Hugo Chavez is taking choices away from his people.

[originalpckelly]

Today I can navigate to some Nazi website or a white supremacist's website, I choose not to.

I'm good enough to make that choice on my own. At least for the time being, my government let's me do that. They don't shut down those types of websites. They may one day soon, we do have at the very least someone who could be described as authoritarian in the White House.**

But for the time being I choose not to look at that crap.

The people of Venezuela cannot make the same kind of choice about RCTV anymore.

And that shows a lack of confidence in the people of Venezuela by Hugo Chavez.

There were two choices taken away from the people of Venezuela by their government, the choice to watch RCTV and the choice to turn it off.

TV and popular culture in general is very democratic, it relies upon willing viewers. People can almost always turn off a TV if they don't like what's on it, or they flip to a different channel.

If the TV channel doesn't have many viewers, advertisers won't pay much for ads on it, if they even do business with that channel at all.

But Hugo Chavez doesn't trust Venezuela to make the right decision or to use the democratic nature of TV to shut down RCTV by not watching it.

What has happened is indicative of a tyrant, not a democrat. He is taking choices, albeit unsavory choices, away from his own people. He's doing that to control them, he's doing that because he wants power.

If he had an honest beef with RCTV, then he could encourage his people to democratically boycott it. If the people didn't, then that would be their decision, not his. If the people did, that would also be their decision, not his.

That's real democracy, because the people make the decision, not one man seeking power.

**It has been well demonstrated they do shut down websites they don't want us to see, the website of Hezbollah's Al-Manar is viewable, but its electronic broadcast over the internet of its TV operation is not viewable. In addition, I myself remembered the FCC and that they will not allow certain "objectionable" material to be broadcast on our TVs. That's another area of censorship, where our own government doesn't have faith in us.

[NNN0LHI]

1. Try tuning in Hezbollah TV here in the US sometime n/t

[originalpckelly]

3. Actually, I agree with you there. I forgot about them...

I actually didn't know what Al-Manar was when I read about it and clicked the link going to its server, it didn't work. It was banned. I think you can see the website, but you can't watch the TV channel over the internet.

I forgot about that, and I think that's a very good example of George Bush being a tyrant. He doesn't trust us not to watch it. If it's bad, then we ought to be able to make that decision on our own.

[originalpckelly]

10. And actually, don't forget violence on TV or nudity/expletives.

The FCC doesn't trust us to turn it off either. I could see labeling something for parents so they'll know that shit will be in there, but preventing it's broadcast altogether shows a lack of confidence in us. Our own government doesn't trust us.

[bryant69]

14. That's not a counter response

I mean if you are upset that the United States won't let you watch Hezbollah TV here, than isn't the answer for both the United States and Venuzuala to open up the channels?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[originalpckelly]

16. I know, but I think it was more intended to remind me, the author of the OP...

that there are number of cases of censorship in America, and not to forget it.

I agree with that fully, and I updated my OP to reflect it.

Although I agree with you, if the reply you replied to is intended to suggest censorship, then that's a very silly and unworkable proof. It just shows our government has taken choices away from us, not that it's right to do so.

[Tempest]

25. Or al-Jazeera

The rightwing stopped al-Jazeera's western stations from broadcasting in the U.S.

[originalpckelly]

27. Yes, you can still see it on the internet.

I know, because I've watched it just to see what it was, I didn't like it. I don't watch anymore of my own free will.

I didn't need my government to tell me it's bad.

My goodness, these people must really think we're stupid if they don't think they can trust us not to listen to something they feel is bad for us. It shows they have a lack of confidence in what they believe.

[Occulus]

2. Yeah, you're on my ignore list now

for being an incessantly, intentionally obtuse.

Byyeeee!

[unpossibles]

4. you make good points in general

but let's look at it this way: if a TV station here called for or otherwise supported a coup attempt, do you think they would still be around?

I don't.


Despite all of our great rights we have, we still have limits on them here. Just ask the Super Bowl halftime people at CBS if they have free speech. Just my 2 cents. I don't know all of the information on this, but I suspect that based on our general anti-socialist propaganda, I doubt we know the whole truth from the main stream media, and because of pro-socialist propaganda from Chavez and other sympathizers, I doubt we get the whole truth there either.

All i do know is that we are still reaping the results of 50 years of bad policy based on rabid anti-Communism Cold War BS. Look at Iran if you don't believe me.

[originalpckelly]

7. But why does he fear it? If only two people watch it, it isn't that many people...

and he doesn't have to worry. The problem is that many watched it, and still watched it.

[unpossibles]

15. the same reason I fear FOX TV?

I don't know, but while I don't think they should be banned, I do fear the dumbing down of America they represnt and in for which I hold them at least semi-responsible.

I'm just saying that we have a long history of drowing out, ignoring, and banning dissenting voices here, so who are we to point at Chavez as a problem?

[originalpckelly]

19. I think we can fix that through democracy though.

The problem isn't Fox News, the problem is that a couple million people watch Fox News. If we shut Fox News down, there will still be Fox News Zombies running around, only they won't have any brains to eat, and you know how violent zombies get when they don't have fresh brains to eat.

TV is an inherently democratic medium, even if it is owned by a corporate oligarch, it is not watched by the same. It's watched by very isolated and unexposed Americans who don't know enough to know Fox News is a right wing propaganda channel or it's watched by people who do know that fact, but don't have enough confidence to watch regular news, for fear they might hear something that might change their opinions.

[Freddie Stubbs]

76. The problem is the TV station is being replaced with a government propaganda

Why not let someone else get the license? Isn't government owning all of the TV stations as bad as a few companies doing the same?

[Louis Cipher]

5. You envision your own government taking your rights away.

Yet you do nothing. If you realy feel this way why don't you do something?

[originalpckelly]

8. Actually, I do something. I do something valuable.

I'm trying to get people to understand the principle this nation says it believes in.

[stimbox]

32. Huh?

I'm trying to get people to understand the principle this nation says it believes in.

When did Venezuela become part of the U.S.? :rofl:

All i do know is that we are still reaping the results of 50 years of bad policy based on rabid anti-Communism Cold War BS.

Yep, there sure is a lot of knee jerk anti-socialism/communism in here.
It's beginning to sound like FR, am I in the wrong place?:sarcasm:

[wndycty]

6. LOL. . .

Of course sense Chavez is critical of Bush he should get a pass on everything. . .:sarcasm:

[Cleita]

9. Actually, white supremist websites are shut down all the time here.

They usually find another domain host and server to reappear. Now I don't know if it's the government who does this, or the hosts but there is a reason why people are afraid to host them. Why do I know? I track many of these groups and have done so since I lived in Idaho back in the nineties.

[wtmusic]

48. Hosts are taking a hard line against that stuff

so they usually have to host themselves. Plenty of them still out there.

[Codeine]

101. But it's not the government that does it.

It's the hosts, the guys that own the equipment that make that decision; the Nazi hillbillies are free to find a new host or create a host for it themselves.

[On the Road]

11. Chavez is Not Simply Closing Down all Opposition Media

RCTV is remaining active in non-TV media, and there are other anti-Chavez networks still operating. He is not renewing the license of a TV network that was complicit in the 2002 coup d'etat:

On the night of the coup, Cisneros's station played host to meetings among the plotters, including Carmona. The president of Venezuela's broadcasting chamber co-signed the decree dissolving the elected National Assembly. And while the stations openly rejoiced at news of Chávez's "resignation," when pro-Chávez forces mobilized for his return a total news blackout was imposed.

Izarra says he received clear instructions: "No information on Chávez, his followers, his ministers, and all others that could in any way be related to him." He watched with horror as his bosses actively suppressed breaking news. Izarra says that on the day of the coup, RCTV had a report from a US affiliate that Chávez had not resigned but had been kidnapped and jailed. It didn't make the news. Mexico, Argentina and France condemned the coup and refused to recognize the new government. RCTV knew but didn't tell.

When Chávez finally returned to the Miraflores Palace, the stations gave up on covering the news entirely. On one of the most important days in Venezuela's history, they aired Pretty Woman and Tom & Jerry cartoons. "We had a reporter in Miraflores and knew that it had been retaken by the Chávistas," Izarra says. " the information blackout stood. That's when it was enough for me, and I decided to leave."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030303/klein

Here's more:

During the dramatic days leading up to the April 2002 coup d’etat, Venevisión, RCTV, Globovisión and Televen substituted their regular programming with non-stop vitriolic anti-Chávez propaganda, which some of their staff later acknowledged as unprofessional behavior. This relentless barrage was interrupted by commercials sponsored by the oil industry management urging TV viewers to go into the streets. Inflammatory ads blaring, “Not one step backward. Out! Leave now!” were carried by the stations as public service announcements. Later on the day of the coup, Cisneros allowed his television station Venevision to serve as the meeting place for anti-Chávez coup plotters. Reportedly, interim coup president Pedro Carmona was present....

After Chávez’s fall, the coup leaders appeared on TV thanking the media for its assistance. For their part, the stations cheered Chávez’s “resignation.” However, after huge numbers of pro-Chávez supporters had been mobilized and were marching downtown, the media imposed a news blackout. Instead, the media broadcasted non-stop soap operas and cartoons. Meanwhile, during the brief Carmona regime, the government-sponsored Venezolana de Television was taken off the air when police forces loyal to Carmona occupied the Chávez loyalist station. Independent TV stations such as Catia TV and TV Caricuao reported that their offices were raided by pro-coup police who detained their staff, and confiscated their equipment.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/103... /

[originalpckelly]

13. How many Venezuelans have cable or satellite?

[On the Road]

60. It's Really Immaterial

After the treasonous actions of the management, failing to renew the broadcast license is a slap on the wrist. Venezuelans probably get more diversity of opinion from the media than Americans do.

[originalpckelly]

68. Is there any station in Venezuela that broadcasts on a national level...

that you feel has any legitimacy?

[On the Road]

80. I Don't Know All the Stations

they mostly look like Latin versions of American stations. They show cartoons, dubbed American movies, stupid reality and variety shows, etc. I don't give any one of them a pass in particular.

As far as legitimacy, it's even harder to make sense of the news than in the US. You have government propaganda on one side, corporate propaganda on the other that present wildly differing versions. It's extremely hard to read between the lines of these opposing versions of reality to figure out what's actually happening.

In general, my impression is that the government propaganda is grandiose and comically heroic. However, when you get down to the facts, the corporate propaganda IMO is more dishonest. (Example: the stories that the Chavez military shot into civilian crowds in 2002.)

I don't know if that answers your questions. This isn't really about legitimacy of a news source; it's about political actions by the corporate owners that have led Chavez to pull the license.

On Edit: What complicates it more is that Chavez's opponents own most of the broadcast media. (Imagine if Al Sharpton were president and all the TV stations were owned by Rupert Murdoch.) But then Chavez routinely preempts regular programming to carry official government speeches and proceedings that can go on for hours.

It's a confusing mess. Chavez is anything but an all-powerful dictator. He was almost toppled three times in this decade (if you include the recall). There is a huge array of influential Venezuelans arrayed against him. And despite the devotion he inspires in the rural poor, he has a lot of detractors in the cities. It's a strange kind of asymmetrical political warfare. Don't think I've ever seen anything like it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. Hear Hear! You Are Abolutely Right About That Scumbag. His Actions Are A Disgrace. I Hope The

protests continue and the people don't take it lying down. What he did is bullshit and that sort of behavior and squelching of free speech should never be supported; ESPECIALLY here. Some people need to wake the fuck up.

[unpossibles]

17. so you think supporting overthrowing the government would be allowed to happen here?

seriously?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

22. Are back-door corporate coups acceptable?

Good question.

[originalpckelly]

24. TV propaganda doesn't work if people don't watch it.

I could understand people watching it before the coup attempt and during it, but afterward they should have known what it was capable of (if we are to believe you about the complicity of this channel.)

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

35. In my opinion, your position is unrealistic.

It would be nice if all people weren't the least bit gullible or vulnerable or easy prey to scoundrels' sway. But, such is not so.

I wonder why protecting people from scoundrels with no interest in the common good isn't the issue, here. Is it acceptable to allow predators, with no interest other than to advantage themselves of others, to get away with inciting division and violence?

I do understand the danger associated with media control. I completely understand. However, the failure to acknowledge and address the danger associated with corporate sponsors seeking (have previoiusly sought) to stir up a coup is quite disturbing. How is that any less an attack on democratic structure than the assertion of control over those sponsors?

:shrug:

[originalpckelly]

42. If it is true, don't most Venezuelans know it now?

Don't they know about RCTV and the other major networks participating in this?

If a coup is bad for them, then they aren't going to watch the network and take part in the coup. People are stupid, but the way to solve that is by educating them, not by taking their own inalienable powers away from them. To say that the government, any government, should have this power is to say that people don't know what's best for themselves or can't know. To say that is to say democracy is not real or possible.

[fishwax]

82. what "inalienable powers" did the "people" have taken away from them

The airwaves are owned by the public, not the broadcasters, and are regulated by their democratically-elected representatives.

[fishwax]

81. there are an extremely limited number of channels available

and no broadcaster has a "right" to broadcast, because their existence is itself a restriction of someone else's ability to broadcast. That's why broadcasters are regulated, and why those that fail to act in the public interest run the risk of losing their license.

If you own a printing press, then it's yours, and whatever you print on it is your business.

But if you own broadcasting equipment, it isn't the case that you own the radio frequency upon which you broadcast. That belongs to the public. And my rights to that frequency extend beyond simply choosing not to watch what you put on it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. Blah Blah Blah That's A Crock Of Crap. He's Squelching Free Speech And Dissent. He's A Scumbag.

And I don't want to hear any bullshit about what * does or doesn't do or what could or couldn't happen here. We ain't talkin bout here pal, we're talkin bout there. Both shrubby and chavey boy can be scumbag POS's.

[unpossibles]

30. so you think we should overturn the limits on our own free speech then?

and allow people to incite a panic?

I am not disagreeing with you or PC that he is squashing dissent, I am asking how you feel we have the right to tell other sovereign nations with popular leaders what to do, when we have a host of our own problems here?

If your yard is full of trash and your lawn overgrown, do you yell at your neighbor to clean up his yard and ignore your own?

Or perhaps you agree with the idea of CIA-backed propaganda stations in other countries, and our meddling with democratic elections world wide? I'm not saying I know the station had CIA backing, but knowing our history of the exact same methods used for decades in left leaning oil-rich countries, I would be more surprised if it were not.

Or perhaps you prefer to ignore the potential lessons we should have learned from our mistakes in Iran 50 years ago?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. Again, You Want To Turn The Discussion On Us. But It's About Him. They Are Independent Of Each

other.

In this thread, my concern is with HIS actions. HIS actions deem him to be a piece of shit scumbag who is squelching out dissent. If you would like to start your own thread detailing how we do the same, feel free and I'll respond there. Until then, I'm talking about the scumbag chavey wahvey, not anyone else.

[unpossibles]

34. so in other words, you ignore your own problems

to focus on another's, even if we may not know all of the information or it may be biased by our own propaganda?

Good one.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. No, Not In Other Words. In Your Own Twisted Fail To Comprehend Words.

I think my explanation is quite clear on its face. You need to learn how to focus on one thing at a time, ya know that?

[unpossibles]

44. I am focusing on one thing at a time

are you a citizen of Venezuela? perhaps I misunderstand your concern or vehemence. If so, then you are absolutely right to be upset. if not, then I don't understand why you hate it so much. This isn't the first time we've had a similar disagreement, and I don't put you on ignore, so therefore I am not pro-censorship.

I do think we need to address our own censorship issues at home as well as our well documented and hidden attempts to pander propaganda on other countries to foment dissent. How is that not the same issue?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. So Start Your Own Threads With Your Concerns Then.

See, this thread was about the piece of shit scumbag chavez, so I geared my comments and reaction towards that piece of shit scumbag chavez and his squelching of democracy and free speech. You seem to have a problem focusing on the context of the thread and want to insist on deflecting the topic back onto the US. Well sorry pal, but this thread wasn't about the U.S.. It was about chavey whavey. If ya don't like the context or the topic, then feel free to start your own thread about WHATEVERRRRRRR topic you'd like, ok?

And do me a favor, please highly consider putting me back on ignore. Would save me time from having to reply to these waste of my time responses.

[unpossibles]

54. perhaps you need to read posts a bit more closely

first of all, I said I have not used the ignore function, so i can't put you back on ignore.

Secondly, you seem unable to concentrate on why you hate Chavez so much. Yes, censorship is bad: I get that. What I don't get is your rage at the man. Did he kick you in the crotch or something?

And if you cannot understand how censorship IS the topic at hand, and instead want to make it simply one of "let's bash the evil socialist!!1!" feel free to do so.

Personally, I would rather rise above mindless anti-socialism and McCartyist fear mongering and discuss this rationally. I don't get why you would rather just call Chavez names and act immature about a serious point which is on topic - that we have no room to talk about censorship until we clean our own house first.

Ok, you hate Chavez, but don't hate censorship in general, just from Leftists. I get it.

[High Plains]

61. What's with all the insults?

"piece of shit scumbag Chavez"

"piece of shit scumbag Chavez"

"chavey wavey" (????????)

They detract from whatever point it is you claim you are trying to make. They are not arguments; just name calling.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiteinthewind]

118. OPERATIONMINDCRIME is just a real pleasant person, don't ya know? nt

[originalpckelly]

38. The basic facts are undisputed:

1. A TV channel broadcasting some type of content objectionable to Venezuela's leader and/or government has been prevented from broadcasting over the air, by method of not renewing its license.

2. In its place another TV channel now broadcasts.

In our own country, as was well pointed out earlier in this thread, there are censorship laws. Those laws are just as unjust as Venezuela's and they presuppose "we the people" are not smart enough, not good enough to make our own decisions. Our government doesn't have faith in us not to watch al-Manar, they ban it. If it is so bad for us, then I doubt many people will be interested in it.

I could understand clear labeling of what our society considers to be objectionable, but not an outright prevention of it being present in a broadcast. People just shouldn't watch it on their own.

[northzax]

65. this was the coup in 2002, right?

and it is currently 2007, right? interesting time lag for such a great threat to national security. can't have anything to do with the fiat powers Chavez has now, could it? I mean, like in all civil societies, the owners of the station can appeal their loss, right? (or not)

so the government, one man, took a station off the air, and replaced it with one funded by the government that supports his administration. and no one thinks this smells? really?

[nxylas]

66. That's because their licence expired in 2007

If Chavez was the dictator everyone claims, then he would have shut them down immediately, rather than simply declining to renew their broadcast licence when the time came.

[frylock]

95. they would have been jailed and possibly executed..

if Chavez were indeed the dictator the uninformed masses proclaim he is.

[unpossibles]

39. and by the way, it looks like the citizens of the country

are protesting the move, as is their right.

I don't see anyone doing the same here.

[brentspeak]

52. Please stick to the subject, which is Hugo Chavez

[unpossibles]

59. the subject is not Hugo Chavez

I thought the subject was censorship.

Or am I wrong? You just want to bash someone for any reason? My bad - I thought maybe it was because of the censorship that the thread was started, therefore I was discussing censorship in general, and the possibility of intelligence agencies using media as a way to spread propaganda - which has been done many times in the past and present.

How is that not related? The station in the OP backed the coup of a democratically elected leader. I'm not even defending his decision, but I am saying that there is not a country in the world that would not shut down a supporter of a coup. If I am wrong, please point it out, but I don't see it happening.

I also don't think it's unrelated to discuss our own actions and the hypocrisy of pointing fingers at others without consideration of our own issues.

[prolesunited]

114. Bzzzzzz

That's the alarm clock going off for YOU.

[malaise]

18. Americans love talking about political democracy

The rest of the world understands that neo-liberal democracy means all rights belong to corporations. It is no longer in the planet's interest to be fooled by the goons promoting the Washington consensus model. US corporations are no longer entitled to abuse the majority of citizens of this planet for their profits/US national interests. We do have our own self interests which do not coincide with US hegemony. The rich do not own this world or all of our governments.

Americans would do better to organize their own regime change rather than tellign the rest of the planet who should rule them on whose behalf.

Viva Chavez - economic democracy matters.

[originalpckelly]

21. Excuse me, but as long a no one is forced to watch TV at gunpoint...

then they can simply turn it off or turn the channel.

What about that isn't true? Can't people just turn off a TV? Can't they just change the channel? Isn't that true?

Ownership of the media is far from democratic, but viewership is inherently democratic, even with that corporate ownership (which by the way I think should change, just not the way you might want it to.)

[michael.098762001]

28. Chavez RCTV Closure Rejected by 70% of Venezuelans, Poll Finds

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DemocraticLeft/message/25446
Chavez RCTV Closure Rejected by 70% of Venezuelans, Poll Finds
http://www.insurreccion.org/index.php?q=node/9158

(Hmm, Chomsky, Touraine, Petras: Opinions on the South, on the right
hand column of the webpg.)

Venezuela: RCTV's Loss of License

RCTV (Radio Caracas Television), a private media station and critic of
President Hugo Chavez will not have its license renewed by the
government at the end of May. Oil Wars wonders what will replace RCTV,
but thinks this is an opportunity to restructure how media is
controlled. However, Caracas Chronicles mentions polling results that
found nearly 70% of Venezuelans do not agree with this non-renewal,
"making it the least-popular move of his eight-year presidency."

http://caracasconnect.blogspot.com/2007/04/chavez-rctv-closure-rejected-by-70-of\
.html
Chavez RCTV Closure Rejected by 70% of Venezuelans, Poll Finds

President Hugo Chavez's refusal to renew Radio Caracas Television's
broadcast license next month is opposed by almost 70 percent of
Venezuelans, making it the least-popular move of his eight-year
presidency, Caracas pollster Luis Vicente Leon said.

Some 69.4 percent of respondents surveyed by Leon's Datanalisis firm
said they disapprove of Chavez's pledge to let the television
network's license expire, while 16.4 percent said they support it. The
survey of 2,000 Venezuelans, conducted between April 9 and April 16,
has a margin of error of 2.2 percentage points.

Only Chavez's proposals to use Cuba as an economic and political model
for Venezuela have received similarly high levels of opposition, Leon
said today in a telephone interview.

Resistance to closing the 54-year-old RCTV network, which draws the
largest audience in Venezuela, is due more to a desire for free choice
among channels than for free speech, Leon said.

[newyawker99]

43. Hi michael.098762001!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[originalpckelly]

45. Happy birthday!

I saw the other thread, but now that you're here I'll get you! Happy birthday, and thanks for all you do for DU!

[wtmusic]

51. The Putin school of reform

What's next, polonium poisonings? :shrug:

[unpossibles]

67. is the insureccion website right wing?

a couple of articles seem to bash the anti-war protest groups (such as the one you mentioned about Chomsky).

Just curious about the sources.

[frylock]

96. this isn't any kind of political backlash or outcry against censorship..

these people simply want their soap operas and sitcoms that RCTV used to broadcast back on the air. I don't care for FOX at all, but if the govt. shut them down I sure as hell would not be happy about not getting my Simpsons.

[killbotfactory]

107. Some info on Datanalisis, who conducted the poll

Datanalisis’ Pollster: Chavez “has to be killed”

According to T. Christian Miller of the LA Times, Gil Yepes saw an assassination as the only way out of the “political crisis surrounding President Hugo Chavez.” Gil Yepes has since claimed that his quote was taken out of context, and that he was only making reference to an oft-expressed sentiment among Chavez’s opposition.

But let’s look at the full context as reported by the LA Times:

Jose Antonio Gil is among Venezuela’s elite.

He moves in circles of money, power and influence. He was educated in top U.S. schools. He heads of one of the country’s most prestigious polling firms.

And he can see only one way out of the political crisis surrounding President Hugo Chavez.

“He has to be killed,” he said, using his finger to stab the table in his office far above this capital’s filthy streets. “He has to be killed.”

One need look no further than Datanalisis’ website to find the kind of blatant political partisanship that one normally does not associate with respectable polling operations. For example, in Datanalisis’ summary of a July 2002 report, the polling firm absurdly characterizes the current political conflict as one between the government (“el oficialismo”) and “the rest of the country.”

http://www.narconews.com/Issue27/article594.html

[michael.098762001]

29. All Hell Breaks Loose In Caracas: Students on Strike

?x=380&y=268&sig=OvOhgcqOOoi8UZ2rcqHRgA
?x=314&y=345&sig=O9Kh.odiHvvA4iuqDUCuUA

[michael.098762001]

31. All Hell Breaks Loose In Caracas: Students on Strike

?x=380&y=268&sig=OvOhgcqOOoi8UZ2rcqHRgA--

[michael.098762001]

40. Riot police charge toward students

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/030204venezuela/im:/070528/481/b6103611f45f480ca4cd1d529c2bcd32;_ylt=AsMlPwwIJS9uGTcaIsX71YqaK8MA

[Blue-Jay]

97. Dingleberry responds to own posts

[malaise]

102. Find out who's footing the bill n/t

[originalpckelly]

112. Find out who's footing the bill for the demonstrations supporting the RCTV shutdown.

I have a feeling they're being supported by Chavez.

[gravity]

20. Chavez is going to lose political support over this

You can't just take away people's favorite TV shows and expect them to be happy that their government has decided what's best for them to watch.

[michael.098762001]

26. media reform -- Venezuela style

http://marccooper.com/media-reform/
COOPER was a translator for Allende.

[Codeine]

132. If DU is any bellwether

then perhaps not.

[NoPasaran]

37. But Comrade Chavez is right about everything!

His people love him, except for those who get paychecks from the CIA. They don't NEED and choices! In fact, they hate the very idea that there could BE any choices!

:sarcasm:

[gravity]

41. He hates Bush, so everything he does must be right

Even a caveman can figure that one out

[BlooInBloo]

46. Well, that IS what dictators do, after all.

[H2O Man]

47. I live in the USA. n/t

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

58. Hey! Me, too!!!

:P Yours has to be one of the most impactful short responses, EVER! *LOL*

[treestar]

49. The whole thing screams black op to me

They have oil and now there just happens to be "chaos" in their country.

Hugo's actions are in reaction to that, and that's the point, create a chaotic situation.

If they didn't have oil, I might not believe this. But they do. The one country in the Western Hemisphere that has a lot of oil. And wouldn't you know it has a left wing "dictator?" Guess that's just a coincidence. :sarcasm:

[originalpckelly]

55. I do regard any event on foreign soil with great suspicion...

the CIA actually paid people to protest in Iran during the 50s when they trying to overthrow Mossadeq.

However, the relevant facts here have been confirmed by the government and the events:
A channel that has broadcast highly objectionable material has been removed from the air by the method of not renewing its license, this was done by the government of Venezuela.

[AllieB]

57. Anyone with a knowledge of Latin American history

knows that the CIA has a dirty hand in this. 50 years ago it was protecting the interests of United Fruit in Guatemala. Today it's protecting the oil interests of the oligarchy and multi-national corporations. Different era, same interventionist foreign policy.

[shance]

53. You are so ill informed, but that's your choice.

If you choose to support this Administration instead of a humanitarian like Chavez (because that's essentially what you are doing), then I believe you've made a very dumb decision.

[originalpckelly]

56. I didn't say I supported this administration, did I?

Is it really an "either or" choice? Can't I think they're both bastards?

[tjwash]

63. Sure. Lets liberate them too.

While we are at it lets liberate Peru, Argentina, Columbia, Brazil, half the countries in Asia, and pretty much all of Africa.

Or are we just steamed at countries that have our oil under their ground today?

[originalpckelly]

71. Don't jump to conclusions, I didn't say that, I didn't even imply that...

and I don't think it is even the right thing to do to influence Venezuela, it will make them hate us more than they already do, and it will give Chavez another enemy to "stand up" to.

[porphyrian]

64. I don't think we have much room to criticize them until we fix things here.

Until we do, we just seem even more hypocritical.

[Rainscents]

70. I agree!

[originalpckelly]

72. Would you forbid someone from supporting Chavez in the way you'd have me muzzled?

[porphyrian]

92. Oh, get the fuck out of here...

I didn't tell you what you could or couldn't say, and I certainly didn't "muzzle" you. Don't be a fucking drama queen.

[killbotfactory]

69. RCTV can still broadcast on cable and satellite

This isn't analogous to shutting down a newspaper, or a website.

No one is being thrown in jail for dissenting with Chavez, the press is not being censored of any anti-Chavez opinion in the media. People are still protesting (some violently) against Chavez and holding mass rallies.

This is about public airwaves and who gets to broadcast over them. The US has the FCC for this type of thing, and I'm pretty sure we don't allow media companies to encourage overthrowing the government by force, show pornography, advertise cigarettes, commit tax fraud, or advocate violence against the political opposition, either. Those are the reasons that the RCTV license is not being renewed.

[originalpckelly]

73. How many people have cable or satellite TV?

[killbotfactory]

74. Not as many as have antenna's

But the point is that the public airwaves should not be abused in the way RCTV abused them.

Aiding and abetting a coup against a democratically elected government wouldn't be allowed in any government on Earth.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-jones30may30,1,5553603.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Free speech doesn't mean media conglomerates controlled by oligarchies get free reign and exclusive access to the public airwaves.

[fishwax]

75. Are you unaware that broadcasters lose their licenses in the United States as well?

Broadcast licenses--and the non-renewal of broadcast licenses--is not limited to Venezuela. We have it here in the states as well, and stations will lose their broadcast license if they fail to serve the public good.

Broadcast stations are regulated, because the radio spectrum is a scarce resource, owned by the people, and it is the government's job to ensure that that scarce resource is used in a matter befitting the public good.

The license renewal does not effect RCTV's ability to air their programming on cable or on satellite, but they've thus far chosen not to.

Over-the-air stations do not have the right to broadcast whatever they want, either in Venezuela nor here in the United States.

[Freddie Stubbs]

77. What happens then? Is it replaced by a govenrment run station?

One which only broadcasts things favorable to the government?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

78. Umm, yes, as a matter of fact. We have LOTS of government-sponsored,...

,...propaganda these days. Our government and corporations are so intertwined one can hardly distinguish the two.

Or, are you denying the government-sponsored propaganda in this country?

[fishwax]

79. the regulating agency grants the license to someone else

who, like the earlier station, may lose their license if they fail to operate in the public good.

[originalpckelly]

90. Are you saying the people don't know what's in their own interests?

Why should a small group of people have the ability to tell a vastly larger group what's in their best interests?

Are the people of Venezuela, or even America for that matter, incapable of turning off their TVs if they don't like what they're watching? Can't they change the channel?

What you are really doing is arguing against democracy, of course the stations are owned by corporate oligarchs and that should be changed in both Venezuela and America, but it's not going to be solved by government oligarchs and plain old tyrants taking over the TV stations. It's replacing one small and powerful group with yet another. Meet the old boss, same bullshit as the old boss.

The people have an inalienable power, so long as they can choose to turn the channel or turn off the TV, they can control whether or not the broadcast has power.

Maybe they honestly didn't know about RCTV, in that case, if Chavez is so popular he could have made his that they are so bad directly to the people, he could have asked them to boycott RCTV until it divests itself of foreign interests or agree to sell itself to a more democratic government independent organization. The people of Venezuela could have then made their own choice as to whether they would boycott RCTV or not.

They don't get to do that anymore.

I also have major issues with our forms of censorship, which have been pointed out so well by posters with far more kindness and willingness to debate in a civil manner. The wonders of a marketplace of ideas is that you can be reminded of flaws in your own thinking and writings, as I was earlier. I appreciated that and I tried to correct my original post to reflect it.

[fishwax]

93. are you saying broadcasters have the right to broadcast whatever they want w/o intervention?

Are you saying the people don't know what's in their own interests?

No. I'm not saying anything remotely similar to that.

Why should a small group of people have the ability to tell a vastly larger group what's in their best interests?

A few things about that:
--1st, there is no small group of people telling the vastly larger group what's in their best interests. They are making a judgment as to whether a specific station has been operating in the public interests. That's a different thing.

--2nd, in the case of Chavez, that person is the democratically elected leader of the country. In the case of the FCC, it is a small group of people whose tenure is regulated by our democratic representatives. That doesn't make it anti-democratic. That's how a represenational government works.

--3rd, without regulation, you would absolutely have a small group of people (in this case, the wealthy elites who run RCTV) telling a larger group of people what's in their best interests.

--4th, the reason regulation of the airwaves is important is because the airwaves are a scarce resource and I have every right to have my voice heard about how those airwaves are used. It isn't up to the broadcasters. They don't own the airwaves; we the people do.

To take a situation much less severe than what happened in Venezuela: If a local broadcast station, during, say, the Kerry/Bush debates, had decided not to broadcast anything that Kerry said, but rather to replace the feed with a stirring patriotic montage of GW Bush and other administration figures set to patriotic music every time Kerry was speaking--then I would certainly have the choice to turn it off. But I would also have the option to determine that they have no absolute right to broadcast whatever they want on the scarce resource of the broadcast spectrum, and that their presentation of that debate violated their required commitment to the public trust, and so work to see that the next time their license came up for renewal, they would be denied. That's not fascist or censorship or somebody telling the public what's good for them; rather, that is ensuring that the scarce resource of the broadcast spectrum, owned by we the people and not by individual broadcasters, serves the public good.

Are the people of Venezuela, or even America for that matter, incapable of turning off their TVs if they don't like what they're watching? Can't they change the channel?

Of course they are, but that's irrelevant. RCTV's existence meant that no other station could possibly broadcast on that frequency. The airwaves are not like, say, cable, where if you don't like what CNN programs you can start a new channel to compete. The airwaves are scarce and limited, and that's why they are regulated. That's why cable channels aren't regulated by the FCC in the way that broadcast stations are. The broadcast airwaves are a limited resource which WE own, and that's why, should, say, your local ABC affiliate convert to 24-hour nazi propaganda, they will likely lose their license to someone else who demonstrates that they will use that limited resource to further the public good.

What you are really doing is arguing against democracy

That's BS.

of course the stations are owned by corporate oligarchs and that should be changed in both Venezuela and America,

Regardless of who owns the stations, THE PEOPLE own the airwaves. It was the frequency that was taken over. That's why RCTV still has the right to turn out their programming through cable or satelite networks.

but it's not going to be solved by government oligarchs and plain old tyrants taking over the TV stations.

It's also not going to be solved by simply SURRENDERING the people's ownership of the scarce resource that is the broadcast spectrum. The corporations may own the networks (and that may or may not be changed), but the public certainly ought not cede the airwaves to those who own the stations.

This surrender of the public's interest in this limited resource seems to be what your argument relies on, and I'm not sure whether that's because you really feel that way, or because you really see no difference between using a strictly limited resource and a virtually unlimited resource, (such as the Internet example that you included in your OP).

The people have an inalienable power, so long as they can choose to turn the channel or turn off the TV, they can control whether or not the broadcast has power.

The broadcast has power whether anyone watches or not, because it prevents something else from being broadcast in its place, since the broadcast spectrum is a limited frequency and there are only so many channels available. In the US, there are 12 channels available on the VHF band.

Are you suggesting that, if some wealthy bigot owned a TV station in a large market and decided to monopolize one of those stations with 24-hour KKK propaganda, he should simply be able to? Even if nobody watches--which you're suggesting should be the only power we the people have--he's usurping 12.5% of the VHF band in that city, and the mere existence of his broadcast prevents other voices from being heard. Sorry, that doesn't sound like democracy to me.

... which have been pointed out so well by posters with far more kindness and willingness to debate in a civil manner.
I'm a bit stumped by this one. I'm sorry if you think I've been uncivil, as that was not my intent; but frankly, I don't see where I've been uncivil. I didn't, for instance, accuse you of arguing against democracy. So again, I don't see where I've been uncivil or unkind, but if you want to point me in that direction I'll be glad to discuss it further.

Also, I'm not trying to point out our censorship issues, I'm trying to point out the fundamental difference between the regulation of broadcast television (which stems from the fact that it is a scarce resource) and the regulation of cable or print media, which would be outrageous. I certainly disagree with how the FCC is used sometimes, but I don't disagree that the public's interest in the broadcast spectrum is worth defending. Do you?

[killbotfactory]

94. Thank you for that

I've been trying to get that point across in too many threads.

[fishwax]

99. alas, it can be pretty difficult to get such a point across

when so many minds are simply closed and when that kind of confusion is so useful to those who are all too happy to spread disinformation. :)

[stirlingsliver]

116. But If A Station Loses Its License

But if a station loses its license, it has the opportunity to formally plead its case before the license is revoked.

And, I think stations in the US that lose their license have the opportunity to appeal the loss of their license.

Neither of which happened in Venezuela.

Chavez simply shut the station down.

No chance for the station to formally plead its case.

Or to appeal.

My guess is that if Bush tried to do the same thing here, we'd be up in arms.

I know I would be.

[killbotfactory]

117. This is due to laws enacted before Chavez was elected

[stirlingsliver]

119. So?

You mean Chavez did it because he could?

