Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-01-07 07:08 PM
Original message
Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction
America's corporate media was a loyal megaphone in selling the war in Iraq to a "low info" public. Now they are at it again, this time about Venezuela.

Published on Friday, June 1, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction

by Robert W. McChesney & Mark Weisbrot

To read and view the U.S. news media over the past week, there is an episode of grand tyranny unfolding, one repugnant to all who cherish democratic freedoms. The Venezuelan government under “strongman” Hugo Chavez refused to renew the 20-year broadcast license for RCTV, because that medium had the temerity to be critical of his regime. It is a familiar story.

And in this case it is wrong.

Regrettably, the US media coverage of Venezuela’s RCTV controversy says more about the deficiencies of our own news media that it does about Venezuela. It demonstrates again, as with the invasion of Iraq, how our news media are far too willing to carry water for Washington than to ascertain and report the truth of the matter.

<snip>

If RCTV were broadcasting in the United States, its license would have been revoked years ago. In fact its owners would likely have been tried for criminal offenses, including treason.

RCTV’s broadcast frequency has been turned over to a new national public access channel that promises to provide programming from thousands of independent producers. It is an effort to let millions of Venezuelans who have never had a viable chance to participate in the media do so, without government censorship.

The Bush Administration opposes the Chavez government for reasons that have nothing to do with democracy, or else there would be a long list of governments for us to subvert or overthrow before it would get close to targeting Venezuela. Regrettably, our press coverage has done little to shed light on that subject.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/01/1607/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
unkachuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-01-07 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. why do we....
....apply standards to other nations that we don't apply to ourselves?

"If RCTV were broadcasting in the United States, its license would have been revoked years ago. In fact its owners would likely have been tried for criminal offenses, including treason."

....doesn't that make us look foolish and hypocritical?....or does our desire to control/steal other nations resources, means we're arrogant?....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jade Fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-03-07 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
34. That's the question all right......
This situation reminds me of those on the Right who will jump on one small mistake/indiscretion made by the Democrats like it's the worst thing that's ever happened, while conveniently ignoring the massive incompetence and corruption of the GOP.

It's like: "our perfect corruption is better than your less-than-perfect honorableness". It's a mind set I don't understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-01-07 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. Fact and Fiction, according to Chavez's supporters. Very objective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-01-07 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. Again
it would've been preferable to actually charge, try and convict the people involved. That wasn't done.

Then, it would've been preferable NOT to seize the station and turn it into a government-controlled outlet - he already had two stations. It should've remained independent, under new control.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-01-07 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
4. Why is Chavez hated by the DLC/PPI neolibs as much as he is by the PNAC/AEI neocons?
The same people that defended going to war against Iraq, opposed defunding the war, and recoil at the idea of getting Bush and Cheney impeached, are now parroting Faux News propaganda about Chavez and Venezuela. Why is that? Perhaps it is because the neoliberals at DLC/PPI share the same world view as the neocons at PNAC and AEI. Oh, they might disagree on tactics somewhat. The former may prefer to sugar coat their imperialist policies with a "progressive" label, while the latter prefer to screw people without lubrication, but to those at the receiving end of the oppressive policies they advocate, there is no difference between them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Copei and AD -- an interesting parallel?
We need an MVR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 04:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Exactly.
The differences are in methods and verbiage, but the results are the same. America is determined to have it's fascist, corporatist, police state, whatever you want to call it.

We have become so closed-minded, so selfish, so disconnected from our world and our fellow human beings, and in many cases, so resigned to what we've accepted as inevitable, that I no longer see any hope of improving the nightmare we have become, let alone turning the nation into what it always wanted to be.

I'm too old to be drafted and don't have any kids, so fuck 'em all. As Cindy Sheehan has concluded, we are destined to become http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/29/1495/">"a fascist corporate wasteland", and IMO that's just the way we like it.

So, another 1000, or more American mothers, fathers, sons & daughters will be slaughtered for profit, along with thousands of uncounted, unconsidered, unimportant, Iraqis. We'll install the next corporate leader, and his/her partners in crime, who will tell us how helpless they are to do anything. Thousands or maybe millions more Americans will "fall through the cracks" of a system that doesn't exist in any real sense, after having all they had taken from them to feed the insatiable appetite of Amerikan greed, and we'll heave a collective sigh, maybe talk about "what a shame it is", write some letters or make a few calls to the people that don't represent us anymore, if they ever did, and then turn to the latest mind-numbing dreck that is provided for us, free of charge, to distract us from our own criminal neglect.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
24. And we are going to be accused of "undermining our Democratic President"
when we challenge the neoliberal and imperialist policies of whichever DLC corporatist that manages to steal the Democratic nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. So what do you think about this?
I haven't made up my mind, and it's not like my opinion means anything anyway, but what if we end up with another round, or two, of Republik rule in order to hasten the inevitable collapse?

Now, before you hit that ignore link.

At this point it looks like it doesn't matter whether Democrats of Republiks win in '08, we will have another corporatist leader and congress imposed on us. The difference will be the pace and methods that we will endure in our continuing decent into slavery. The theft of our production will continue and to concentrate into fewer and fewer hands, more and more our rights will be stripped away from us, our social supports will continue to be degraded and services denied, and our currency, the gauge of our individual worth, will continue to become less and less valued. In short we will continue to move to the "company store" model on a national level.

This will inevitably end in blood and violence, so is it better to rip the bandage off quickly and get it over with, or to slowly peel it back, enduring less pain over a longer time?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. I am not prepared to throw in the towel yet. We have some good candidates running.
However, I fear we will see a repeat of 2004 and I will find myself voting for Kucinich in the Indiana May primary even though it was obvious who was going to be crowned in Boston.

Except for Kucinich, and to a much lesser extent Edwards, none of the other candidates have the inclination or the will to turn this country 180-degress in the opposite direction in which it has been led for years. It will take a complete turnabout to begin the process of healing the damage our country has done to itself and to others. As it is, Bush has unleashed historical forces that no one can control, much as Kaiser Wilhem did when he decided to attack Serbia in response to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo.

I am of the view that Marx was correct in his analysis of history, and that capitalism cannot sustained itself except by the most eggregious means, and that ultimately it will collapse under its own weight. We can already see how unsustainable a state of permanent war is. Our military is on the verge of collapse. The irony is that it is us that are trying to save what's left of the military by defunding the war, while the "Support the Troops" crowd is doing what they can to bring about the end of imperial America.

This will end badly, no matter who is elected in 2008, unless there is a rejection of everything Bush, and some of his predecessors, have done. An American version of the Bolivarian revolution is too much to hope for. As it happened in Germany after their defeat in the Great War, it is more likely that fascism will be the one to triumph in America. Let's do what we can to prevent that from happening!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Fair enough. As I said in the previous reply, I really don't care anymore
I live in a great city, a refuge from the worst of what is now Amerika, and I have no personal stake in the longer-term future. I'm young enough, fit, and a very experienced survivor/fighter to make it through the next 20 years. I had a very interesting conversation with a guy from either Australia or South Africa (muddled dialect and I didn't ask), and he had the same opinion as I, which you have not reached yet. America is lost, it is just a matter of when and how its collapse will play out. He also gave me hope that there is a great deal of sympathy for those of us trapped in this camp, and may well find it possible to escape as long as we can physically get out.

The Canadian railroad?

I think the corporatists of both parties would do well to remember that it is true that there is none so free as one with nothing to lose. If they think the $8 an hour rent a cop at the gate will keep their sorry asses safe, they're in for a rude awakening.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. How long can you live if no water comes out of the tap?
Edited on Sat Jun-02-07 06:06 PM by roody
How long can you live if no food is at the grocery store? This is what we should be planning for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. In that scenario we're out of the city and the answer then is until I am
injured beyond my own ability to heal. This is an easy land, I've been self sufficient in both the Rockies and the Sonoran Desert, by comparison this area is cake.

