Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Chavez is awesome, and don't you forget it.

  1. #1

    Default Chavez is awesome, and don't you forget it.

    The Venezuelan government has taken six cable television channels off the air for breaking a law on transmitting government material.

    The privately owned RCTV International, openly opposed to President Hugo Chavez, is one of those affected.

    On Saturday the government had ordered RCTV to televise a government message, but the channel refused to comply.

    The communications director for RCTV, Gladys Zapain, told AFP there was "no prior notification" of the move.

    Last week RCTV, along with 23 other cable channels, was redefined by the government as a national, rather than international broadcaster.

    As such, the channels would now be expected to carry presidential addresses and government campaign material in what is an election year in Venezuela.


    The government had urged cable services to drop channels ignoring the rules.

    "They must comply with the law, and they cannot have a single channel that violates Venezuelan law as part of their programming," said the director of Venezuela's state-run telecommunications agency, Diosdado Cabello.

    When the first opportunity to televise a government message was rejected by RCTV, it was ordered off air within a day.

    The BBC's Will Grant in Caracas says there was only going to be one winner in such a battle of wills.

    He says it is thought that the move is temporary at this stage, but that the government is unlikely to permit RCTV to broadcast again until the media group agrees to comply with the new law.

    Opposition groups accuse Mr Chavez of trying to control the media and prevent coverage of political discontent.

    RCTV moved to cable in 2007 after the Venezuelan government of Mr Chavez refused to renew its terrestrial licence.

    Mr Chavez has in the past accused it of backing a coup attempt against him.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8477428.stm

    So is it also illegal to carry content for people who oppose Chavez in addition to being illegal not to be his propaganda machine? If so, why even carry out the pretense of elections anymore? Is it also required to carry the opposition's campaign material until the opposition is eliminated? It's not as if anyone actually believes this is anything other than a dictatorship, after all.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  2. #2
    He's just envious of Berlusconi
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8477428.stm

    So is it also illegal to carry content for people who oppose Chavez in addition to being illegal not to be his propaganda machine? If so, why even carry out the pretense of elections anymore? Is it also required to carry the opposition's campaign material until the opposition is eliminated? It's not as if anyone actually believes this is anything other than a dictatorship, after all.
    That's the problem with voting. Sometimes dictators get elected. Now what?
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  4. #4
    Now why does the great Chavez insist on pretending it is still a democracy? Does it make him feel loved by the West?
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    Now why does the great Chavez insist on pretending it is still a democracy? Does it make him feel loved by the West?
    It's probably for his own people, certainly the ones that voted for him. And there's less pretext for international santions, I guess, if you still pretend you're a legitimate govenrment. And reallly, is he illegitimate? He did get elected. He got laws passed. He got the constitution changed, set himself up nice. They voted for that, didn't they? I warned them.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  6. #6
    A few years ago everyone my age was all in a flutter about how Chavez was creating something special, unique and socialist. It was going to be an*awesome middle finger to America. Yeah! An ex-girlfriend of mine went to Venezuela to see it herself and was abuzz.

    Now they never bring up Venezuela.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    A few years ago everyone my age was all in a flutter about how Chavez was creating something special, unique and socialist. It was going to be an*awesome middle finger to America. Yeah! An ex-girlfriend of mine went to Venezuela to see it herself and was abuzz.

    Now they never bring up Venezuela.
    Power's too tempting. That's why we need the robots.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    A few years ago everyone my age was all in a flutter about how Chavez was creating something special, unique and socialist. It was going to be an*awesome middle finger to America. Yeah! An ex-girlfriend of mine went to Venezuela to see it herself and was abuzz.

    Now they never bring up Venezuela.
    The worst job in the world is better than being broke and homeless

  9. #9
    Bait and switch is only illegal in the US. Maybe we'll reconsider that with a bipartisan senate.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Now they never bring up Venezuela.
    Did you explain to them how communism was supposed to be an "awesome middle finger to capitalism" and then point out how well it worked in Russia, China, and Cuba?
    . . .

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    Did you explain to them how communism was supposed to be an "awesome middle finger to capitalism" and then point out how well it worked in Russia, China, and Cuba?
    Communism isn't socialism
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  12. #12
    Lolli, the point is primarily to muddle the issue for those at home. That way you can actually maintain the pretense of elections with minimal cheating.

    Too bad they don't have adequate checks and balances. The classic problem, and not enough strength in the institutions. But at least Chavez was actually elected. Usually in Central and South America it is a military coup, which is why Honduras made me so upset.

  13. #13
    Coup? The military was following orders of the highest court of the land. Furthermore how many military coup's do you know of that instantly turn into Democracies and have elections in a year?

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Coup? The military was following orders of the highest court of the land. Furthermore how many military coup's do you know of that instantly turn into Democracies and have elections in a year?
    1) Don't derail the thread.

    2) It was violent, people were killed, it did not follow legal procedures.

    3) The court rubber-stamped it after the fact, which makes it dubious.

    4) The Sandinistas in Nicaragua had free democratic elections, actually. And then they left when they lost in the next cycle.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    Lolli, the point is primarily to muddle the issue for those at home. That way you can actually maintain the pretense of elections with minimal cheating.

    Too bad they don't have adequate checks and balances. The classic problem, and not enough strength in the institutions. But at least Chavez was actually elected. Usually in Central and South America it is a military coup, which is why Honduras made me so upset.
    Usually? There have been a handful of coups in Latin America over the last two decades (coincidentally, the situation in Honduras was not a coup, unless you consider the military carrying out the orders of the Supreme Court and Congress to be a coup). Plus Venezuela was one of the more developed, economically and politically, countries in South America before Chavez was elected. One fair election does not a democracy make.

    Chavez was elected in 1999. Note the trend before and after the election: http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/ven2.htm

    Good to see you lionizing the Sandanistas again by the way. FYI, they won the election in 1984 because their main opposition boycotted the election, and couldn't really maintain their grasp in power, which is why they recognized the 1990 election.

    http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/nic2.htm Also note that Nicaragua was becoming more democratic before the Sandanistas gained power.
    Last edited by Loki; 01-25-2010 at 04:09 PM.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Usually? There have been a handful of coups in Latin America over the last two decades
    Sloppy language on my part. IIRC Honduras was the first violent coup in 20 years. Coup used to be the system of government in CA.

    (coincidentally, the situation in Honduras was not a coup, unless you consider the military carrying out the orders of the Supreme Court and Congress to be a coup).
    Post hoc. Armed storming of the presidential residency, including killings, followed by a supreme court authorization is very suspicious at best. Had the SC and other bodies proceeded legally, and an armed ouster was essential, that would be one thing. A post hoc SC ratification of a fait accomplis is hardly "legal."

    Plus Venezuela was one of the more developed, economically and politically, countries in South America before Chavez was elected. One fair election does not a democracy make.

    Chavez was elected in 1999. Note the trend before and after the election: http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/ven2.htm
    By no means was I defending Chavez. I never have. He's a donkey and an authoritarian. I was just pointing out Venezuela as an exemplar wrt the danger of inadequate checks and balances. When such exists, somebody can be democratically elected and then abuse power and end the democracy.



    Good to see you lionizing the Sandanistas again by the way.
    Lionizing? Really? I just said they overturned an authoritarian government through military action, and then instituted a democracy. Are you saying it was not democratic? How then do you explain them relinquishing power when they lost an election? That's hardly lionizing them.

    My only point about them has been that the US made a mistake and was on the wrong side of that fight. Another ethical cesspool entered in the name of the Cold War. Understandable perhaps, in the way that Vietnam was understandable, but still butt ugly. The FSLN was not squeaky clean, but they look damned good when compared the Somoza and his Guardia, or the Contras, which until the late stages of the civil war were mostly Guardia.

    FYI, they won the election in 1984 because their main opposition boycotted the election,
    Maybe so, though if so mainly because the "opposition" was fighting a civil war trying to reinstate an authoritarian government. By the same token, I'm guessing you consider Iraq's elections undemocratic because so many Shiites boycotted? The 1984 election was recognized as fair by multiple objective observers. Only the Reagan administration demurred, and they actually had nobody their observing. Though one could argue that politically Reagan had to do so, given his prior actions. Cognitive dissonance rides again!

    and couldn't really maintain their grasp in power, which is why they recognized the 1990 election.
    That's just a cheap-ass rationalization of something you can't really address, i.e. how a group you call authoritarian would peacefully relinquish power when they lost an election. Besides, everybody thought the Sandinistas would actually win in 1990. They had hardly lost their grasp on power. Their margin of loss was quite small for somebody with no hold on power. Do you just make this stuff up?

    Besides, even if true isn't that kind of tenuous? Since when did that stop authoritarians? They just stomp on more testicles, right?

    http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/nic2.htm Also note that Nicaragua was becoming more democratic before the Sandanistas gained power.
    You mean Somoza was executing journalists in the streets at a lower rate? Look at your own graph, Loki! The first upward point occurred after Somoza's ouster, in 1979. And the trend continued upwards for the duration of the FLSN's power. Yes, like any ragtag revolutionary group, they were a diverse group, including some real rat bastards. But they ousted worse rat bastards, and then walked peacefully. That's about the best possible outcome from a democratic point of view, especially given the opposition of the hemisphere's superpower.

    I'll also point out that the FSLN faced a horrific economy, a war-ravaged country, and threats of renewed civil war. No wonder they lost.

    See, doesn't BS rationalization smell bad? Turn about is fair play.

    PS What exactly is an "Authority trend," translated from the academic buzzwordese?
    Last edited by ']['ear; 01-25-2010 at 05:43 PM.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Communism isn't socialism
    I wasn't equating the two in anything other than how their implementation was attempted and their eventual decline followed by current day end result.
    . . .

  18. #18
    Decline? There are strongly socialist countries (see Scandihoovia), and most western democracies, incl. the US, have considerable socialist strains.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    Decline? There are strongly socialist countries (see Scandihoovia), and most western democracies, incl. the US, have considerable socialist strains.
    Yes, but whats the common thread amongst all of the successful socialist countries? Did Venezuela have this attribute? Did Russia, China, or Cuba have this attribute before they attempted communism?
    . . .

  20. #20
    Democracy. No.

    I see your point. It's just that people frequently equate socialism with "automatic autocracy." This is probably due to the ignorance of conflating socialism with communism, but I think some do it as a form of demonization of an opposing economic philosophy.

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    Decline? There are strongly socialist countries (see Scandihoovia), and most western democracies, incl. the US, have considerable socialist strains.
    They're social democratic, not socialist. There is a difference.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  22. #22
    I was using "socialist" as a descriptor. Adjective, you know

    But how is that doctrine of "dominance through academic semantic hairsplitting" going?
    Last edited by ']['ear; 01-25-2010 at 07:22 PM.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8477428.stm

    So is it also illegal to carry content for people who oppose Chavez in addition to being illegal not to be his propaganda machine? If so, why even carry out the pretense of elections anymore? Is it also required to carry the opposition's campaign material until the opposition is eliminated? It's not as if anyone actually believes this is anything other than a dictatorship, after all.
    It is just as fascist as the moderation in the old forum where we came from...
    If he is a dictator, he may need to be totalitarian.
    However if you look at crime rates, it is obviously that he is not ruling the country.

    If you hear Chaves talkiing about food independence and projects you think he is great as he is a good storyteller (just like Bush).
    But then you have Globovision that talks about the food imports from Colombia...

    When Chaves said that if Evo Morales was killed he would invade Bolivia, venezuelans started to joke "he should invade Venezuela first because criminals are killing us".

    Venezuela is not socialist. He has a military taking care of economy. So you have militanomics

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •