of time. Good thing we have Jimmy Carter and various idiot celebritys to go down there and tell us everything is great. Chavez really is a hero to Castro/Marxist socialists."the new station later presented upcoming programming, including cartoons, sports, and an educational program for children emphasizing socialist values.
“We’ve come here to start a new television with the true face of the people, the face that was hidden, the face that they didn’t allow us to show,” said Roman Chalbaud, a pro-Chavez filmmaker appointed by the government to TVES’ board of directors."
He seems as bad as Putin... only he's not in control of a superpower loaded with nuclear weapons.
It wouldn't be a Gideongamer post without the token shot across the liberal bow at the end. Oh, and just for the record, Marx would probably be appalled.
Ahh, but his country has oil so he must be a worldwide threat. Didn't Chavez renegotiate deals with the WTO so his country wasn't royally screwed?Originally Posted by Tim Partlett
I think Chavez is starting to care more about staying in power than about his country. The oil is just a tool to him. Oh, and just for the record Jimmy Carter has gone down to Venuzuela to kiss Chavez's ass along with a few idiot celebritys in the past. Then again we get some people to this day kissing Castro's ass. From what I understand Castro is a personal hero of Chavez's. He has also praised coca farmers and criticizes efforts to curtail coca plant growing.
Chavez understands propaganda and its easier when you basically control all of the local media. Venuzuelas problems are all America's fault(now its Bush, but soon it will be someone else), the coca growers just grow coca leaves to sell locally for people to chew,etc . Yea, sure, the farmers in Peru and elsewhere need to grow THAT much coca for chewing and tea. Its hard to imagine people being so stupid as to believe his nonesense. Then again if the history of the region proves anything its that people are particularly gullible in those third world (or third world-ish) cultures. They cheer for him while thier rights are eroded one by one. When will they learn? It should be interesting to watch and see if Chavez becomes a true dictator or if he gets thrown out of office.
You mean gullible like believing Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?
Eh, there have been widespread protests in venezuela about the closing of the TV station. He has his support base amongst the poor that have been the beneficiaries of his reforms and are the targets of his populism, and they cheer him on. The middle class and his political opponents are plenty worried though, and has expressed it in marshes and public protests. But don't let that get in the way of your contempt of brown people.
Chavez would really, really love to be the leader of a resurgent South America. Thanks to oil, Venezuela is one of the two regional powers (Brazil being the other, by dint of sheer size) and Chavez has been using that to try to set up regional alternatives to US-influenced institutions (Banco de Sur in place of the World Bank, Mercosur in place of the OAS, etc). That is really more a long term threat (though I'm not sure "threat" is the right word, unless you consider the EU a "threat" to US economic hegemony or something similarly tinfoil).
Chavez gets traction, both in South America and among his own people, by being anti-American. It helps that American foreign policy has been so mindnumblingly stupid this past decade. Instead of being yet another military dictator who took over in a coup (well in his case he tried the coup first, failed, then got voted in), he gets to paint himself as David vs the gringo Goliath, friend to all children.
The main reason he's been able to hold and increase his power is simply oil, though. He's able to subsidize a socialist/command economy through oil revenues. Without that the subsidies to the poor would disappear and his support with it.
Yet another entry in "the world's appetite for oil directly influences the misery of those who produce it" sweepstakes.
I don't understand how the subsidies to the poor enhances their misery?
How is it coca leaves are a problem? Do they turn people into terrorists?
Yeah, you're right, what was I thinking. Silly democracies insisting on basic human rights. Bread and circuses for all! (Note: circuses only on state-approved networks, plz.)
It would be nice to find a connection so we can merge the War on Terror with the War on Drugs.
Unfortunately the poor and hungry can't eat their words.
Where there's a will there's a way.
So human rights are irrelevant as long as people are given subsistence. Of course, this only applies to dictatorships of the left; rightist dictatorships with booming economies are still evil, right?
Oddly enough, communist countries usually managed to give everyone a basic food ration and people still tried to leave. Funny, that.
I didn't say that. Yes, Chavez appears to be a dick. He used to tout the opposition TV stations as an example of his benevolent rule. However, like anyone given such large executive privilege, they tend to like to keep it and increase it. We've seen this same scenario here in the U.S. as well.
It's interesting, because the lack of questioning up until the Iraq war was basically bought and paid for, except the people being bought were corporate entities out to make a buck by not questioning the president and riding the wave of patriotism. When it's the wealthy buying out democracy it's ok for some reason, but when it's the poor giving up their rights for some food, suddenly it's evil?
There's a world of difference between "corporate pandering causing a breakdown in advice and consent" (which I totally agree with is a problem here) and "government revokes license of anyone who isn't on board with the New Order".
Last I checked, Salon wasn't being knocked offline by the government. Nor DailyKOS, nor Pacifica or Air America. There's a plethora of partisan left news sources that operate freely. They aren't as popular as the partisan right, but unless you believe Majestic-5 is manipulating advertising agencies that can't be blamed on lack of press freedom.