I agree that is what may well happen, and I am prepared with experience and making the material preparations too, although I believe it is still quite a few years away. That is actually one of the problems, when/if it comes I may be too old.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. I too marvel at this
DU used to be filled with people who knew more than the average Faux viewer. I see this has changed.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Any resource that is powerful enough to make a difference, is worth undermining
and that seems to be what is happening at DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. maybe so but ...
i'm afraid it goes beyond subterfuge ... in part, DU is a victim of its own success ... as the site grew and grew, it attracted the mushy middle mundanity (no, it's not really a word) of party operatives and other "chat room charlies" who have a somewhat different agenda ...

i also think that the intensity of early DU posters has been diluted through certain policy choices ... some have been banned ... others have been tucked away into less visible "sub-forums" ...

we didn't need to be pure tinfoil but now the pendulum has been pushed, kicked and dragged much too far the other way ... there are still many things to like about DU, and some things have even improved, but there's no denying some of what was great here has been lost ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Just use your ignore
Edited on Sat Jun-02-07 08:44 AM by Zodiak Ironfist
For two years, I had to endure reading post and post from the same people where they disagree with the entire comminuty on just about every issue and use the absolute worst argumentative techniques. They spread bad energy and bad blood and frankly get my blood boiling. I thought that not ignoring them was the right thing to do so as to not disrupt "free speech"....an argument that this crowd loves to level whenever they are ignored for being asses (which is often).

When the Cindy thing hit, I put them on ignore.....all of them. I just got tired of it all and concluded that they had nothing to say that wasn't predictable or mean-spirited.

My DU experience is now so much better for it. I am 0% less informed on the issues even though I have silenced these voices on my screen.

No one wants to read nasty posts from people who seem to have nothing to do other than flood every thread they can with flame-baits, high-fiving each other in clusters, and gang-tackling prominent progressive posters. Their advice is always do nothing and trust our leaders; their calculations always give liberals no voice or recourse, and their smarminess and hostility indicates that they have no desire to becomes true members of this community other than to poop on it and the people in it.

Most DU polls on issues results in an 80/20 split. I have grown tired of the 20%ers here....they are a broken record.

They are welcome to ignore me back....all I get from them anyways are insults and stalking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
20. Because he is a left-wing authoritarian dictator.
Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. DLC neoliberals hate Chavez, fear the antiwar movement, and have utter contempt for Democratic base
Our neoliberal friends from DLC/PPI share the same goals of the neocons of PNAC fame. They only disagree in tactics and on who should profit the most (it's never the people!). They see opponents of globalization, such as the anti-G8 demonstrators, as a greater threat than Al-Qaeda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 06:47 AM
Response to Original message
7. Killbotfactory reminded us in another thread that Peru's Alan Garcia just got his own rule by decree
last April, which probably many had already forgotten.
Last Updated: Saturday, 28 April 2007, 06:31 GMT 07:31 UK

Peru leader gets emergency powers
By Dan Collyns
BBC News, Lima

Peru's parliament has granted emergency powers to President Alan Garcia in order to deal with drug trafficking and organised crime.
Congress overwhelmingly approved the move but around 20 Congressmen walked out of the session before the vote.

President Garcia has promised not to abuse the powers, which are valid for the next 60 days.
(snip)

Mr Garcia vowed to take a heavy hand against drug trafficking cartels, which have increased their presence in Peru in recent years.
(snip/...)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6602551.stm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


You probably recall he stated he expects to bomb the holy bejesus out of suspected drug places.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Interestingly enough, Alan Garcia ALSO REJECTED RENEWAL OF TWO RADIO STATIONS, AND THREE TELEVISION STATIONS in April. Where's the screeching from the right-wing controlled corporate media on this? Why didn't the right-wing posters infest every goddamed thread on that notable occassion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. It's because those posters have a hard on for Chavez. As the face of S. American
resistence to Yankee corporate dominance of his country and the region, he has become their favored whipping boy.

They can't hardly think about anything else, apparently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-03-07 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #17
31. Isn't that the truth? Have you ever seen anyone who draws more rancid, seething hostility?
They also come so unprepared with actual information on any aspect of Venezuelan history, or U.S. heavy handed interference and UNdemocratic, murderous meddling in Latin America. They are almost completely ignorant of events, dynamics the rest of us have been reading about, studying, thinking about at least since the coup.

It makes me wonder if their right-wing agitators see creating a bogeyman for them to rage against helps keep them all focused on the hope of violent aggression against him, theft of his country, and completely off the shockingly sinister administration they are supporting at home.

