Chavez rewards his support from the left...

[S-Des]

Chavez is threatening to forcibly close a 2nd TV station that says mean things about him......

By JORGE RUEDA, Associated Press Writer

"I recommend (Globovision) take a tranquilizer, that they slow down, because if not, I'm going to slow them down," Chavez said in a speech.

Chavez did not elaborate, but said some broadcasters and newspapers are conspiring to spark unrest and warned that radio stations should not be inciting violence by "manipulating" public sentiment.

"A new destabilization plan is under way," Chavez said, calling for his supporters to be "on alert" and ordering officials to closely monitor media coverage.

Chavez says it is a move to democratize the airwaves. He accused RCTV of helping incite a failed coup in 2002, violating broadcast laws and "poisoning" Venezuelans with programming that promoted capitalism.

International press freedom groups, the European Union, the Chilean Senate, Human Rights Watch and others have expressed concern about the move against RCTV. The State Department on Tuesday called on the Chavez government "to reverse policies that limit freedom of expression."

This coming on the heels of him declaring that he had the right to seize the assets of foreign companies who invested in Venezuela (because they were evil entities that were exploiting the country, so deserved to lose everything). Now his troops are using tear gas on students protesting in the streets (chanting slogans for freedom).

I wonder if Danny Glover feels as stupid as he looks right now?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Now

It has been happening for years, since the beginning of his presidency. The only left ever supporting him was either uninformed, Cuban, or Bolivian.

 

[S-Des]

It has been happening for years, since the beginning of his presidency. The only left ever supporting him was either uninformed, Cuban, or Bolivian.

I think it was his nasty criticism of Bush that garnered him so much good will. Frankly, I was shocked to see famous people (and hear people I thought were pretty intelligent) support him. Everything is so political at this point, I honestly have given up trying to understand why people take the positions they do.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I think it was his nasty criticism of Bush that garnered him so much support. Frankly, I was shocked to see famous people (and hear people I thought were pretty intelligent) support him. Everything is so political at this point, I honestly have given up trying to understand why people take the positions they do.

I wouldn't call that support, though. It's more akin to goading on the drunk when he starts talking about the former profession of the corrupt mayor's mother at the local pub.

 

[S-Des]

I wouldn't call that support, though. It's more akin to goading on the drunk when he starts talking about the former profession of the corrupt mayor's mother at the local pub.

Possibly, but many of the comments I've seen and heard go well beyond that threshold (although I have no way of knowing if they were meant as true support or as you suggest). With Glover and other celebs (especially Harry Bellefonte), they've gone well past that point and into true support. Those people need to be watching the news right now and publicly asked tough questions about their "buddy" Hugo.

BTW, now the police are firing rubber bullets into the crowd. Truly sad, but it's great to see the students standing up to them.

 

[rgraham666]

Shrugs. The differences, to me, between Bush and Chavez are aesthetic only. They're cut from exactly the same cloth.

 

[Guest]

Wow, Des. Spinning the media for personal gain?

Does this even happen?

It reminds me a bit of Bush pre-selecting his "random" crowds while stumping for Prez.

 

[slyc_willie]

Possibly, but many of the comments I've seen and heard go well beyond that threshold (although I have no way of knowing if they were meant as true support or as you suggest). With Glover and other celebs (especially Harry Bellefonte), they've gone well past that point and into true support. Those people need to be watching the news right now and publicly asked tough questions about their "buddy" Hugo.

And perhaps their support only shows their true character. It seems to me that the legacy of Hollywood -- and "stardom" in general -- is that one must polarize themselves to one end or another. Witness Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Charlton Heston . . . .

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The failure of the left to come to the defense of liberal values in this instance is a consequence of engaging in the rhetorical excesses that have characterized their reaction to the Bush administration, and then coming to believe their own rhetoric. For example, if one says and reads enough times, "Bush is a dictator equivalent to Hitler," one can lose touch with historical reality and context, and begin basing one's actions on the notion that Bush really is equivalent to Hitler. In opposing Hitler, democratic leaders were willing to "sign a pact with the Devil himself," in Churchill's words. Similarly today, having disconnected their perception from historical reality, many on the left are willing to do the same contra Bush. You see evidence of it in many areas.

The problem goes a bit deeper than the current administration, and extends the left's unbalanced perception of the United States, a consequence of the "hate America first" rhetoric that has become commonplace in the last few decades. This compounds the problem.

The right is also capable of unhinging themselves from reality in this way, although they haven't had the opportunity to go quite to the extremes the left has this decade. We saw this happen in the Clinton-hating of the 1990s. The right is more likely to become unhinged by social issues. Their greater appreciation and knowledge usually of historical context makes them less likely to go off the deep end on matters of foreign policy, but they are not immune to it.

It's bad for democracy whichever side does it. It stresses the system, and weakens the cultural "institutions" that make democracy and civil society possible.

 

[slyc_willie]

An interesting point, Roxanne.