Chavez unilaterally shut down a broadcast TV station.

If Bush did that here, I know I'd be up in arms.

[fishwax]

121. why would chavez choose his course based on US law

:shrug:

Chavez followed the country's law and came to the same conclusion about not renewing the license as would any regulatory agency in any country in the world given the facts of the case.

[stirlingsliver]

122. And, apparently, 70 Per Cent of the Venezuelan Population

You suggest that "any regulatory agency in any country in the world" would do what Chavez did (that is, unilaterally decide to pull the plug on a broadcast TV network), given the facts of the case.

You may be right. There is no real way to know.

But we do know this:

70 per cent of the people in Venezuela are reacting the same way any freedom-loving people of the world would react to such an act of tyranny by one person.

[killbotfactory]

123. 70 percent according to datanalisis

Who employs pollsters that have stated Chavez needs to die.

No, really.

According to T. Christian Miller of the LA Times, Gil Yepes saw an assassination as the only way out of the “political crisis surrounding President Hugo Chavez.” Gil Yepes has since claimed that his quote was taken out of context, and that he was only making reference to an oft-expressed sentiment among Chavez’s opposition.

But let’s look at the full context as reported by the LA Times:

Jose Antonio Gil is among Venezuela’s elite.

He moves in circles of money, power and influence. He was educated in top U.S. schools. He heads of one of the country’s most prestigious polling firms.

And he can see only one way out of the political crisis surrounding President Hugo Chavez.

“He has to be killed,” he said, using his finger to stab the table in his office far above this capital’s filthy streets. “He has to be killed.”

One need look no further than Datanalisis’ website to find the kind of blatant political partisanship that one normally does not associate with respectable polling operations. For example, in Datanalisis’ summary of a July 2002 report, the polling firm absurdly characterizes the current political conflict as one between the government (“el oficialismo”) and “the rest of the country.”

http://www.narconews.com/Issue27/article594.html

http://www.narconews.com/Issue33/article1007.html

[eridani]

136. Right, like 70% of the US voters preferred Landon to FDR in 1936

Must have been true--it was the result of a telephone poll. Of course telephone ownership in those days was far more skewed to affluence. Any evidence to support their use of random sampling techniques?

[originalpckelly]

125. Legality or illegality are not the sole definition of right and wrong.

You are basing your argument solely upon legality, not justice.

[fishwax]

127. actually, I'm not

I think the result was clearly legal under Venezuela law and I haven't seen any convincing argument that it was unjust.

[originalpckelly]

128. Anything can be made legal, again you quote law as the primary justification.

I bet you haven't seen any convincing arguments, it is very hard to have one's mind changed when they are a member of a militant personality cult, which is what the supporters of Chavez in America resemble.

[fishwax]

129. again, you misread me

I'm not citing the law as my primary justification. The issues of what's legal and what's just are, as you said before, quite separate. I don't disagree at all.

It's also the case that, just because someone did something that would cause outrage in the United States (it would, after all, be illegal here), that does not make it unjust. I was questioning the implied standard in post 119 by which that which would cause outrage here is considered prima facie unjust: Chavez unilaterally shut down a broadcast TV station ... If Bush did that here, I know I'd be up in arms.

I agree with you that anything can be made legal and that legality does not justice make.

I bet you haven't seen any convincing arguments, it is very hard to have one's mind changed when they are a member of a militant personality cult, which is what the supporters of Chavez in America resemble.

Sweet. Now you're implying that I'm some brainwashed member of a militant personality cult, after you earlier (a) suggested I was unkind and not interested in civil debate and (b) accused me of arguing against democracy. Perhaps it isn't that my mind is closed, but rather that such tactics aren't particularly effective.

[NaturalHigh]

83. One Word: Dictator.

That's Hugo. An insecure little man with a need to dominate. How long before the Stalinist purges begin?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

84. One word: democratically-elected.

When will the purges begin? Well, I suppose if you're right, they'll start any minute now.

[Mutineer]

85. Yeah, so's Castro.

He's still a dictator though.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

86. Which is it?

dic·ta·tor

–noun
1. a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

In a democracy, like Venezuela, the power ultimately rests with the people. Thus one cannot be a dictator and have democratic elections. They're contradictory.

[LoZoccolo]

110. That would be #1, because he is ruling by decree.

And the reason for that is that his nuts shrunk up.

[eridani]

137. How are those decrees different from our own executive orders?

Were you unhappy when Clinton restored funding to international family planning agencies in 1993? I sure wasn't.

[NaturalHigh]

87. Some dictators were elected...

and then consolidated power, as Hugo has done. Did you ever take a world history course? Honestly, I don't get the DU love affair with this asshole.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

88. I haven't seen any evidence that he's consolidated power.

People made that claim before his last election. That sure got debunked.

Tell it to me again the next time he gets elected.

[NaturalHigh]

89. When a "leader" shuts down television stations...

because they disagree with him, he has begun to consolidate power and is on his way to doing more. Stay tuned.

[unpossibles]

91. good thing the only thing we do here

is start a meme about how the news is liberally biased, then later create a "news" station backed by rich right wing funders which promotes itself as being the "fair and balanced" station.

Not the same thing at all since one is forced off air by not renewing a license, and the other example uses propaganda and money to force its values upon us.

Or is it?

[NaturalHigh]

131. No, it's not the same.

You're free to watch Fox (or CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, or MSNBC for that matter) or not. Forcing a station of the air to squelch dissent is a totally different thing.

[unpossibles]

135. and if you think that any of those networks don't kowtow to their sponsors

and to the propaganda message, you're kidding yourself.

yes, you can turn it off or change the channel - so can the people of Venezuela, as they have several other media outlets to choose from. Do you think GE is going to broadcast shows critical of the military industrial machine?

I guess we'll just have to disagree.

[eridani]

138. Since when does anyone have a right to public airwaves?

If I have such a right, how come I don't have a radio station?

[killbotfactory]

98. RCTV tried to violently overthrow the government!

This is not a simple case of political dissent being squashed.

[Cleita]

104. Yes, they did.

Read this:http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107

RCTV and other commercial TV stations were key players in the April 2002 coup that briefly ousted Chávez's democratically elected government. During the short-lived insurrection, coup leaders took to commercial TV airwaves to thank the networks. "I must thank Venevisión and RCTV," one grateful leader remarked in an appearance captured in the Irish film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The film documents the networks’ participation in the short-lived coup, in which stations put themselves to service as bulletin boards for the coup—hosting coup leaders, silencing government voices and rallying the opposition to a march on the Presidential Palace that was part of the coup plotters strategy.

On April 11, 2002, the day of the coup, when military and civilian opposition leaders held press conferences calling for Chávez's ouster, RCTV hosted top coup plotter Carlos Ortega, who rallied demonstrators to the march on the presidential palace. On the same day, after the anti-democratic overthrow appeared to have succeeded, another coup leader, Vice-Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez, told a Venevisión reporter (4/11/02): "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you."

More at link.

Thanks to High Plains post on this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1005404

[fishwax]

100. a TV station was complicit in a coup against the government and then, when, their license was up for

renewal, it was not renewed. The second does not in any way seem surprising to me, given the first.

Because the broadcast spectrum is a limited resource, every country in the world regulates the distribution of that resource. I can't imagine any country in the world that would renew a license, granting further use of such a limited and valuable resource, to a company that had participated in an attempt to violently overthrow said government. Indeed, it's hard to imagine a country where the government would wait five years for the license to expire, rather than to immediately revoke the license.

[Cleita]

103. Oh I get it, Chavez is getting trashed for what he might do, not

what he has actually done.

[EFerrari]

105. We have a lot of DU theorists on this topic, not many experts. n/t

[originalpckelly]

106. Well, let's talk about Hugo Chavez and what he has already done.

Let's start with his own coup.

Would any nation elect a man involved in a coup anywhere else in the world? Even if they'd been pardoned, as Chavez was?

Would that person be allowed to disband the national legislature and convene an emergency constituent assembly to change the Venezuelan constitution?

I highly doubt it.

You know Hitler had a putsch and he went to prison, and then he decided to go the legal route, and everything he did after that point was technically legal, though it was totally criminal.

It's not only what he might do, but what he has done. That's a very disturbing historical parallel.

He tells people what they want to hear, he knows how to push all the right buttons. He's a great public speaker.

To be fair, he has given our citizens discounted heating oil. That's a very nice thing to do, something I doubt our own decider and his oil cronies wouldn't do.

[Gabi Hayes]

108. your ignorance of basic history, as shown on this thread, is simply astounding!

....and I mean that in a nice way.

''Would any nation elect a man involved in a coup anywhere else in the world? ''

there was this guy a few years back.....I think his name was Washington...ring any bells?

after you look him up, you can google Bolivar, Toussaint L'Overture, Bernardo O'Higgins. the list goes back a LONG way. have fun

enough said?

[originalpckelly]

113. You need to go look up the definitions of revolution and coup before you start...

quoting historical figures to support a tin pot dictator's attempt at gaining power illegally.

The definitions are very different.

Here is just a brief summary to start you on your way from Wikipedia, you may go look it up elsewhere if you do not trust the source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_de_tat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution

[killbotfactory]

124. He staged a coup against a government that killed nearly 3000 people

during riots and protests against neoliberal reforms which put the screws to the most needy.

And that act made him extremely popular with Venezuelas underclass, because apparently they don't take kindly to people who keep them in miserable poverty and then kill them.

[originalpckelly]

126. I guess you would have to understand that Chavez history of coups...

and violent revolutionary organizations predates those killings. In fact the 1992 coup began planning during the early '80s, with an organization named EBR 200 and later named MBR 200.

Chavez took advantage of the timing and political sentiment to attempt a grab at power, which he might have accomplished had it only been better planned.

[killbotfactory]

134. Venezuela has a previous history of miliary coups occuring.

After the 1970's Venezuela was quite corrupt.

Hence the whole gigantic underclass of people living in desperate poverty.

[BeHereNow]

120. Astounding, yes. Unfortunately, too often the norm for posts on DU of late. N/T

BHN

[Cleita]

109. Okay, let's take this argument further.

Did Chavez invade the country that tried to have him assassinated? Speaking of that heating oil for poor people, did he impose sanctions on the heating oil for the USA after we tried to assassinate him?

As far as elections, it seems we have a leader who staged a coup and was elected President. I believe his name was George Washington. I know about Hitler and our President is doing the same thing almost word for word, as if Karl Rove read "Mein Kampf". Chavez is not the problem here, we are.

If he wasn't sitting on top of all that lovely oil and preventing our oil companies from getting it, no one here in the USA would give a shit. Our country loves tinpot dictators as long as they take the money and don't interfere with the American corporate agenda. So to even bash him as something we don't approve of is very hypocritical.

[originalpckelly]

111. No, he just started a propaganda campaign to make himself look like a good guy.

Why not do it back in '98 when he was first elected, before he started taking dramatic measures to consolidate power?

It's because he wasn't really interested in our poor, just in improving his image in the United States, and a bunch of idiots believed him, and now they're making anyone who's a liberal look like a jackass because we've got people on our side unquestionably supporting a fucking dictator acting like his pawns.

Do you ever question his motivations?

I know I am certain to question the motives of the news reporters discussing events in Venezuela, primarily because I know they are biased. That doesn't mean I'm ignorant enough to defend a damn dictator.

[Cleita]

115. He's not a dictator.

He knows that the same people who keep him in power will dump him as quickly as they supported him if he becomes another banana republic front man. I argued the same about Salvador Allende of Chile to the "OMG he's a communist" crowd. I argued he was elected and if he screws up he will be unelected. I know the Chilean people. Half my family are Chilean. But, no American interests were at risk, so our effing government had to assassinate him.

It's the same with Chavez. He has popular support. If he screws up he will go. But, we have to leave Venezuelans alone to determine their own destiny. We have to stay out of it. However, we can't because American corporate interests and global oil politics are pushing this dictator BS to the world.

Bush, on the other hand is a dictator because we are too stupified to get rid of him. If that last signing statement or directive doesn't chill you, it should. Read it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

[NaturalHigh]

130. No, I'm trashing him for what he's actually done.

Controlling the press by shutting down a TV station that opposes him is squelching dissent any way you look at it.

[eridani]

139. No it isn't. No one has a right to public airwaves n/t

[rug]

133. Hugo Chavez is giving the country back to his people.

[Vidar]

140. More DLC talking points.