They choose not to see the destruction wrought here, by their ideological leaders, the profound damage to the national wellbeing now and decades into the future while they boil away in malignant rancor against someone they are incapable of understanding, separated by their ignorance, idiotic, childish dependence on their underhanded leaders, and primitive fear and hatred of people different from themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-03-07 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. The only other person that come to mind in this hemisphere is Castro in terms
of the hostility. Yes, we know Castro is a dictator. So was Batista. Yet conditions for the people of Cuba are so much better under Castro than they were under Batista, with the exception of the former ruling families under Batista. I think some of the rancor against Chavez is his open and above board friendship with Castro and Castro's Cuba. While 90% of the rest of the world does business with Cuba, vacations in Cuba, etc, they tend to down play those aspects, where as Chavez openly declares he's a friend of Castro and Cuba.

Never mind that the US, Mexico, Guatemala, Haiti, and others are ruled by unelected leaders, installed through slight of hand and/or systems that purposely preclude democratic involvement based on capital, ethnic origins, and fealty to the American Empire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
8. and the Economic Hitman says ...
Edited on Sat Jun-02-07 07:25 AM by welshTerrier2
if one looked at the world with little knowledge of history, clearly one should strongly object to the shutting down of a media outlet by a government. the "fourth estate" is supposed to be a protector of democracy and freedom. it's role should be to act as a check and balance against tyranny. it should be the "voice of the people."

well, RCTV was indeed the voice of the people. unfortunately, it wasn't the voice of the Venezuelan people. and no, it wasn't the voice of the American people either. RCTV was the voice of Big Oil. It was the voice of the BFEE. it was the voice of Bechtel.

it's interesting to see so many posts on DU critical of Chavez. i haven't seen one of these posts demonstrate an understanding of imperial US policy throughout South America and Central America. we should not judge the shutting down of RCTV in a vacuum. if the station has, for many years, been a puppet used to destabilize a duly elected government, the situation becomes very different than if a tyrannical government was oppressing the local media and depriving the citizenry of one of its institutions of freedom. put another way, who and what is the source of tyranny in Venezuela? who and what is really trying to deprive the people of Venezuela of their right to choose their own government?

John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hitman did not write about Venezuela. His focus, to give a better understand of US CIA operations in the region, was mostly on Panama and Ecuador. It's a very easy hop, skip and a jump to apply the lessons he taught from his personal involvement to the situation in Venezuela or frankly any other country in the world (e.g. Iraq and the Hydrocarbon law).

Here are a couple of excerpts from interviews Perkins did with Amy Goodman on DemocracyNow. Before you comment on whether Chavez is a good guy or a bad guy, make sure you understand the role of the US government and the assassinations it was responsible for. This first excerpt about Panama includes a little bonus about Iraq and Saddam.

source: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251

AMY GOODMAN: You're actually called economic hit men --e.h.m.’s?

JOHN PERKINS: Yeah, it was a tongue-in-cheek term that we called ourselves. Officially, I was a chief economist. We called ourselves e.h.m.'s. It was tongue-in-cheek. It was like, nobody will believe us if we say this, you know? And, so, we went to Saudi Arabia in the early seventies. We knew Saudi Arabia was the key to dropping our dependency, or to controlling the situation. And we worked out this deal whereby the Royal House of Saud agreed to send most of their petro-dollars back to the United States and invest them in U.S. government securities. The Treasury Department would use the interest from these securities to hire U.S. companies to build Saudi Arabia–new cities, new infrastructure–which we’ve done. And the House of Saud would agree to maintain the price of oil within acceptable limits to us, which they’ve done all of these years, and we would agree to keep the House of Saud in power as long as they did this, which we’ve done, which is one of the reasons we went to war with Iraq in the first place. And in Iraq we tried to implement the same policy that was so successful in Saudi Arabia, but Saddam Hussein didn't buy. When the economic hit men fail in this scenario, the next step is what we call the jackals. Jackals are C.I.A.-sanctioned people that come in and try to foment a coup or revolution. If that doesn't work, they perform assassinations. or try to. In the case of Iraq, they weren't able to get through to Saddam Hussein. He had -- His bodyguards were too good. He had doubles. They couldn’t get through to him. So the third line of defense, if the economic hit men and the jackals fail, the next line of defense is our young men and women, who are sent in to die and kill, which is what we’ve obviously done in Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain how Torrijos died?

JOHN PERKINS: Omar Torrijos, the President of Panama. Omar Torrijos had signed the Canal Treaty with Carter much -- and, you know, it passed our congress by only one vote. It was a highly contended issue. And Torrijos then also went ahead and negotiated with the Japanese to build a sea-level canal. The Japanese wanted to finance and construct a sea-level canal in Panama. Torrijos talked to them about this which very much upset Bechtel Corporation, whose president was George Schultz and senior council was Casper Weinberger. When Carter was thrown out (and that’s an interesting story–how that actually happened), when he lost the election, and Reagan came in and Schultz came in as Secretary of State from Bechtel, and Weinberger came from Bechtel to be Secretary of Defense, they were extremely angry at Torrijos -- tried to get him to renegotiate the Canal Treaty and not to talk to the Japanese. He adamantly refused. He was a very principled man. He had his problem, but he was a very principled man. He was an amazing man, Torrijos. And so, he died in a fiery airplane crash, which was connected to a tape recorder with explosives in it, which -- I was there. I had been working with him. I knew that we economic hit men had failed. I knew the jackals were closing in on him, and the next thing, his plane exploded with a tape recorder with a bomb in it. There's no question in my mind that it was C.I.A. sanctioned, and most -- many Latin American investigators have come to the same conclusion. Of course, we never heard about that in our country.


and here's a second excerpt from a different interview. this one's about Ecuador.

source: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/17/1420232
AMY GOODMAN: And then, as you said, Schultz becomes Secretary of State under Reagan, Casper Weinberger becomes Secretary of Defense under Reagan. They're the, you know, the heads of Bechtel Corporation.

JOHN PERKINS: Yeah. Yes. Carter negotiated the treaty and then lost the election, partly because of this treaty, partly because of what happened in Iran, which is another story that I was involved in. And then when Reagan became President, Schultz went from President of Bechtel to Secretary of State and Weinberger went from Chief Counsel of Bechtel to Secretary of Defense. They went back to Panama and said, Okay, Omar, now let's talk. We want the canal back, we want the military bases back in the canal zone and more than anything, we want you to stop talking to the Japanese. And Torrijos said, No, I'm a sovereign country. I am not opposing the United States. I'm not a socialist, I'm not a communist, I'm not siding with Cuba or Russia or China, I'm simply standing up for the rights of my people. We have the right to negotiate with whoever can build us the best canal. I have the right to negotiate with the Japanese. He took a very strong stand and within a few months, his plane crashed into a mountain, blew up and crashed into a mountain, and it was very strong evidence that it had been blown up by a tape recorder which was handed to him at the end that was full of explosives. There is no question in my mind and in the mind of much of the world that this was the jackals, the C.I.A.-sanctioned assassins. I've seen them work in many places. Just a couple of months before that, they had done the same thing to Jaime Roldos, President of Ecuador, the first democratically elected president of Ecuador in decades, had replaced a military junta, democratically elected, and he stood up to the U.S. oil companies. We economic hit men couldn't get through to him and his helicopter blew up then and there.

AMY GOODMAN: Why was he standing up to U.S. oil companies?

JOHN PERKINS: Because once again, he ran in the first democratic elections in Ecuador in many decades. He ran on a platform of sovereignty for his country. And if there is oil in Ecuador then, he said, the Ecuadorans should benefit from it. And once he became president, he began to introduce this. He set up a Hydrocarbons Act, he called it, which was basically a petroleum act that would ensure that if oil came out of Ecuador, the majority of the funds from that oil would go to his people. The oil companies would get a reasonable payment. But the majority would go to his people. He was setting a precedent that the oil companies couldn't stand, because throughout the world, they were exploiting all these countries, as they still are. And Roldos said, I'm not going to let that happen to my country. The oil companies couldn't bear to see that, not just because of Ecuador but, again, because of the precedent this would establish. And Roldos and Torrijos were really partners in a way. At the same time, they were supporting each other, and they both had to go. And they both went.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imperialism Inc. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Just wanted to point out that RCTV is not "shut down".
Edited on Sat Jun-02-07 08:18 AM by WakingLife
It is still alive and well on cable (if they want to). Its broadcast license was revoked for assisting a coup against the elected government of Venezuela.

Edit: I guess it is actually on some form of DirecTV not cable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. good point
thanks ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. Is it alive and well?
I heard they were not yet transmitting on cable/satellite, but I can't find comfirmation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. You can watch RCTV on cable just as you do Faux News
Don't wait for Bill-O to confirm another rightwing myth about Chavez, or the antiwar movement, or the anti-globalization G8 demonstrators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #19
28. I didn't ask about on the web
I asked about cable/satellite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-03-07 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
33. Feeling really sick about these snippets you've posted. My god. Glad I read them, however.
It provokes one to read as much as possible when time allows.

By the way, I hope you know Perkins has a new E.H.M. book due to go on sale very soon. Don't remember the title, it was mentioned here by a DU'er in the last week or so. Can be ordered online prior to sale, of course.

Thank you. Glad to have learned about Torrijos and Roldos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-03-07 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Perkins is a little "squishy" as a journalist
His book, EHM is a must read. But be prepared, while it does disclose some incredibly disturbing truths about US imperialism and how our government says one thing and does the exact opposite, Perkins seemed to have written a book that casts him as the main character in what he clearly hoped would someday be a major motion picture. while i totally believe the important themes he raised, his first person narrative at times tainted the integrity of the book. Perkins' new book is called: "The Secret History of the American Empire: Economic Hit Men, Jackals, and the Truth about Global Corruption". It's supposed to be released this week.

A "must read" book, however, if you really want to understand the "hidden story" of US imperialism, is Chalmers Johnson's "The Sorrows of Empire". Here are several links to interviews with Johnson. They're almost as good as reading the book itself:

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/global/cj_int/cj_int1.html
http://buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/056
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/IB01Aa01.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IE17Ak04.html

If you do your homework on the topic of American imperialism, you will be forced to ask the very disturbing question about whether one political party is responsible for it and the other does all it can to suppress it OR whether both parties are equally complicit in this evil crime. When I look at the failure of the Democrats to put into their Iraq funding legislation a clause to protect 100% of Iraqi oil for the Iraqi people, I become very concerned about just who is being served by the Democratic Party. I won't yet call it a conclusion; I will very definitely call it a very deep concern.

Here are the last two paragraphs of "The Sorrows of Empire" which I prominently display on my DU journal page:

There is plenty in the world to occupy our military radicals and empire enthusiasts for the time being. But there can be no doubt that the course on which we are launched will lead us into new versions of the Bay of Pigs and updated, speeded-up replays of Vietnam War scenarios. When such disasters occur, as they - or as-yet-unknown versions of them - certainly will, a world disgusted by the betrayal of the idealism associated with the United States will welcome them, just as most people did when the former USSR came apart. Like other empires of the past century, the United States has chosen to live not prudently, in peace and prosperity, but as a massive military power athwart an angry, resistant globe.

There is one development that could conceivably stop this process of overreaching: the people could retake control of the Congress, reform it along with the corrupted elections laws that have made it into a forum for special interests, turn it into a genuine assembly of democratic representatives, and cut off the supply of money to the Pentagon and the secret intelligence agencies. We have a strong civil society that could, in theory, overcome the entrenched interests of the armed forces and the military-industrial complex. At this late date, however, it is difficult to imagine how Congress, much like the Roman senate in the last days of the republic, could be brought back to life and cleansed of its endemic corruption. Failing such a reform, Nemesis, the goddess of retribution and vengeance, the punisher of pride and hubris, waits impatiently for her meeting with us."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreepFryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
15. (re-post) Bush and Chavez are ideological opposites engaged in the same program.
Bush and Chavez are both engaged in a game of 'Constitutional Hardball', in which they make every possible effort to reconstruct the government and social institutions in a way that (they hope) secures a permanent future for their ideology. It's 'constitutional hardball' because it's a 'winner-take-all' game - as arch-conservative Grover Norquist once said, "The Democrats are playing for lunch, we're playing for keeps". Left-wing or Right-wing, the game is the same. Both men are advancing their ideology without reinforcing their party position and are actively seeking to reform national institutions to favor their ideology through extreme and at times, extra-legal means.

After 30 years of relative party equilibrium in Venezuela collapsed into unprecedented anti-party sentiment, Hugo Chavez Frias won the presidential election campaigning on a platform of constitutional and social reform. After a landslide victory, he made good on his promise by calling a constitutional assembly and instituting a series of fundamental reforms that drastically transformed the political and social landscape of Venezuela. Chavez' reforms touched all areas of Venezuelan society, including the existing political party system. The effects of his movement’s reforms upon existing party structures have been deep and lasting, and while his popular support remains strong, it has yet to translate into institutionalization for even his own party. Even Chavez’ MVR party has seen its influence dwindle as the populist President has encouraged an ongoing collectivization of local political bodies in place of prior party dominance. From governors to regional mayors, Venezuelan politicians have had to contend with a new political environment in which the accumulated distrust of the political parties has itself been institutionalized.

Similarly, in the United States since taking office in the year 2000, Republican President George W. Bush has instituted a series of authoritarian reforms intended to consolidate power at every level of government. In this case, the Republican Party has facilitated a shifting of conservative coalition groups within its ranks, in favor of neo-conservative and those on the ‘Religious Right’. From agencies like the Department of Justice to FEMA, IRS to DOJ, the executive has systematically placed great power in the hands of ‘loyal Bushies’ – unquestioning ideological adherents – with little if any apparent concern for the qualifications, competence or non-partisan objectivity those positions have historically required. The damage done by the politicization of these government structures by the use of ‘constitutional hardball’ tactics on a myriad issues has greatly facilitated conservative goals, transforming the society into a decidedly authoritarian model amidst record public disapproval. The result has been a serious dilution of the effectiveness and public perception of government institutions (including the political parties themselves) in favor of an unfettered unitary executive and a rapid institutionalization of the neoconservative ideology.

In short, I believe the reason we care so much in this nation about what Chavez is doing in his nation is because the parallels with the United States are so profound - even despite the diametric opposition between their ideologies. THe reason the conservative American administration so excoriates Chavez is because he illustrates how the methodology of 'constitutional hardball' can be used to recapture political power from upper-class corporate elites and to establish a populist movement in its place. This opposite application of 'Constitutional Hardball' to achieve populist ends is what has the authoritarian Bush administration terrified.

Given the nature of democracy (rule by the people) I'm FAR more concerned about the actions of our own neo-conservative president than the perceived (and so far largely undemonstrated) claims of excesses by Chavez' populist movement.

However, I believe it's true that in both nations, it may not end soon - but it will end badly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirrera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Thank you well said! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. You should save this post into a DU journal entry
You make some astute observations of the nature of the struggle. The RCTV denial of broadcast license fuzz by the American rightwing is because they fear progressives might become emboldened enough to challenge the media concentration in America by similar means.

Likewise, progressives could respond to 30-years of court packing with Federalist Society judges by creating a new court system that would take jurisdiction away from a federal court system controlled by conservatives, or by doing some court packing of our own, such as appointing to the bench two progressive judges for every conservative jurist. If we don't repackage the courts, we will find ourselves with the same problems that FDR and the New Deal had with their conservative courts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreepFryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-03-07 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #22
36. Thank you for the acknowledgement, IndianaGreen.
Edited on Sun Jun-03-07 05:52 PM by FreepFryer
Your compliment means a lot - I've been poring through your journal and you do some excellent work.

A future progressive president of the United States could indeed initiate a Congressional Assembly in order to reform the Court and the judiciary. But without enough political power to secure every seat of that Assembly (as Chavez effectively possessed), the result would be uncontrollable and I would see such a move (even by a civil rights-focused president) as a massive risk to individual liberties and a worringly risky gamble, since calling a constitutional congress would effectively dissolve Congress and the Supreme Court.

Come to think of it, only the kind of public support that emerges for a popular, competent president who ends a dreaded war could provide that kind of public political will. Hmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-02-07 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
18. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC