Venezuela's Last Opposition TV Owner Arrested 433
WrongSizeGlass writes "AP is reporting the owner of Venezuela's only remaining TV channel that takes a critical line against President Hugo Chavez was arrested Thursday. 'Guillermo Zuloaga, owner of Globovision, was arrested on a warrant for remarks that were deemed "offensive" to the president,' Attorney General Luisa Ortega said. This comes on the heels of last week's story titled Venezuela's Chavez To Limit Internet Freedom."
Uh oh (Score:4, Insightful)
As bad as things were in Venezuela before this, now they've gotten much, much worse. Any chance of convincing some gray/black hats to strike a blow for decency and sanity, and hack Chavez's websites to portray him as a transvestigial equinophiliac paedo-cannibal?
anything that will make the common people laugh at him, and thereby undermine his social standing from within is just about the only hope Venezuela has left
Re:Uh oh (Score:5, Interesting)
> Any chance of convincing some gray/black hats to strike a blow for decency
> and sanity, and hack Chavez's websites to portray him as a transvestigial
> equinophiliac paedo-cannibal?
> anything that will make the common people laugh at him...
Why do you imagine that would "make the common people laugh at him"? He'd successfully portray it as a CIA attack.
He's the Venezuelans' problem and only they can solve it. Either they will get rid of the kook or they won't.
Argh, you're right (Score:4, Insightful)
He WOULD be successful in portraying something like that as a CIA attack. However, I believe being portrayed as a cross-dressing, child-eating, donkey-fucker would cause enough cognitive dissonance amongst the people of Venezuela that they'd be able to start looking at him objectively rather than subjectively.
You're also right that the Venezuelans are the only ones that can do something about him. When half the country supports him because he champions the poor at the cost of all else (because the Venezuelan elite betrayed the trust of the people over all), then that is an internal matter.
be nice to see that image though... maybe it could become the new goatse meme
Re:Argh, you're right (Score:4, Informative)
Why didn't they kill him 18 yrs ago when he tried to assassinate the president? [wikipedia.org] He even said he "failed (at assassination) for now". But instead of execution, he was released two years later and made president 4 years after that?? We might as well make John Hinckley the next US President [wikipedia.org]
Re:Argh, you're right (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe because the president he was trying to get rid of was an even worse guy?
I think Chavez is a nutbag, but Perez was horrible. Shit that guy used their military on protesters after he sold out to the IMF.
Re:Argh, you're right (Score:4, Insightful)
This dictator should not be allowed to exist. People of Venezuela should block him right away. His grab of power has been slow, but it has happened anyway.
Venezuela has lost its democracy and that can only end badly. I guess we are going to see some wars in South America soon.
Re:Argh, you're right (Score:5, Insightful)
Why didn't they kill him 18 yrs ago when he tried to assassinate the president? [wikipedia.org] He even said he "failed (at assassination) for now". But instead of execution, he was released two years later and made president 4 years after that?? We might as well make John Hinckley the next US President [wikipedia.org]
Article doesn't say anything about an assassination, just a coup. It also says the president was impeached a year later which might give a clue as to why they wouldn't have been sad to see him go. Anyway isn't regime change through military action acceptable in US doctrine these days ?
Re:Argh, you're right (Score:4, Funny)
Damn catchy chant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uh oh (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know that he can last too much longer. Even the poor are starting to turn against him. His attempt a couple of years ago to amend the constitution to allow him to run for president forever turned out to be an embarrassing failure, though he handled it with as much dignity as he has anything else. Oil revenues have declined as output has slowed, in part because much of Venezuela's oil is heavy and difficult to extract, and the expertise to do so was largely provided by foreign companies. When he nationalized the oil industry there, many of those experts told him to go pound sand when he asked for assistance. The electricity grid has declined in reliability as well, and the money just isn't there to fix it (courtesy of the declining oil production).
That Venezuela provides discounted or free oil to certain other nations does not help the fiscal line, nor does the refusal (or perhaps political inability) to charge market rates for petroleum products at home, which results in gasoline that costs a tenth of what it does elsewhere in the world, something that Venezuelans see basically as their right as an oil-producing nation.
He's also warned of "defensive actions" against Colombia (a nation that is not even close to being able to stage a successful attack on a country like Venezuela) on a couple of occasions, and has modernized the military. It would not surprise me at all to see them fighting in the next few years, though, and I will laugh if Venezuela's modern but inexperienced army gets their heads handed to them by the lesser-equipped but far more combat-experienced Colombian army.
