Chávez is no enemy of free speech

[Extend a Hand]

Hugo Chávez let Radio Caracas Televisión continue to air for five years after the station supported a coup attempt.
By Bart Jones

<snip>
Would a network that aided and abetted a coup against the government be allowed to operate in the United States? The US government probably would have shut down RCTV within five minutes after a failed coup attempt – and thrown its owners in jail. Chávez's government allowed it to continue operating for five years and then declined to renew its 20-year license to use the public airwaves. It can still broadcast on cable or via satellite dish.
<snip>
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0604/p09s01-coop.html?page=1

[bryant69]

1. Honestly doesn't that weaken their case?

I mean if this network were a threat to Chavez or the People of Venezuala why not shut it down immediately? Instead you wait 5 years and then take it off the air? It kind of makes it harder to believe the theory that this station was a threat.

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

[LynnTheDem]

3. When you violate the laws covering public broadcast licenses,

then you don't get your license renewed.

Fact of life.

Including here in the US of A.

[malaise]

45. That simple

I don't understand the fuss.

[NorthernSpy]

11. LOL! Go sell that meme to someone dumb enough to buy it!

I mean if this network were a threat to Chavez or the People of Venezuala why not shut it down immediately? Instead you wait 5 years and then take it off the air? It kind of makes it harder to believe the theory that this station was a threat.

:rofl:

Wow -- talk about disingenuous!

Yeah, I'd just bet that if Venezuela had immediately raided RCTV for aiding and abetting the coup, the complainers here would have accepted this and not bashed Chavez for "crushing freeee speech".

:eyes:

Why wait 5 years? Because that's when RCTV's license ran out. In all this, the Venezuelan government has been vastly more tolerant than our own -- which is currently threatening Mr. Javed Iqbal with PRISON for offering satellite broadcast packages that included access to Hezbollah's news channel al Manar.


Bottom line: in Venezuela as in the United States, a public broadcast license is privilege, not a right. If you fail to live up to the terms of your license, you might -- get ready for a big shock -- actually lose that license! You might even end up having to put forth your views freely via a medium you actually own, such as a newspaper (the horror!).

[EFerrari]

17. I guess if you were a dictator you'd shut it down right away

and not go through legal channels.

[murloc]

21. Chavez had to get his enabling act passed first

Its alot easier to shutdown the media once that is done.

Its far far easier to shutdown dissent as dictator, than it as as President.

Even dictators have priorities.

[fishwax]

24. the "enabling act" had nothing to do w/ his power over renewal or non-renewal of broadcast licenses

[arikara]

43. He didn't shut down "the media"

He failed to renew the license of a station that abetted the CIA backed perpetrators of a coup on him... being the democratically elected leader of his country. A station that continued to do so, and which is believed to be covertly funded by the CIA.

[Squatch]

2. How nice of him.

"Hugo Chávez let Radio Caracas Televisión continue to air for five years"

[LynnTheDem]

5. Yes.

How long do you think the US government would "let" a public TV station stay on the air after they'd incited & participated in the attempted overthrow of the US government?

[jefferson_dem]

7. No shit. That "frame" indicates the total lack of appreciation for what free press is really about.

A free press is a natural right and fully expected!

The question then is: can Hugo rightfully censor that free press? Since he objects to RCTV on strictly political grounds, the answer should be obvious...

[LynnTheDem]

13. A license to broadcast on public airwaves is not a right, never has been.

Facts are a good thang.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[NorthernSpy]

9. unlike the US government, who are threatening Javed Iqbal with a 5 year prison term...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1039310


Good ol' double standards.

[LynnTheDem]

14. But it's ok when we do it (usually much worse); it's only bad when we're

told by the US government it's bad, always because the leader(s) in question refuse to bow to the US government's every demand.

[LynnTheDem]

31. Only dictatorships revoke and/or refuse to renew public broadcast licenses!

FCC revokes license for San Francisco public TV station KQEC
http://www.current.org/ptv/ptv888kqed.shtml

"outside groups have persuaded the agency (FCC) to deny renewal to roughly a dozen TV licenses based on stations' failure to serve the public interest."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA454236.html?display=Top+of+the+Week&

"The F.C.C. already has powerful leverage to hold broadcasters to their end of the bargain. Every eight years, broadcasters must prove that they have served the public interest in order to get license renewal. If they can’t, the license goes to someone else who will."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/02/opinion/02copps.html?_r=4&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[murloc]

16. In a dictatorship, everything is a favor

from the dictator.