Whereas in leftist dictatorships, closing off all dissenting news sources is always high on the to-do list. Chavez is working down that list. But, as you said, it's OK, because he's nice to the poor (at least the ones that vote for him). Pandering is fine, as long as it's for the right people!
But there is a known connection. Drugs fund terrorists - and the CIA. Read some Michael Ruppert and get back to me on that.
I think he's saying that for the people of Venezuala, it's better that they have a shitty populist dictator who spends some of the oil money on the poor, than a shitty self-serving dicator who spends all the oil money on himself and his cronies.
I'm always surprised by the hoopla made by the American right over Chavez. I mean sure he's bad, but by developing world standards he's actually not that bad at all.
At least he's not bad in a Robert Mugabe way. He's mostly bad in a rub it in your American face way, which I'm sure the poor who live in the slums of Carracas couldn't care less about.
And oil funds dictatorships. Clearly we should declare a War on Oil.
Mainly because the wacky wing of the American left swoons over him. "Ooh, he's dreamy! he hates Bush, like we do! OMG he reads Noam Chomsky! *faints*" So you get some projection over that, some whose chains are pulled by Chavez and Castro being BestFriendsForever, that sort of thing. But yeah, he's low on the list of wacky dictators. However, he's a wacky dictator with no lack of funds. Thanks, oil!
Mugabe really is the gold standard of incompetent dictators, though. I mean, you've got starvation AND brutal repression of dissent AND racism AND hyperinflation AND corruption. Plus, just as a cherry on top, he thinks England is run by gay people. Comparing other dictators to Mugabe just isn't fair. I mean, you have to go back to the gold standards of Stalin and Hitler to get much worse.
Last edited by Lum; 05-28-2007 at 01:40 PM.
If we made drugs legal, it'd make a lot less money for terrorists because businesses that share western interests would become involved in the trade and undermine their power. The reason drugs fund terrorist organizations is because of our own stupidity.
Yeah, where's the outrage over Saudi Arabia? Oh wait, they don't say mean things about our president.
I didn't say it was OK.
Last edited by Mordrak; 05-28-2007 at 01:50 PM.
I think you have a strain a lot to compare any of today's dictators to those that came before. The Khmer Rouge killed 20 goddamn percent of their country.
May need to change the subject line soon, as the Chavez government is moving on the other opposition TV network now.
"At least he's not bad in a Robert Mugabe way."
Well, Chavez did repossess some of the farms like Mugabe did. And of course, food supplies have plummetted in Venezula leading to massive inflation. I don't think Chavez will continue to repossess all the farms and lead to the joys of widespread starvation that has historically followed such seizures.
Wow. That's shitty.
As soon as Bush is out of office a lot of Chavez apologists will suddenly have an epiphany, funny how that works.
Now that's just unfair. I mean, Poor Chavez has only had dictatorial powers since the end of January. It took guys like Mao and Stalin YEARS to really get the "decimate your own population" thing off the ground and running smoothly. Give the man a chance.
Enh, he'll probably end up as a Huey Long at the worst.
Close, actually. Human rights (like free speech) are irrelevant as long as people do NOT have subsistence and security.
That's right, I'm reading Amitai Etzioni's new book, and i'm going to parrot him with no critical thinking whatsoever.
How dare they! It is clear entrenched organizations who:Whereas in leftist dictatorships, closing off all dissenting news sources is always high on the to-do list.
1) Have to power to manipulate public opinion
2) are owned by people who are going to be disproportionally hurt by reforms
will *never* use that power against those reforms.
If one has a lot of patence ( hello Rupert Murdoch ) another mechaism is to slowly build public ( private in Murdoch's case ) news corporations and through either high quality reporting ( hello BBC ) or though glitzy graphics ( hello Fox News ) who become the trusted names in news and use those organizations to drive public opinion. However given entrenched nature of the news in Venezuela I do not think that was a viable option for Chavez.
Clearly, a friend of democracy. How dare anyone object to his enlightened decrees! Obviously freedom of speech is only valid if you agree with what they are saying. Or if you dislike Bush. Then it's OK.
Note: The Fox News parallel only works if Tony Snow declared from the podium that Anderson Cooper had better check himself before he wrecked himself, word up. (Although that would be pretty funny.) There's a bit of a difference between Rupert Murdoch saying something and a government, you know, legislating stuff. Although I suspect there are some here who, if it were discovered Chavez was murdering Swedish tourists in secret, would mutter darkly about those damn Scandinavians and their tricksy plots.
LOLERSKATES Lum. Here is what he was responding to:
Chavez has had a long-running feud with opposition television channels, which openly supported a coup against him in April 2002 and refused to show the massive mobilisation of his supporters that turned the tide back in the president's favour.
Yeah he is going over board, right. The powers that used to control the country have, amazingly, a huge amount of capital stored away. Shockingly some of it is in media. They are being hurt by socialist reforms and *shockingly* they are attempting to use this stored away capital to roll back the reforms. Weirdly, Chavez thinks this is not in the best interests of the people. Shocking.
And I did not draw a parallel between Chavez's actions and Fox News. Fox News is what Chavez would do if he had a lot of time.
Posting Permissions