Then again, I said that he couldn't possible last a few years ago when the troubles began. A fragmented opposition that can't get a basic unified message together combined with further limited opportunities to get the message out and Chavez's persistent presence on TV for hours on end mean that Chavez will continue to hold the edge for some time to come.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If Venezuela were to attack Columbia, Columbia would wipe the floor with Venezuela.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Reminds me of Europe in 1913.
Re:Uh oh (Score:4, Informative)
He's also warned of "defensive actions" against Colombia (a nation that is not even close to being able to stage a successful attack on a country like Venezuela) on a couple of occasions, and has modernized the military. It would not surprise me at all to see them fighting in the next few years, though, and I will laugh if Venezuela's modern but inexperienced army gets their heads handed to them by the lesser-equipped but far more combat-experienced Colombian army.
I was about to mod you up, but having read that part I'll give you this information instead: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8343692.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Colombian opposition groups have reacted angrily after details of a controversial military deal with the US were made public.
Under the 10-year deal, the US military will not only have access to military bases, but also be able to use major international civilian airports.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oil revenues have declined as output has slowed, in part because much of Venezuela's oil is heavy and difficult to extract, and the expertise to do so was largely provided by foreign companies. When he nationalized the oil industry there, many of those experts told him to go pound sand when he asked for assistance.
He's also sucked so much money out of the oil industry for 'social programmes' (ie, to hand to the poor in exchange for political support) that it can't invest in infrastructure. He's also raided central bank reserves and destroyed a lot of private enterprise. He might have handed a lot of money to the poor, but he's done it by running down Venezuela's capital and productive capacity.
He will run out of money. The Venezuelan poor will end up poorer than they were before. The economy will be left in a stat
Re: (Score:2)
Its only gotten worse as Chavez has gotten... umm... how to put it nicely... battier? Its a shame, he was a cool leader when he began; and had a number of revolutionary ideas
The same has been said about Mugabe.
I suppose it's as Buddha said: you either die the hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Very likely yes.
The realization that you can do anything without consequences will do it for some. For others, it's the fact that they could, which drives others away. Human beings are social animals and need peer pressure to act as corrective feedback. A dictator can, if he will, ignore that feedback, or tune it to more of his liking. The end of that ro
Re:Uh oh (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never believed that. Think about it: the kind of person who is narcissistic enough to think himself deserving of such power, driven enough to pursue it and cunning enough to actually get it is probably already psychotic or psychopathic or at least well on the way after the experiences needed to become absolute ruler. Power may corrupt, but I see more evidence that power attracts the corrupted.
Re:Uh oh (Score:5, Informative)
Why do you imagine that would "make the common people laugh at him"? He'd successfully portray it as a CIA attack.
Then bring in the Russians. Those ex-KGB guys knew how to run a good disinformation campaign. Throw mud, keep throwing mud, fling mud into real news stories that spin them the wrong way, do everything you can to make the target look incompetent and buffoonish at every turn. Be sure to use deniable cut-outs so that the deceit can't ever be traced directly back to you.
They caused plenty of dissent in the USA during the cold war. They also learned that disinformation wasn't enough to topple the leaders of the U.S. government, nor did it give them the clear advantage in negotiations. Occasionally it gave them blackmail opportunities to create informants, but for the most part it was a giant waste of money. The KGB apparently never saw it that way, as they stated in 1984 that "Our chief task is to help to frustrate the aggressive intentions of American imperialism ... We must work unweariedly at exposing the adversary's weak and vulnerable points." The job of Service A was to fabricate disinformation through "active measures."
Service A was responsible for casting doubt upon the lone gunman "theory" of the Kennedy assassination; they portrayed J. Edgar Hoover as a Bircher and amplified the rumors of him being a gay cross dresser; and they successfully caused gullible third world leaders to believe all kinds of lies, from AIDS being created by the U.S. Army at Fort Detrick to the U.S. importing third-world orphans to use as organ donors to supposed plans to overthrow the Indian president Rajiv Gandhi.
El pequeño Hugo Chávez (Score:3, Funny)
Or, someone could hire this midget to imitate him, and post it all over the intertubes. Let's see Chávez portray /that/ as a CIA attack!
Yo soy el pequeño Hugo Chávez. Me encanta el socialismo!
Re:Uh oh (Score:4, Insightful)
> Actually, for a lot of Venezuelans, Chavez was the solution.
If Communism is the answer somebody asked a really stupid question.
Seriously, compare the lot of the average person there to things pre Chavez and ask if it is better? More importantly, will it be better after another decade of this idiot's misrule?
So forget the more fuzzy question of whether they would have been better off just working towards establishing a better, more free government with the rule of law and some basic protections instead of falling for the tired socialist utopian siren song, because while difficult to 'prove' any sane person already knows the answer to it.
Personally I'd love to see, just once because a second wouldn't ever be needed, the US Govt ask the oil companies who got their assets nationalized by some commie thug if they are 'cool with that' and if they aren't (duh!) if they wouldn't mind if we denied the thug the fruits of his wickedness. Then we airlift out the foreign workers and after giving the locals an hour bomb the living sh*t out of the oil fields.
Re: (Score:2)
anything that will make the common people laugh at him, and thereby undermine his social standing from within is just about the only hope Venezuela has left
Ha! You think common people have the internet in Venezuela?
White-collar, internet posting first-worlders are a global minority numerically.
Re:Uh oh (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe not as directly or forcefully..but in a more subliminal way to silent opposition in the US. Efforts are on to try to put a lid on talk radio [wnd.com].
I'm still trying to figure out the position that Mark Lloyd holds.."Chief Diversity Officer"? Is this analagous to the Ministry of Truth?
Hell, Mark seems to actually appreciate what Hugo Chavez has done [youtube.com] . And this guy is high up at the FCC??
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When you link to WND you flag yourself as a nutjob.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what you're saying is that we've got a lot of corruption...you don't elaborate, but I'm guessing (based on the types of things I've heard about, say, insurance companies) it's things like corporations lobbying and influencing the government that you were thinking about. And the solution is to make the government more powerful, and therefore make it even more important for those corporations to influence government?
So, what should we do about them taking our liberties?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You look quite fetching in that tin foil hat.
Seriously, you link to World Net Daily? That's the same outfit that rails about UN Peacekeepers building gulags in Kansas, while saying that having the President unilaterally declare citizens "unlawful combatants" and indefinitely imprisoning them without trial and having them tortured is a-okay.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Seriously, you link to World Net Daily?
Who the hell cares where the video is hosted. Answer the original poster's question about what Lloyd SAID. Or proclaim the video a fake because that is probably the only real option for your team. If Lloyd did indeed SAY it then I dount there IS a possible rebuttal yet I also can't imagine any 'Progressive' disowning the remarks either. Because from you guys POV his only mistake was getting caught on video saying what you guys normally only say in private.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you listened to a lot of talk radio? There are certainly a number of thought provoking people on the airwaves, but for each one of them there's twenty people spewing non-sequiters and thinly veiled hate speech. A rational argument could be made that all talk radio should be disbanded for the good of our country's educational system.
Personally, I wouldn't want to see talk radio disappear, I'd just want them required to adhere to news standards. By constantly voicing their opinion in "news-like" cloth
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, Chavez has done quite alot to give a voice and financial help to the struggling poor and indigenous people of Venezuela. This doesn't excuse his campaign against free speach and democracy in his country, but you have to understand the situation on the ground there. Under previous regimes only the rich, white upper class had anything to say. Poor people were working under very bad conditions and had noone to speak for them. Then there's the fact that the U.S. staged a coup attempt against Chavez sh
Re: (Score:2)
anything that will make the common people laugh at him, and thereby undermine his social standing from within is just about the only hope Venezuela has left
Well he makes a dick out of himself on an almost daily basis with that TV show of his.
I used to have some sympathy for the guy back in the day when it did look like the Bush administration were likely culprits for trying to oust him, but since then he's proven an old saying of mine that sometimes it's better to let someone keep on talking and let him undermine himself. He lost that last refferendum on the constitutional amendment to banish presidential term limits, so it looks like his support isn't as soli
TV owner vs. TV station owner (Score:2, Insightful)
When I first read this, I imagined them breaking down someones front door because the owned a TV and may watched a program critical of Hugo Chavez.
Not last... (Score:2)
I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez (Score:5, Insightful)
having lived behind the iron courtain, I could say that socialism or communism leaders never really cared about own ideology. What was important was that the masses should believe in ideology and obey. Have you read the G. Orwell's "Animal Farm" ? Shows nicely how this happened.
I have to wonder (Score:2, Insightful)
if we delude ourselves in thinking the other side of the iron curtain is any better.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"What was important was that the masses should believe in ideology and obey."
You mean like americans?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ok, if you're keeping to the literal meaning of communism, then probably no state has even implemented it. :-)
On the other hand if you read Marx, you may find that besides describing ideal 'utopia' society, he also gave hints on the how leaders may rule masses, which had nothing to do with "communism, as advertised"
Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. Only a totalitarian state can force productive people to be slaves to non-productive people. The two modes are part and parcel of the whole.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Capitalism does that too. I know plenty of execs that don't do jack.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And go work someplace else that has the same situation?
Capitalism is one man taking advantage of the other, Communism is the other way around.
Socialism is something else, for example people in Sweden can freely quit their jobs.
Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Capitalism is two people agreeing to a mutually beneficial exchange of goods, services, work, assets, etc. If you're bad at it, you won't be as successful as someone who is better at it. If you don't do anything of value, you can't demand as much value in exchange.
Communism is the other way around.
No, Communism is the person who produces the least getting the most benefit from the person who works the hardest. It punishes hard work, and rewards mediocrity and laziness. Mostly, it rewards the statists who play the middleman.
Socialism is something else, for example people in Sweden can freely quit their jobs
Socialism is still the productive people working for the non-productive people. It's less militant, but it's still the same deal with the devil. It pays lip service to extra hard work's rewards, but is still the use of force to punish that hard work by handing the fruit of that work to those who couldn't or wouldn't do it themselves. The only places where a veneer of this appears to work is in places like Sweden where the culture has a strong historical work ethic. That's now starting to fall apart, as that culture is poisoned from the outside.
Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez (Score:5, Insightful)
>Socialism is still the productive people working for the non-productive people.
When socialism originated the intention was for it to be the opposite of this state, which existed under capitalism at the time (and still does effectively, but not as dramatically). You had the capitalists, who owned factories and companies, and the workers who did not but had to sell their labour. The workers would actually do the work and produce while most of the benefits went to the owners as profit. The whole point of socialism was that the workers should own the means of production, thus avoiding this issue.
Your analysis is only true at a micro-level, and ignores the environment in which these allegedly "agreed exchanges" take place. Just look at *history* - extremely dangerous working conditions, child labour, sweatshops. Unattractive, but if the only alternative is that or starve, you will inevitably make the "beneficial exchange" even if the benefits of the transaction are vastly skewed against you.
Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference is that people willingly work for their bosses and they can always get a different job or just quit.
Do you seriously think that people can always "just get a different job"?
Unregulated free market inevitably breeds monopolies, and not the least one of them is monopoly on jobs (well, technically it would be a monopsony, I guess). You're absolutely free to do as you will, of course - you can either work, or you can starve to death.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> Unregulated free market inevitably breeds monopolies,
Actually it is the opposite. Point to a monopoly that existed for more than a decade or so without the power of the State behind it.
Rent seeking Corporatism shouldn't be confused with Capitalism.
Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez (Score:5, Insightful)
Point to a monopoly that existed for more than a decade or so without the power of the State behind it.
I can't, because there was no period in human history wherein State didn't intervene into the market to some extent. Every time we tried to let it loose, it crashed hard and fast - we're still going through the consequences of such a crash at the moment, and if you look at countries which suffered most, it's usually those with more deregulated economies. Just compare US and Canada...
Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez (Score:4, Insightful)
I've heard all the fancy tales about Freddie & Fannie etc a thousand times. They are thoroughly debunked all over the Net - literally, JFGI.
Better tell me what. US banking industry is a complete mess post-crash, while Canadian one is fine. The difference is that Canadian banks were significantly more regulated, and specifically the government limited how risky they could get with handing out credits, and investing money. When push came to shove, they lost money alright, but nowhere near enough to collapse, or even need any major assistance. What come?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well sure, they're not going to come right out and say that. Workers of the world unite, man!
Regardless, the free ride is delivered. Which is exactly why entire populations of leeches are moving to socialist democracies in western Europe in order to get a piece of the free pie
Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez (Score:5, Insightful)
"having lived behind the iron courtain, I could say that socialism or communism leaders never really cared about own ideology."
You are mistaking socialism/communism for dictatorship/totalitarianism.
It's a common mistake.
Well it's awfully damn convienient that whenever someone starts a socialist or communist government, they always happen to end up a dictator. So they've killed and starved perhaps hundreds of millions over the past century, but hey, they just didn't do it right, is that it? Lets give 'em another chance?
They always turn out to be dictators because, surprise surprise, socialism and communism are ripe for that kind of system. If you can declare things like property rights null and void "for the people", then there's nothing that you cant take or abolish.... for the people, of course.
Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, just look at how terrible life is in those socialist Scandinavian countries.
Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, longer life, better education, better healthcare, generally happier people.
Awful. I'm glad we don't have anything like that here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well it's awfully damn convienient that whenever someone starts a socialist or communist government, they always happen to end up a dictator.
Some people [wikipedia.org] didn't do that, but somehow they end up being murdered [wikipedia.org] all the time.
Oh, and can you point at one other example of someone starting a socialist or communist government (i.e. the one that labels itself such), that didn't start as a dictatorship?
Or, say, a communist country which was started independently, without (totalitarian) Soviet help, apart from the USSR itself?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is Britain socialist? The Labour party ditched outright socialism a long time ago, and they made no attempt to, for example, reverse the Tories' privatization of electricity, gas, water, telecoms and rail.
Now we seem to have settled on capitalism with a welfare state, which is still basically capitalist.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh Christ, Penn's off his meds again? I mean seriously - he should be wearing a jacket with sleeves that wrap all the way around and tie at the back.
Look at the bright side though: the best supporter Chavez can rustle up is Penn. I don't see his policies sweeping the free world any time soon.
Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at the bright side though: the best supporter Chavez can rustle up is Penn. I don't see his policies sweeping the free world any time soon.
Chavez has supporters right in the Obama administration. One is Obamas' "Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd at the FCC. Talk about a scary scenario, having a guy like Lloyd in a position of power over the nations' communications!
Here's a quote from Mark Lloyd, speaking at the June 10, 2008 National Conference for Media Reform (NCMR)in Minneapolis, Minnesota:
"In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.
The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.
-And we've had complaints about this ever since."
You can see the video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9ffAP5ixhg [youtube.com]
Apparently Chavez' policies are already "sweeping the free world" in the form of the Obama administration, since this statement from Lloyd hasn't been disavowed by anyone in the administration.
Anyone who voices dissent with Obama administration policies on radio/TV and even on the internet should be prepared. There will be a campaign launched to demonize you, painting you as "dangerous" and "promoting violence" and attempting to smear you by conflating voicing your dissent with a few nutjobs (which exist on both sides) who may commit some violent act. You will be fined, taxed, audited, and they'll ultimately will shut you down & silence you if they can.
A Brave New World, indeed!
Strat
Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, you are a nut or a lemming.
I listened to that video and what you took away from it is the worst possible interpretation. It's like you aren't interested in hearing what he said, only what you wanted him to say.
The video starts off with the guy decrying state controlled media and using the Rwandan massacre as an example. That ought to be a big clue as to his point of view right there. When he cites Venezuela, he's not endorsing Chavez, he's using the actions of oligopoly media in Venezuela at the time to support a coup rather than democratic change. In other words he's citing two examples of extremes - abusive state control of media and abusive private control of media.
You may be all for a coup to throw Chavez out, but he was democratically elected and at the time he certainly was a change for the better in the country - the percentage of people living poverty in Venezeula had more than doubled to two-thirds of the population over the two decades prior to his election. Just because he's gone overboard since then doesn't mean he didn't start off working to improve things, which is what that FCC guy was referring to with "begin to place things."
As for the "and we've had complaints about this ever since" line -- sounds to me like he's referring to the the CIA's involvement in the coup attempt - and I don't see a problem there, we constantly hear complaints about China and Israel trying to influence the US government, if they were part of an actual coup attempt in the US, we would never hear the last of it, we'd probably go to war over it.
Kind of funny-sad how going to google for this background info, all I got was a vast echo-chamber of blogs, none of them doing anything beyond parroting the invective, not one of them that I checked could be bothered to raise a single skeptical eyebrow instead of jumping on the bandwagon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Fourteen months after his first attempt failed, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez won a referendum Sunday to eliminate term limits"
As the article you linked points out, there was a referendum.
When right-wing US friend Uribe in Columbia tries the same thing, there's complete silence about it in the mainstream media. Who's biased which way now?
Is Colombia's Uribe pulling a Chávez on term limits?
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2009/0902/p06s05-woam.html [csmonitor.com]
"Combined with the allegations of vote f
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but taking over the media, rewriting the constitution to remove term limits so he can stay in power indefinitely and possibly attempting to assassinate the democratically elected president of a neighboring country (see the first link) are not the actions of a democratic leader.
Whereas letting the media write the Law, being able to get reelected indefinitely in the first place or having a fucking king, invading other countries and executing their leaders after a bullshit trial, or organizing coups in all of Latin America because their democratic leaders wanted to send poor children to school are things democratic leaders do, especially in your country,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well in all honesty, he's not quite a dictator, since there still are binding elections, which he does occasionally lose [npr.org]. Now that doesn't mean he doesn't want to be a dictator. He's certainly setting himself up as one, and his actions clearly show that he wants no opposition to his rule. Keep in mind, Hugo Chavez came to (inter)national attention during the failed 1992 coup against Pérez [wikipedia.org].
What is really interesting is that Venezuela is falling apart (perhaps most bizarrely having massive blackouts i
Re:I'm still appalled that anyone defends Chavez (Score:5, Funny)
there was joke told in central Europe (formet soviet satellites):
introduce socialism in countries in the Sahara desert area, and in 3 years they will be shortages of sand.
Re: (Score:2)
"I've got no beef with socialism in general, but what Chavez is doing isn't socialism."
I really get tired of hearing this old canard... "This isn't really socialism. Socialism really has never been tried". Bunk. This is exactly where socialism goes. There's always people that refuse to play along, and this is what happens to them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, look at the socialist hellholes those Scandinavian nations are. Such terrible places.
Re: (Score:2)
rewriting the constitution to remove term limits so he can stay in power indefinitely
You mean like those terrible dictatorships Britain, or Germany, or Canada? Or that terrible dictatorship, the US before 1951? I don't get this recent obsession with term limits as a shibboleth of democracy. If the Venezuelan people keep voting for Chavez indefinitely, why shouldn't he stay in power indefinitely? There's nothing dictatorial about the person who wins an election becoming the president; quite the contrary.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit. The country has been mismanaged to the hilt, and all of the people are coming around to that. Do you think the poor appreciate the war zone-like conditions there? I live 15 miles from Venezuela and I wouldn't even consider going there. It's just too dangerous. The new rich elite Chavistas (see Animal Farm for an explanation of how this works) are the only people doing well in the new Venezuela.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A Democracy is mob rule, we (in the USA) live in a representative republic, not a democracy.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
<pendantic>I believe the term you are looking for is constitutional republic. "Constitutional" is the key here, because the constitution means the majority can't do whatever they want, they have to obey the restrictions in the constitution. "representative" is redundant with "republic", since republic already implies it is not a direct democracy.</pendantic>
(the first point, that democracy implies mob rule, is correct, and is what the founding fathers were afraid of, and why they made the cons
Chilling thought (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Chilling thought (Score:5, Insightful)
It disturbs me greatly that a man like this, and Fidel Castro regularly have been praising the direction our country is heading.
Yes, and when the devil says that 2+2=4, it has to be wrong. If you do the exact opposite of what certain people tell you to do, you're letting them influence you just as much as if you followed exactly what they tell you to do. The only way to deal with people like that is to ignore their populist comments.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since this is Slashdot, I'm assuming "our country" is the United States. If not, I apologize.
The only example which I found on a Google search was one from today, when Fidel Castro praised the new US Health care plan [washingtonpost.com]. I hardly would call that "praising the direction our country is heading" - are there any other examples. Everything else I found was generally negative.
First step in gaining complete control (Score:2, Insightful)
Control the information.
You can own the media markets outright (Italy's Berlusconi), or, as Chavez and countless others before him did, simply arrest them.
Fat lotta good the UN does on either account...
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the UN care about media control within a country?
The UN is primarily an organization for international cooperation and human rights. Only in rare cases does the UN intervene (civil war).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The UN is primarily an organization for international cooperation and human rights.
Forcibly silencing opposition media works against international cooperation by preventing citizens from hearing about anything perceived as "negative" from other nations. As for human rights, what exactly do you consider a human right, if you don't believe that should include the right to speak your views openly without fear of imprisonment?
Boy do I feel stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Be easy on the US politicians. They're still learning.
Re: (Score:2)
GULAG is an abbreviation, like FBI. You would not say "Then the FBIs came after him." Would you?
Thanks to the US Supreme Court... (Score:2, Insightful)
It follows the classic Slashdot 3 Step Plan:
1. Acquire US corporation with overseas branches (Bahamas, anyone).
2. Transfer funds to US, make contributions, buy political advertising, etc.
3. Profit! In this case profit equals changing US behavior.
This is such a new r
The Next Step (Score:4, Insightful)
Talking smack about the USA is only going to get him so far as the standard of living declines. Then he's got to attack his neighbors (even more). That's if he lives . . .
He has been released already! (Score:2)
He has been released already! Let's hope that they don't incarcerate him again. This link is to Globovisión, the network of which Zuloaga is president:
http://www.globovision.com/news.php?nid=144197 [globovision.com]
Google translation [google.com]
Because what he did is legal in the USA? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have the balls to make wild claims, you better have a pair to prove them. [youtube.com]
You have the freedom to accuse the government of killing people, but you have the duty to present the proof. Nowhere in the world (including the USA) you can accuse anybody of mass killing people without presenting any proof and come out clean. And when the accuser is the owner of a major TV channel it's worse.
Next, we'll see slashdot out-crying the incarceration of killers because they voted against Chavez.
Yup, it's legal (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it's completely legal in the US. For better or worse, the media can legally lie [projectcensored.org].
Moreover, Americans have a great history of accusing presidents of mass murder [911sharethetruth.com] with no factual basis whatsoever, yet I've never heard of any one of them being arrested for speaking their views.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Nowhere in the world (including the USA) you can accuse anybody of mass killing people without presenting any proof and come out clean.
Unless you a member of the US House that is. Congressman Murtha went to Hell never repenting his accusations of exactly that against the US Marine Corps even after they were proven false in court.
I will mostly pass on the ravings on MSNBC since you did add the qualifier of "major TV channel" and they don't meet that standard. :)
The president has a right to legal defense (Score:5, Interesting)
The Venezuelan president has a right a legal defense on unwarranted attacks on his reputation - if he is defamed then he can take the matter to court. This doesn't make him a dictator.
Zuloaga has a defense to the charges against him: if he can prove his statements were true, then he can get off. But if his allegations about Chavez are in fact just inflammatory lies, then he's in some serious legal shit.
What has Slashdot to do with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
First, WTH is this doing in /. ? The OWNER of a tv STATION gets arrested boarding his plane when trying to leave the country, when a court summoned him to back up his criminal claims against the president (He said Chavez ordered the killing of protesters), all of this in a foreign country. And it somehow becomes... YOUR rights ONLINE? What has someone from /. anything to do with this? Do we all cry if the owner of Fox News (Rupert Murdoch) gets sued by Democrats for libel? How is this relevant to /. ???
70% of the comments are bullshit. Most comments have an obvious anti-Chavez bias, completely full of lies. Anyone can visit the country and immediately discover the truth. This is psycho-warfare. Believe all my lies of this country, "but don't go there!, it's dangerous!, just trust everything i say"...
Say, does /. reports when a community station gets closed? By reading these comments, one would think there is no "dissident" opinion allowed in Venezuela. I dare you come here and not find anti-chavez opinion in the media, 95% of it in private hands, 80% against Chavez. Yet, Chavez keep winning elections, because the people want him despite what media corporate lords want.
There is even someone asking if its possible for people to own a satellite dish... Are you on drugs? Subscription TV has higher penetration than Internet here, above 25% (lame, i know). You can watch all the "fine" examples of American TV, including Fox News, CNN, ABC, and the rest of your "unbiased" news corporations. We don't have a Great Firewall, and we don't censor news or opinion, but people is accountable of what they say. Even that other channel which supposedly was closed, is not, they just lost the license for public broadcast, but are doing just fine in cable and satellite, 24h attacking the government.
This guy Zuloaga, who owns another channel, will likely lose his license in a few years. That doesn't mean much as it only covers 3 cities using public airwaves. Most of its target audience are wealthy people with subscription based tv in their home who won't miss a thing. There are still many other TV stations, almost all radio and a majority of newspapers and magazines all against the government, yet the people won't budge.
Their biggest mistake is believing their own lies, thinking everyone hates Chavez just like they do, then banging their heads against the wall everytime they keep losing elections, trying to find excuses even if the whole world comes to watch the process or 100% of the voting machines get audited right after the election closes. So they resort to the conclusion the majority is stupid for choosing Chavez and they, the "well prepared and educated", need to seize power by any means, just like Honduras and oppress anyone else.
Democracy, or the power of majority over minority, is an obstacle for the opposition, who was used to rule the country to their whim for decades, and who conveniently forget it was their failure which caused Chavez to rise in the first place. Socialism? Communism? There isn't anything of the sort in Venezuela. There is a declared INTENTION towards Socialism, but thats about it. We can't even claim a mixed-economy, as the majority of production is still in private hands, but at least it's not 100% private anymore and a decade of neo-liberalism is being reverted slowly.
Of course media corporate lords don't like these community radio/tv things, but they won't tell you that. When they were in power, such thing was "pirate" and heavily repressed. How dare the poor organize and enter their turf they spent so many years to monopolize? But of course you don't hear that, its all Chavez this, Chavez, that. Keep living in dreams, the people are awake.
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone has a cite for this it would be appreciated.
Re:Lordy lord, it's not that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean like gitmo?
Re:Lordy lord, it's not that bad (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the venezuelan government has been trying to close Globovision for a while now, and one of the biggest problems is that they have NEVER advocated any kind of violence against the government, be it the president or anyone else. It would cost too much international support for them to close another oposition TV station without a good reason.
The other two big independent TV stations have been scared off enough that they don't dare play anything political. The only other one is VTV, the government's channel (and I don't mean Bush' Fox, I mean wholly owned by the government). They do play show like "La Hojilla" (The razor blade) that openly advocated a few times killing oposition as a legitimate means of defending "the revolution".
Not to mention Chavez himself sometimes applauding relatively violent acts in his defense.
Now, I won't say that Globovision is fair and balanced, but as far as I can tell they never outright lied about anything. I understand Fox news to be more radical and distorting than Globovision and yet I don't see the Fox owners being hounded for years and finally arrested like Zuloaga.
FWIW, it seems Zuloaga was released after appearing in court [noticias24.com], with a prohibition against leaving the country. We'll see whether he'll fold and close Globovision or be thrown in jail on trumped up charges.
Time to claw things back and give Chavez a chance to reform the country, like a majority of the population say they want.
Disclaimer on my stance on the government: Chavez has been in power for 10 years. He's changed the constitution multiple times, tried out different reforms all while oil was at an all time high and money was flowing into the country like crazy. He's had a BIG chance to reform the country and It's all been a failure. Lately all he's doing helps the government more than the people.
Hell, we even have rolling blackouts now, when we used to export electricity. This is a situation that was predicted over a year ago, but 10 years of ignoring the power infrastructure have left its mark, and yet he blames it all on el niño and the previous governments.
If you want change, don't prop up the same old government. If you're a socialist, elect a different socialist president. If you're a capitalist, same thing. There's no reason to maintain Chavez in power for another 50 years.
Re: (Score:2)
he other two big independent TV stations have been scared off enough that they don't dare play anything political. The only other one is VTV, the government's channel (and I don't mean Bush' Fox, I mean wholly owned by the government). They do play show like "La Hojilla" (The razor blade) that openly advocated a few times killing oposition as a legitimate means of defending "the revolution".
We had that too, it was called 24.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I didn't mean a TV Show like a sitcom or whatever. La Hojilla was a news/opinion show with a guy discussing the day's events, and so on.
It never pretended to be fiction, or fiction pretending to be reality, or anything like that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope. One of his moves a few years ago was to set up the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) which absorbed a bunch of parties that supported him at one time and he's campaigned for people to see this as the only socialist party in existence. Of course he controls it and it would only propose him for president. Anyone leading another party is politically a nobody
There are other socialist politicians. Real socialists, even some that have been fighting for change for decades and are appalled at what Ch
MODS (Score:2)
There are limits to free speech (eg: shouting fire in a theater, etc) and the media can and do falcilitate and incite atrocities. For example the Ranawndan genocide was largely incited and
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you haven't either...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You make it sound like this would be some sort of "I told you so" moment for him. It's not. People like him know exactly what guys like Chavez are all about. Penn also wants a society ruled by Smart Lefties, since he's sure that he and the others know what's best. That allows him to wash his hands of all of the corruption, back room deals, unconstitutional compulsion and skullduggery that it takes to make those arrangements. You know, kind of like we just saw happen in the US cong
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really something for "Your Rights Online" or just simple /.'s HR activism? Some kind of tax incentive like when movie displays US flag? :)
Assuming that "yro" is only about rights on/of the internet, there's still a chilling effect here: Now that Chavez has total control of Boardwalk and Park Place, don't you think he's going to try to own the whole side of the game board? Venezuela internet isn't going to be free (as in speech, or as a bird) for long.