[High Plains]

69. What's that have to do with anything?

We're not discussing a dictatorship.

[Beelzebud]

4. All dictator's start out promising the good life to their people.

[LynnTheDem]

6. Not all are as democratically elected as Chavez.

That rightwingnuts could believe the crap that Chavez is a "dictator" is believable.

That any actual sentient being could, is not.

[Dhalgren]

8. Agreed. That anyone who has looked honestly at Chavez and his

history could then come back and actually spout RW talking points is very discouraging. Of course, some have probably not actually taken the time to really look at Chavez and/or they are just being dishonest...

[hack89]

52. Do you think Chavez will ever give up power?

does this talk of amending the constitution to eliminate term limits give you pause?

[LynnTheDem]

60. You mean no term limits like Canada ? And the UK?

Yep, I thought Brian Mulroney would never leave.

:eyes:

[hack89]

84. So why is the change necessary?

If Bush were to argue for a similar constitutional amendment to "make us just like Canada or Britain', would you have any problems with that? How does the removal of term limits strengthen democracy in general?

[LynnTheDem]

85. Well, since both Canada & the UK are well ahead of the USA in democracy

I guess term limits have nothing to do with it.

[hack89]

88. So you would accept Bush as president

for ten or more years like the British system allows? Interesting.

[LynnTheDem]

89. Without term limits, such as Canada, the president/prime minister

serves ONLY as long as the people allow. Canada has had times when elections happened yearly.

See, there IS a world outside US borders. Maybe our way ISN'T the best or the only. Amazing concept.

You bet I'd accept no term limits in the USA. We still have george bush BECAUSE of the term limit; "why bother booting his MFing ass when he only has X many months left" has been the mantra used about every MFing rightwingnut president we've ever had.

By the way, if your "Interesting" is in any way trying to hint towards my regards for george bush, may I suggest you do a search on google and DU under my user name.

[hack89]

91. No, I am very aware of your feelings towards Bush

and I apologize for any insinuation. It was more due to my bemusement at how the followers of St. Hugo will accept and rationalize actions on his part that they would (or should) never accept in America.

[LynnTheDem]

92. Glad you didn't think I liked that MFer! I'm a dual citizen; US & Cdn.

And I far prefer Canada's governmental system to the US's.

My preferance for no term limits has nothing whatsoever to do with Hugo Chavez and everything to do with having lived many years in UK and Canada, both with no term limits.

[EFerrari]

25. What kind of reasoning is that?!

Chavez has been in office for years and so far, unfortunately for American propaganda, he's doing fine.

We really hate brown guys that kick the butts of American oil interests and the butts of the white elites and try to give the people a break.


lol

[Peace Patriot]

10. I think the delay time to denying RCTV's license indicates scrupulous adherence to

the law by the Chavez government. The government clearly has the right to regulate the public airwaves and to insist that the public airwaves be operated in the public interest, according to whatever criteria the people set down in their laws and regulations. For instance, we once had the "Fairness Doctrine" here which required, among other things, that all TV/radio stations provide EQUAL TIME for opposing views on issues of public concern. (And, boy, do we need the "Fairness Doctrine" now!).

Adherence to the rule of law, and Constitutional government, have been big issues in Venezuela. The thing that was most offensive to Venezuelans, during the 2002 military coup attempt, was suspension of their Constitution. See "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," the Irish filmmakers' documentary on the coup attempt (available at AxisofLogic.com). It is the first thing on many peoples' lips: "Our Constitution!". (They'd all read it!)

The other consideration of the Chavez government--as to waiting until RCTV's license was up for renewal--may have been the basic order and safety of the country. The coup stirred up mobs of rightwing thugs and murderers, and there could well have been a continued civil war, if the Chavez government had sent military or police to RCTV studios to shut them down--as they had a perfect right to do, considering RCTV's role in the coup attempt. The country was in turmoil, and continued to be for several years. The government had to regain civil order and strengthen the country's rule of law. The spectacle of a peremptory shutdown of the rightwing's mouthpiece, RCTV, would have inflamed passions, rather than promote the calm and orderliness that was needed. I think it was a very wise decision. RCTV's actions were indefensible, and a clear violation of their license. It could have been yanked immediately. They waited it out, and didn't renew it.

And another factor may have been the Chavez government's political strength, which grew bigger in the interim. They won re-election with 63% of the vote in 2006. They needed that political clout--the result of many positive policies with widespread support--just to enforce the rule of law. The rule of lawless rightwing forces--backed by the U.S. and its global corporate predators--has reigned for too long in South America. Basic structures need to be built up, with popular support, to reinforce real government legitimacy and democratic process.

It is no small thing to take on a global corporate predator news monopoly, and to open the public airwaves to more diverse programming. We, the people, have that right, as they do in Venezuela. But rights are a relative thing in BushWorld, as we know. We may have a right to diverse programming, and to our public airwaves being used responsibly and in the public interest, but how do we enforce our rights, in the face of overwhelming fascist/corporate power?

The lessons I've gleaned from the South American democracy movement--a movement that has swept the continent, with leftist (majorityist) governments elected in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Chile--are these:

1. Transparent elections (!)
2. Grass roots organization.
3. Think big.

How we get our power back, as a sovereign people, is, first of all, through transparent elections--vote counting that everyone can see and understand. They have it in Venezuela. We don't. They therefore have a government that is acting on behalf of the people, and we do not. Our government SHOULD BE busting up news monopolies and insisting on the presentation of a wide spectrum of political opinion on our PUBLIC airwaves. It is not. Instead, it glories in rightwing control of all news media, and uses that control for rightwing government propaganda. One test of Venezuelan democracy will be in what the new station does with its programming. My guess is that--as with the Chavez's government's scrupulous adherence to the law on this and other matters--the new station managers will scrupulously adhere to the principles of diversity and fairness.

[Peace Patriot]

12. Note: www.venezuelanalysis.com has a lot of articles on the RCTV controversy,

from many points of view. I recommend this site.

Another good resource--to understand what RCTV did during the coup--is "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" (great documentary available at AxisofLogic.com).

Be informed! Don't let your views be unduly influenced by our war profiteering corporate news monopolies or the Bush State Dept. They are disinformationists.

[nick303]

54. Mainly a government-mouthpiece point of view

Venezuelanalysis is almost religious in their coverage of Chavez. I don't know how anyone can view them as being remotely objective or reputable. I'm starting to wonder if your posts are an elaborate satire, always with the inevitable 3 steps for promoting change at the end.

For any doubters, a rundown of the current opinion pieces:

"Communal power versus capitalism in Venezuela" - byline includes "The Venezuelan people are waging a struggle to gain sovereignty over the country’s natural resources in order to rebuild the nation along pro-people lines." and includes part of an interview from Green Left Weekly.

"RCTV and Freedom of Speech in Venezuela" - posted around here lately. Argues that there really no loss of free speech, but in an Orwellian twist that free speech is actually being promoted ("returned to the people of Venezuela").

"Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction" - from CommonDreams, which should be enough to stop right there, however, the gist is :
"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" etc

"Chavez TV" - Considers some of the drawbacks, but proceeds to plow ahead in favor of Chavez. This article could almost be considered balanced.

I could go on but my time is limited. If your preferred range of opinion is "mildly in favor of Chavez" to "rabidly in favor of Chavez", then this might be a good website to follow.

[murloc]

15. 5 years? So it really wasn't that urgent and extreme

as the Chavez propaganda let on.

If they had really comitted a crime, you would have thought that they would have been able to act much sooner.

Although I imagine shuttering the station was alot easier once Chavez was granted "rule by decree". Even Bush tells us that its easier if you are a dictator.

Thanks for that link. Everyday Chavez looks worse than before.

[EFerrari]

18. They really did commit a crime. It was really caught on tape.

And Mr. Chavez went throught the legal system to handle them.

[murloc]

19. On tape, yet there was no trial

No trial. No conviction. No court. No appeal.

Dictator Chavez just decreed them guilty.

Some "legal system"

[LynnTheDem]

20. LOL!

Some times, ya just gotta shake the head and laugh.

[murloc]

22. Indeed, but we have the luxury of laughing

Regardless of your position.

Those under Chavez thumb do not. Lest they be "not-renewed"

[LynnTheDem]

27. Facts are a good thang.

Really, they are!

[EFerrari]

23. Where did you get that idea? He did nothing of the sort.

He didn't renew their license just as governments all over the world review licenses and decide if they're in the public interest

Holy cow. This station LIED to their audience and told them Chavez had resigned when he's been kidnapped. And then, they blacked out the news while the plotters did their best to subvert the elected government.

Do you usually repeat BushCo talking points or do you have a thing for Latin America?