You point out the extremism of the left and the apparent likelihood of the right to follow in the same vein. I doubt either would fully back Chavez and his regime if pressed to do so.

American politics, as it is, preaches against the far spectrums while simultaneously shying away from them. We talk a good deal, but don't act one way or the other. Our actions come out when addressing the 'extremist' regimes of other governments.

Regarding Chavez, his actions speak of a temporary polarization, one that will become nullified either by his, or his opponents (or supporters?) policies. Certainly, Hugo Chavez has expressed many views during his presidency, which have often been contradictory. He plays politics as well as any White House regular.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

The people protesting in the streets in Caracas right now are students, journalists and artists. i.e. The Left.

 

[S-Des]

The people protesting in the streets in Caracas right now are students, journalists and artists. i.e. The Left.

That is exactly why people here on the Left should be ashamed of themselves for supporting Chavez publicly. Trust me, no one on the Right is saying he's a swell guy (or the Centrists, as far as I can tell).

 

[mikey2much]

The TV is a powerful weapon, but money buys it.

I think we should worry about what is wrong on the north side of the Rio Grande. When we sit through Fox newscast on any evening and listen to propaganda spoken as if it were news. When even CNN starts to tell you how to take the different stories by the subtle way the reporters state their facts. You have to wonder who is calling the shots. Money runs TV and TV molds peoples minds on the issues. Our government runs our TV, he (Chavez) is just trying to stop us from buying his TV right out from under him.

Our leaders have just recently lied to get us to follow them to a war they had planned years ago. They have over-ruled the experts that were there to advise them. They have over-ruled the military when they told them they needed more men. They have lost this nations respect in the eyes of the rest of the world. We now represent the forces of criminal kidnappers and torture camps.

Our leaders refuse to join the world court because they know they would be indicted.

Every election, we elect the man who can sale out for the most money to big business.

Our food is being imported without benefit of inspections. It is killing our pets and us.

Shouldn't we leave him to worry about his problems and us worry about our own. But I know that is too much to ask. I am sure we have money being funneled into the country buying TV spots like the 'The Swiftboat Vets' and 'Flip-Flop' ad series that swayed the public to vote a certain way.

I sure we are doing everything that money can buy to help destabilize the leader because he cares more for the poor than we do in our own country. And all along this path we will expect him to sell his nations oil to us. That’s the American way.

 

[yevkassem72]

Shrugs. The differences, to me, between Bush and Chavez are aesthetic only. They're cut from exactly the same cloth.

Let's just say that the Chavez issue was about the only time that I ever applauded something said by Pat Robertson. Of course, I can call for assassinations of foreign leaders, too. It doesn't mean that they will happen, however. Too bad, because a certain Iranian President....grrrr.....

 

[yevkassem72]

I think we should worry about what is wrong on the north side of the Rio Grande. When we sit through Fox newscast on any evening and listen to propaganda spoken as if it were news. When even CNN starts to tell you how to take the different stories by the subtle way the reporters state their facts. You have to wonder who is calling the shots. Money runs TV and TV molds peoples minds on the issues. Our government runs our TV, he (Chavez) is just trying to stop us from buying his TV right out from under him.

Our leaders have just recently lied to get us to follow them to a war they had planned years ago. They have over-ruled the experts that were there to advise them. They have over-ruled the military when they told them they needed more men. They have lost this nations respect in the eyes of the rest of the world. We now represent the forces of criminal kidnappers and torture camps.

Our leaders refuse to join the world court because they know they would be indicted.

Every election, we elect the man who can sale out for the most money to big business.

Our food is being imported without benefit of inspections. It is killing our pets and us.

Shouldn't we leave him to worry about his problems and us worry about our own. But I know that is too much to ask. I am sure we have money being funneled into the country buying TV spots like the 'The Swiftboat Vets' and 'Flip-Flop' ad series that swayed the public to vote a certain way.

I sure we are doing everything that money can buy to help destabilize the leader because he cares more for the poor than we do in our own country. And all along this path we will expect him to sell his nations oil to us. That’s the American way.

Every Marxist thug out there claims to care about the poor, and then promptly replaces the old elite with a new ruling class. I know that Hugo is a liar because his mouth is moving and I know that he is repressing dissent because he is a Red. It's what Reds do. Mind you, I have no use for Fascists, either.

 

[R. Richard]

Chavez has nationalized the Venezuelan oil industry. In so many words, he stole the oil infrastructure that international oil companies had built and operated. Chavez then installed his political cronies in place of the professionals who managed the Venezuelan oil operations. Of course, the oil company professionals who previously managed the oil operations have gone away to manage oil fields in other contries. In the meantime, Venezuelan oil production has already begun to slip and will continue to slip. The US obtained a meaningful percentage of our oil from Venezuela.

The impact of Chavez' mismanagement will keep world oil prioces high for some time and will have major impacts on world politics. In the meantime, the people iof Venezuela will suffer the results of the lost oil revenues.

It is a lose-lose-lose situation.

 

[yevkassem72]

Chavez has nationalized the Venezuelan oil industry. In so many words, he stole the oil infrastructure that international oil companies had built and operated. Chavez then installed his political cronies in place of the professionals who managed the Venezuelan oil operations. Of course, the oil company professionals who previously managed the oil operations have gone away to manage oil fields in other contries. In the meantime, Venezuelan oil production has already begun to slip and will continue to slip. The US obtained a meaningful percentage of our oil from Venezuela.

The impact of Chavez' mismanagement will keep world oil prioces high for some time and will have major impacts on world politics. In the meantime, the people iof Venezuela will suffer the results of the lost oil revenues.

It is a lose-lose-lose situation.

He's an anachronism, a Marxist dictator! Pah! Communism is passe for a reason. It doesn't work.

 

[rgraham666]

He's an anachronism, a Marxist dictator! Pah! Communism is passe for a reason. It doesn't work.

Then why does it remain so popular with the upper echelons of the business community?

And Robertson calling for Chavez' assassination was an evil thing to do and I won't applaud it no matter who the fatwah was against.

 

[yevkassem72]

Then why does it remain so popular with the upper echelons of the business community?

And Robertson calling for Chavez' assassination was an evil thing to do and I won't applaud it no matter who the fatwah was against.

What about Hitler? Was von Stauffenberg wrong?

 

[JPMMURPHY]

I sure we are doing everything that money can buy to help destabilize the leader because he cares more for the poor than we do in our own country. And all along this path we will expect him to sell his nations oil to us. That’s the American way.


Ummm, sorry, Mikey, but I respectfully disagree.

Worried more about his poor? Chavez is stealing from everyone - the poor included. Living in Mexico, I'm a little closer to the problem. We actually have a political party (PRD) that is backed by, and backs, Chavez. Did you know that Venezuela now has a law on the books that says no male over 12 years old can leave the country without permission from the government? The guy has to insure his uniformed army/police force somehow.

We have friends in Venezuela and I can assure you that things are not getting better.

To me (us - family and friends here in Mexico), this is not about left or right. Intellectualizing reality until it does not resemble actual events does not make that reality right, acceptable, or something we (as American’s) can cubby hole or sweep under the rug.

Chavez is a very dangerous dictator that, unfortunately, seems to resonate with like minded politicians in several parts of Lat Am.

Right now he’s killing off corporate opposition. How long will it take until he trains his sites on something a little warmer than a corporate letterhead?

 

[rgraham666]

What about Hitler? Was von Stauffenberg wrong?

In a word, yes.

If he wanted to oppose Hitler, he should have done what one of Bill Maudlin's fellow soldiers did, defect before the war and join the US Army. This man was from Prussian nobility to boot.

He did the right thing. Von Stauffenberg did not. There is not, in my mind, much difference between him a Timothy McVeigh.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Context matters. Ignoring that leads to odd opninions.

 

[yevkassem72]

In a word, yes.

If he wanted to oppose Hitler, he should have done what one of Bill Maudlin's fellow soldiers did, defect before the war and join the US Army. This man was from Prussian nobility to boot.

He did the right thing. Von Stauffenberg did not. There is not, in my mind, much difference between him a Timothy McVeigh.

So, assassination is always wrong? Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Still, a putsch by the Wehrmacht or a student-led uprising (there was some public discontent growing at the universities by that point) would have been better.

He didn't defect before the war because he ddin't realize just how evil and mad Hitler was until it was too late. Besides, he probably would have deemed that treason. Just my guess.

 

[rgraham666]

So, assassination is always wrong? Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Still, a putsch by the Wehrmacht or a student-led uprising (there was some public discontent growing at the universities by that point) would have been better.

He didn't defect before the war because he ddin't realize just how evil and mad Hitler was until it was too late. Besides, he probably would have deemed that treason. Just my guess.

Yep. Although I prefer to respond to the situation rather than make blanket decisions before hand, assassination is a tool that poisons the cause it's committed for.

Even if you succeed, and the changes take place you hope for occur, that poison will corrupt your success until it becomes the thing you destroyed.

There's a reason my favourite saying is, "What you resist, you become." You need only look at the current administration in the White House for confirmation of that aphorism.

 

[yevkassem72]

Yep. Although I prefer to respond to the situation rather than make blanket decisions before hand, assassination is a tool that poisons the cause it's committed for.

Even if you succeed, and the changes take place you hope for occur, that poison will corrupt your success until it becomes the thing you destroyed.

There's a reason my favourite saying is, "What you resist, you become." You need only look at the current administration in the White House for confirmation of that aphorism.

Hmm...fascinating viewpoint. Different backgrounds tend to lead to different philosophies, but I can respect your principles. Same with the issue of capital punishment, I suppose.

I tend to come at things with a revolutionary perspective and attitude, which definitely affects my take on things. Different from someone from a stable society would have, I think.