[murloc]

26. I put Bush and Chavez in the same corner

two sides of the same coin. But enough with your ad homium. Bush is evil from the right. Chavez is evil from the left. But evil is evil.

Do I have a "thing" for Latin America? Not sure what to make of that. I do have a concern for the people there. FWIW, I've learned alot from a co-worker who is a Venezuelan ex-pat. We've chatted about the situation in his homeland and let me tell you, he has NO LOVE for Chavez at all (or Bush for that matter btw). Thats probably one reason why my awareness is a bit higher on this issue.

Maybe the station did commit a crime. Maybe they should be punished. But in a free society, crimes are prosecuted and a verdict rendered. Not just decreed guilty by the tin-pot dictator in charge who then doles out the punishment he see fit.

I used to be a Chavez supporter. I turned a corner with his enabling act and furthermore with this shutting down of dissent in the media.

Fascist dictatorship throughout history follow a pattern. So far Chavez is tracking the development of other dictators.

I fear this will not turn out well.

[Greyhound]

28. Try learning something about it before "removing all doubt".

As sfexpat2000, peacepatriot, cerridwen, and many others here have all shown time and again, the propaganda you are basing your opinion on is simply wrong.

If our elected officials and representatives were half as concerned about adhering to our Constitution as Chavez is to his, we wouldn't be in any of the messes we are in now.

[murloc]

30. Don't presume what my opinion is based on

I've read what Chavez has to say.

I've listened to what a citizen of Venezuela has to say (coworker who sits 15 ft from me and we have lunch occasionally)

I've also listened to others on DU say about this.

I've listened to sfexpat2000, peacepatriot, cerridwen and many other Chavez supporters have to say.

I've listened to many other sources and opinions on the matter.

I've been a supporter of Chavez, and now I'm not a supporter.


Please don't make presumptions on what I based my opinion on.

While it doesn't matter one hoot what you and I think about Chavez from the luxury of our homes thousands of miles away, we ALL have the luxury of forming our opinions and changing our minds.

I'm still listening and with every bit of information my opinion evolves.

But I tell you, its not evolving favorable for Chavez. (and as I said, as if that really meant anything)

[Greyhound]

35. You claim to have read these people's research, yet you persist in spreading

factually incorrect propaganda and claiming it as proof.

You are transparent. Good night.

[murloc]

37. Why do you now succumb to insulting?

Yes I have read these things - And I am unconvinced.

Is it "propaganda" to disagree with their findings? Are the opinion of some now the final say in all matters? Just because I have read their research does not bind me to their particular dictates.

In my humble opinion it would be transparent to ignore the fascist path that Chavez is traveling simply because he has done other good things.

It is best to agree to disagree with you on this matter and ignore your angry insult.

Have a good evening.

[EFerrari]

29. You still don't get it. The license was up for renewal.

It was not renewed.

This was a completely lawful process.

And you have no basis to call Chavez a dictator.

[murloc]

33. I understand that you make a distinction

between "non renewed" and "shutdown"

Thats your prerogative and I will not attempt to change your mind on this.

Personally, I see no difference in outcome.

When a citizen turns his television to watch RCTV news, there is no difference between "Shutdown static" and "non-renewal static"

And as long as Chavez enjoys "rule by decree". I will call him a dictator. "Rule by Decree" has no place in a Democracy.

The day he sets aside that power is the day I will cease calling him that. But that day will never come I fear.

[EFerrari]

41. Okay. The granting of these powers to Chavez has been done

in Venezuela before with no negative outcome. Venezuela is not the United States -- where Junior does signing statements declaring that he will not follow the law. In Venezuela, the process is done in the sunlight.

As far as RCTV, they lied to the people during the coup. They told them Chaveaz had resigned and then they subjected their audience to a news blackout for the remainder of the coup. Clearly, they betrayed the public trust.

I don't think Chavez is the second coming. But I do see that this lawful action of his is being spun as hard and fast as possible by BushCo.

I don't expect to change your mind, either. :) Those are just my thoughts and my understanding of the situation.

Be well.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

48. Oh, OK, so imagine one of the two things happen:

1) Your 80 year old uncle dies of a heart attack.

2) Your 80 year old uncle is stabbed in front of his house.

You should consider these two events equally upsetting; after all.. I see no difference in outcome. When you go to your uncle's house to chat with him, there is no difference between "naturally dead" and "criminally dead."

[eridani]

53. So, when are you starting in on Alan Garcia of Peru?

Is he a dictator because he got the same limited decree powers that Chavez has?

[murloc]

56. I don't know.

I don't know anyone from Peru and I'm not up to date on them. So before I condemn this guy from Peru I'd like to learn something about him. Much as I try, the world is a big place and there is alot of evil in alot of places. Heck its a full time job keeping track of the shenanigans in our country.

However if he rules Peru by fiat as you suggest, then I would call that a negative indicator.

But if you would be so kind as to point to me to the thread(s) praising or condemning Garcia, I'll be happy to read them.

[eridani]

58. There are none, and that's my point

There is a reason that Chavez and Garcia are using similar legal instruments--because those legal instruments are very common amoung Latin American countries, even if aficionados of our own constitution don't like them (not that there aren't good reasons for that, of course).

The selective drumbeat against Chavez has only a single purpose--to violently take him out by proxy (and thereby restore the 80% Indio population of Venezuela to their proper status as disposable human garbage) without too much public outcry. Garcia of course is a solid servant of the World Bank and IMF, therefore no OMIGOD A SCARY DICTATOR drumbeat on the part of the world ruling class, and few other than hardcore Internet junkies know or care what's going on in Peru. Links are at the bottom of this post.

Two countries in South America--which is which?

A. Granted its president the right to rule by decree in limited areas in April 2007.
B. Granted its president the right to rule by decree in limited areas in January 2007.

A. Its president blocked the renewal of the broadcast licenses of two TV stations and three radio stations in April 2007.
B. Its president blocked the renewal of the broadcast license of one TV station in May 2007 amd has made threatening noises about a second.

A. During its last election cycle, its president was elected with 51% of the vote.
B. During its last election cycle, its president was elected with 67% of the vote.

A. Almost nobody but hard core Internet users know anything about what's been happening in this country recently.
B. A lot of users of regular media in the US and elsewhere have heard the name of this country and worry that it might become a dictatorship if it isn't already.

A. On the subject of this country we hear from the US House, the US Senate, and leading presidential candidates--crickets.
B. On the subject of this country we hear from the US House, the US Senate, and leading presidential candidates--thundering and righteous condemnation.

Vanna--the envelope please!

Most people have no problems guessing that B is Venezuela, but hardly anybody knows that A is Peru. H. Con. Res. 77 (and the Senate resolution passed last week) are utterly hypocritical and unnecessary attacks on a country that Bush would like to get Congressional approval for waging terrorist warfare on. Why is Congress enabling this after being suckered on Iraq? If it's really the issue of not renewing media licenses that people are in such a tizzy about, why aren't they upset about Peru?


Substantiating references--
http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=3554&blz=1
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/US_Coup_Venezuela.html
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1953
http://lanr.blogspot.com/search?q=decree
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6602551.stm

[EFerrari]

66. Someone needs to clue in Pelosi because she issued

a statement criticizing Chavez "suppression of the media", too.

[Cleita]

70. Thanks for posting that this is about class.

The upper classes of any South American nation do not like to see the indigenous population of the lower classes have any say in their economic or social status. What many Americans don't realize that the class system in SA insures that the class you are born into is the one you stay in. Even if by some miracle you become a multi-millionaire, you are still shut out of club. This is something Eva Peron was up against when she became First Lady of Argentina and what made her take revenge on those upper class elitists who would not accept her into their society.

[Judi Lynn]

71. Really! Didn't know she struggled with that problem. Figures.

I do know, have heard it many times, seen it in documentaries, as well, that the bloody US-approved Cuban tyrant Fulgencio Batista had mixed heritage, and was gossiped about a LOT behind his back, and was unable to join the Havana Yacht Club or whatever its name was.

He was their strongman, but the Spanish and Americans looked down on him.

[Cleita]

74. Evita was the illigitimate child of a wealthy landowner.

Her mother, of a lower class, was his mistress and had a bunch of children by him (can't remember how many, but I think it was eight). Also, she was an actress and rumored to be a prostitute. When Juan Peron married her, you could hear the gasps all through the upper crust of Buenos Aires society. So when she wanted to take her rightful place in that society as First Lady, they shut her out and humiliated her.

[LynnTheDem]

32. So the USA has been a dictatorship for decades?

Gee, ya think someone woulda told us.


FCC revokes license for San Francisco public TV station KQEC
http://www.current.org/ptv/ptv888kqed.shtml

"outside groups have persuaded the agency (FCC) to deny renewal to roughly a dozen TV licenses based on stations' failure to serve the public interest."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA454236.html?display=Top+of+the+Week&

"The F.C.C. already has powerful leverage to hold broadcasters to their end of the bargain. Every eight years, broadcasters must prove that they have served the public interest in order to get license renewal. If they can’t, the license goes to someone else who will."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/02/opinion/02copps.html?_r=4&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[murloc]

34. Is that your assertion?

Certainly I have never asserted that shutting down a station = dictatorship.

Chavez became a dictator before shutting down media dissent.

But certainly its alot easier to shutdown a station if you a strongman ruler.

Interestingly, in all the cases you cite of domestic stations that were shutdown, those stations were given the opportunity to make a case and appeal the decision. No such thing under Chavez.

[some guy]

36. Actually,

this article, if you scroll down to the part with the sub-head "Conclusion" says the decision is in fact being appealed in the courst.

http://www.trinicenter.com/articles/2007/020607.html

So, it seems you have to strike the last sentence of your post.

edit: being not be

[murloc]

39. Fair enough and thanks for pointing that out.

Another source that I had read indicates that the non-renewal action was not subject to judicial review.

It may be the case whereby the -decision- per se isnt subject to review, but the overall handling of the case may be. (distinction without a difference? - maybe)

Nonethless, It appears that I might be wrong on that point, and at minimum not as cut as dried as initially indicated.

[LynnTheDem]

61. GREAT idea for you!

Read some facts.

FACT; Chavez followed THE LAW.

FACT; the law was in place long before Chavez was elected the first time.

Good grief.

[DerBeppo]

49. After any of those license revocations

did the government take control of the station and start broadcasting their own, unfiltered pro-government propaganda? If not, it's not the same thing.

[originalpckelly]

59. Actually, I would suggest that that is probably true.

I would actually make the assessment that at no time in this nation's history has it ever been a democracy. That doesn't mean it can't be, it just means we're not a democracy. It may seem like one, it may be a nice place to live most of the time, but we're an empire, and empires are not democratic.

[eridani]

83. I agree--democracy has been an ideal--

--that we have taken steps toward but really never achieved. I agree with your assessment of the US as an empire, but wonder why you continue to collude with the demonization of a leader of a country that has historically been one of our victims.

Democrats were once staunchly anti-imperialist. Why can't we be that way again?

http://janda.org/politxts/PartyPlatforms/Democratic/dem.900.html

We declare again that all governments instituted among men derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that any government not based upon the consent of the governed is a tyranny, and that to impose upon any people a government of force is to substitute the methods of imperialism for those of a republic. We hold that the Constitution follows the flag, and denounce the doctrine that an Executive or Congress deriving their existence and their powers from the Constitution can exercise lawful authority beyond it or in violation of it. We assert that no nation can long endure half republic and half empire, and we warn the American people that imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to despotism at home.

<snip>

We are in favor of extending the Republic's influence among the nations, but we believe that that influence should be extended not by force and violence, but through the persuasive power of a high and honorable example.

<snip>

We oppose militarism. It means conquest abroad and intimidation and oppression at home. It means the strong arm which has ever been fatal to free institutions. It is what millions of our citizens have fled from in Europe. It will impose upon our peace loving people a large standing army and unnecessary burden of taxation, and will be a constant menace to their liberties.

[eridani]

40. Venezuelans who can afford foreign travel are likely to be "blondes"

--that 20% of the population of Venezuela that regards the other 80% as disposable human garbage.


http://newint.org/features/2002/07/01/tale-of-two-coups/

On May Day, starting out from the Hilton Hotel, 200,000 blondes marched East through Caracas’ shopping corridor along Casanova Avenue. At the same time, half a million brunettes converged on them from the West. It would all seem like a comic shampoo commercial if 16 people hadn’t been shot dead two weeks earlier when the two groups crossed paths. The May Day brunettes support Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. They funnelled down from the ranchos, the pustules of crude red-brick bungalows, stacked one on the other, that erupt on the steep, unstable hillsides surrounding this city of five million. The bricks in some ranchos are new, a recent improvement in these fetid, impromptu slums where many previously sheltered behind cardboard walls. ‘Chávez gives them bricks and milk,’ a local TV reporter told me, ‘and so they vote for him.’


Chávez is dark and round as a cola nut. Like his followers, Chávez is an ‘Indian’. But the blondes, the ‘Spanish’, are the owners of Venezuela. A group near me on the blonde march screamed ‘Out! Out!’ in English, demanding the removal of the President. One edible-oils executive, in high heels, designer glasses and push-up bra had turned out, she said: ‘To fight for democracy.’ She added: ‘We’ll try to do it institutionally,’ a phrase that meant nothing to me until a banker in pale pink lipstick explained that to remove Chávez, ‘we can’t wait until the next election’. The anti-Chavistas don’t equate democracy with voting. With 80 per cent of Venezuela’s population at or below the poverty level, elections are not attractive to the protesting financiers. Chávez had won the election in 1998 with a crushing 58 per cent of the popular vote and that was unlikely to change except at gunpoint.

[Louie the XIV]

57. Hmmmm.... this sounds familiar

"Democratically" elected leader exploits racial divide in his country between wealthy property owning light skinned minority and dark skinned majority. Once in power he changes the election system to entrench himself and begins seizing the private property of the minorities. This is accompanied by boisterous claims of interference by outside "colonial powers" which is used as an excuse to silence internal dissent and any opposition. The end result is a dictator for life over a country in economic ruin and a situation that threatens the stability of the region.



Paging Dr. Mugabe

[eridani]

67. It's not like the blondes did anything to "earn" latifundia, you know

Tough shit for people who want to squat on huge tractss of unused land. If other people are able and willing to use it to grow food, it's their right to do that.

If removing presidential term limits is bad, was America a dictatorship until we passed that amendment?

Also "economic ruin" is an unbelievably stupid term for an economy growing at 10% a year, with most of that growth accounted for by the non-oil private sector.

[EFerrari]

68. Traduccion: Lawfully elected leader seeks to redress social

injustice that suppresses the poor and the people of color. Once in power, he institutes a series of reforms, including buying back national resources that have been controlled by an oligarchy and that have kept the majority of Venezuelans in miserable poverty. Despite interference from the United States up to and including a kidnap attempt in a CIA helicopter -- Chavez seeks to diversify a media controlled by the same corporate interests that sought to oust his democratically elected government and he does that via strictly lawful means.

The multinationals and in particular, those dominated by the United States are somewhat unhappy with this situation and astroturf the media at every opportunity to cast him as a dictator. Venezuela however isn't buying it.

http://www.alternet.org/images/managed/Story+Image_thumb_chavez2.jpg

:hi:

[EFerrari]

42. No, he followed the law over a course of five years

and didn't renew their license. Geezus.

[eridani]

38. How is he different from South American Country "A"?

Two countries in South America--which is which?

A. Granted its president the right to rule by decree in limited areas in April 2007.
B. Granted its president the right to rule by decree in limited areas in January 2007.

A. Its president blocked the renewal of the broadcast licenses of two TV stations and three radio stations in April 2007.
B. Its president blocked the renewal of the broadcast license of one TV station in May 2007 and has made threatening noises about a second.

A. During its last election cycle, its president was elected with 51% of the vote.
B. During its last election cycle, its president was elected with 67% of the vote.

A. Almost nobody but hard core Internet users know anything about what's been happening in this country recently.
B. A lot of users of regular media in the US and elsewhere have heard the name of this country and worry that it might become a dictatorship if it isn't already.

A. On the subject of this country we hear from the US House, the US Senate, and leading presidential candidates--crickets.
B. On the subject of this country we hear from the US House, the US Senate, and leading presidential candidates--thundering and righteous condemnation.

Vanna--the envelope please!

Most people have no problems guessing that B is Venezuela, but hardly anybody knows that A is Peru. H. Con. Res. 77 (and the Senate resolution passed last week) are utterly hypocritical and unnecessary attacks on a country that Bush would like to get Congressional approval for waging terrorist warfare on. Why is Congress enabling this after being suckered on Iraq? If it's really the issue of not renewing media licenses that people are in such a tizzy about, why aren't they upset about Peru? Not to mention upset at the fact that the Bush-supported Carmona coup involved shutting down a number of TV and radio stations by armed force--they certainly didn't wait for broadcasting licenses to expire.


Substantiating references--
http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=3554&blz=1
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/US_Coup...
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1953
http://lanr.blogspot.com/search?q=decree
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6602551.stm

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. Chavez is a rotten dictator.

Just like those dictators down at the DMV who revoked my drivers license for drunken driving.

If they were really serious about drunken driving, why didn't they stop me all those years ago when I drank and drove?

Fucking fascists.

[bvar22]

50. Thanks!

:patriot:

Some here are working very hard to "Catapult the Propaganda".



Would a network that aided and abetted a coup against the government be allowed to operate in the United States? The US government probably would have shut down RCTV within five minutes after a failed coup attempt – and thrown its owners in jail. Chávez's government allowed it to continue operating for five years and then declined to renew its 20-year license to use the public airwaves. It can still broadcast on cable or via satellite dish.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0604/p09s01-coop.html?pag...




The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[OilemFirchen]

51. They didn't "revoke your license"

They killed you.

After all, when your friends ask you to drive, they can't tell the difference between "license non-renewal" undriving and "dead as a doorknob" undriving.

[LynnTheDem]

62. Hear! Hear!

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

64. I found out something else today. Chavez didn't "seize"

RCTV's equipment.

When they built the station, they did it in a state park and the deal they cut was that the improvements would become state property. That was years ago.

So there was no "seizure". State property reverted to the state.

[Judi Lynn]

65. Interesting information you've added. Gives a whole different look to what was SPUN earlier,

doesn't it?

It was probably a mere oversight that kept RCTV from setting the record straight! Uh, HUH!

Thanks a lot.

[Flanker]

72. Not all of their equipment is located in state parks

So what they did own was in fact temporarily seized.

[EFerrari]

76. No, that's wrong. It was the deal RCTV cut to build their station.

But, I'd like to see your evidence to the contra

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. He Is Now.

[nick303]

55. The bigger picture

"When Mr Chávez came to power in 1999, the government owned a poorly funded television station called Venezolana de Televisión (VTV), a news agency and a national radio network. That began to change after the events of 2002 showed it to be disadvantaged in media power. Today it controls six television channels (two of which are national) and eight radio stations. It also pays for, and thus controls, almost 200 community radio and television stations, along with countless publications and over 100 websites." - Economist, 6/1/2007

In isolation I would still consider what happened to RCTV disconcerting, but when looking at the bigger shift in media ownership and well, ownership in the country in general, it's very disturbing.

[EFerrari]

63. The shift is away from the oligarchy.

Here is a fact sheet:

http://www.veninfo.org/downloads/RCTV.htm

[nick303]

75. So you don't find increasing governmental control the least bit disconcerting?

If we updated that pie chart to show the current state of affairs we'd see a large and increasing government oversight on Venezuela's media. And that is what it is, control by the government, not "the people" (an extremely dishonest codeword).

[EFerrari]

78. No but I am very used to the spin.

Every time I set out to research some new horrible thing the Chavez has supposedly done, it turns out to be bullshit.

When that changes, I'll pm you.

[nick303]

79. Your post didn't address mine.

Please update.

[EFerrari]

80. In which direction?

It's not my job to do your research, but I'm learning, too. So, what are we looking for?

:)

[nick303]

81. I guess this is what people do when their positions are no longer defensible

[EFerrari]

82. No. Lol! This is what people do when they are asking a question.

[eridani]

86. This is utter tripe

Since when is "government control" a problem in a country where anybody who happens to feel like it can start a low-power community radio station? Yes, there is no "pirate" radio in Venezuela, because it's all LEGAL.

[nick303]

87. Speaking of tripe

take a look at your argument. The concern here is that the government represents an increasingly wide range of the spectrum, and that they are bullying those who are critical of them (see Globovision, as well as Venevision, a station formerly critical of Chavez which caved in to government pressure).

[eridani]

90. There is plenty of opposition to Chavez in the Venezuelan media

--anti-corporate voices here have far less access to megaphone media than anti-Chavez voices do in Venezuela. I suppose "caved in" actually means "quit calling for someone to assassinate Chavez".

[rec_report]

73. Exactly! n/t

[Swamp Rat]

77. k&r

[immoderate]

93. What dictator?

I haven't heard of anything that Chavez has done that would qualify him as a dictator. No death squads, disappearances, executions, rules by decree, etc. There may be political moves he's made that are high handed, but he is in a rough and tumble environment.

I see so much name calling, but no basis for that. Here in south Florida, I meet Venezuelans, usually not his constituents, as you might imagine, and he gets mixed reviews, but I haven't heard any Venezuelan call him a dictator. I'd take him over Bush any day, but I don't hear Bush being called a dictator. War criminal, yes, but Chavez is not a war criminal.

Seems like Chavez shut down the media legally. Anyway, government run media does not a dictatorship make, or was (BBC or nothing) England a dictatorship for 30 years?

Where's the beef? :shrug:

--IMM