quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Can you refute any points made in the articles?

As I see it the main accusations are as follows:

1. Rule by decree
2. Media censorship
3. Oppression of the opposition
4. Undemocratic elections
5. Nationalisation of industry

1. - This power was granted by the elected National Assembly, so perfectly democratic (it's not actually much different to, for example, the UK Labour Party winning an absolute majority in the House of Commons and therefore implementing, unopposed, any policy they chose)

2. - Media censorship centres around the case of RCTV. RCTV has not been shut down, it is free to continue to broadcast on cable/satellite. It is up to the government to decide whether or not to renew frequency licences. There is no obligation for RCTV to have its channel 2 licence renewed. If there was media censorship, the other opposition stations would have been "shut down" too - they haven't. There is also the issue over whether in America, the owners of RCTV would be on death row for treason

3. - Apart from some riots for various things, I don't know enough about this accusation to make any assessment. I do know that riots tend to be met by force by the police force in any country and therefore not necessarily in indicator of dictatorship. Police brutality, which might very well be presented as oppression, is rife in every South American country and is the remnants of dictatorship that ruled in the continent and if anything, happens because of weak government control over law enforcement - certainly not something unique to Venezuela

4. - Venezuela's elections have been monitored by international observers who have reported nothing out of the ordinary. Shakka referred to a poll that suggested a majority want Chavez out, but despite reeling off a load of biassed sources in his previous post, has failed so far to reveal the source of that poll - it wouldn't surprise me to learn it was commissioned by one of the main TV Stations

5. - I do not consider nationalisation as dictatorship. However, those who adhere to the corporate religion of America do. This is the main reason Chavez is labelled a dictator, as Shakka's sources in his last post tend to suggest

With the long, violent and sad history of interference of American and Western corporations in the region, US military and covert operations have fucked up South & Central America in the last 100+ years ever since the Canal incident when US sent warships to secure control of the Panama Canal (everything else is history), I dont trust any of their plans or projects to do good things for the people in those regions, other than the few minority rich top, corporate owned and run. Many of the problems, conflicts, issues faced today can be easily traced to any of those sad events of foreign intervention. And Chavez, rightfully, sees this and knows that the same foreign corporate interests is what's undermining the region.

Of course US-backed foreign corporations think they're doing good, while long history shows otherwise. The forces of people finally came to power, and Chavez campaign - clear threat to US interests, is obviously portrayed as terrorist and dictatorship to American eyes.

Please people, read the "Confessions of an Economic Hitman", it will open up your eyes, its the truth ...

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Shakka: Your first source is �Capitalist Magazine�, so no mystery why they are claiming Chavez is a dictator Second source is a libertarian website, so again, no mystery why they would be opposed to governments nationalising industries Third source is the brilliantly named �Dictator of the Week�! But funnily doesn�t actually portray him as much of a dictator at all! Fourth source, NewsMax, a conservative media company (funnily enough) talks about �rule by decree�, yet says the National Assembly gave Chavez those powers... Next comes capitalist supremo David Allen, so again, no suprise someone opposed to nationalisation equates it to dictatorship. He also incorrectly says RCTV was �shut down� and �taken over� � a lie What made you think the �Captain�s Quarters� blog was a reliable source of information escapes me, but concentrates on nationalisation again The final source is from Alek Boyd, never heard of him but I�m sure his blog is a great source of reliable and unbiased information! Shakka, you�re a lazy git aren�t ya! Do you honestly think that typing +Chavez +dictator in Google isn�t gonna bring up a whole load of unreliable, unsubstantiated claims that, funnily enough, claim Chavez is a dictator?! How about instead of finding silly biased articles that we both know exists in abundance, you respond to the points that I have made?

Clearly you cannot see the forest for the trees on this one. Your MO appears to be to shoot the messenger without providing any evidence to the contrary. Call it lazy, it was simple. Notice if you type "hugo + chavez" + hypnotist, the results are rather scant in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of citings that come up when you use dictator.

Consider this: Have any dictators come to power through democratic process? History says you bet your ass. Your argument (or whatever is left of it) has a massive hole in it. It is irrelevant how Chavez got to his position (though it is quite telling), what is relevant is how he is abusing his position to attain more power and influence.

Shall we simply revisit this thread periodically to review the facts to see whose side the weight of the evidence supports? I'll put $100 on me right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Shall we simply revisit this thread periodically to review the facts to see whose side the weight of the evidence supports? I'll put $100 on me right now.

I can set up a pay pal account and hold the money

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Since when has Chavez "controlled" or extended "hegemony" over the media in Venezuela?!?!?!?

Well there is history in the past:

quote:

FACTBOX: Chavez's thorny dealings with Venezuelan media Mon May 28, 2007 12:31AM EDT (Reuters) - Venezuela replaced opposition channel RCTV on Monday with one promoting President Hugo Chavez's self-proclaimed socialist revolution. Following are some key events in the former soldier's relationship with the media since he took office in 1999, including frequent clashes with newspapers and television stations. 1998 - Newspapers and TV stations broadly supported Chavez's presidential campaign, which promised to redistribute oil wealth and reshape Venezuela's notoriously corrupt politics. 1999 - Chavez forces private radio and TV stations to broadcast his hours-long speeches, blocking regular programming with political announcements or political commentary. 2001 - Chavez warns media following reports of military corruption, telling news channel Globovision "I should remind you that I could revoke that concession at any moment." April 2002 - TV stations back opposition efforts to oust Chavez through a bungled coup, then turned their cameras off when his supporters' protests help return him to power. December 2002 - Private media joined a two-month strike meant to force Chavez from office. TV stations suspended regular programming to show anti-Chavez marches and propaganda. 2003 to 2007 - Chavez's government creates four TV stations and backs scores of community and alternative newspapers and radio stations. 2004 - Venevision owner Gustavo Cisneros meets Chavez and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, agreeing to soften the private station's editorial line. Chavez had called Cisneros the country's "biggest coup leader," accusing him of involvement in the 2002 coup. 2005 - Government investigators arraign journalists after media reports of blackmail by a prosecutor close to the government who was slain in a car-bombing. February 2007 - A court fines opposition newspaper Tal Cual $19,000 for violating child protection laws by publishing a farcical letter to Chavez's school-age daughter. May 2007 - Opposition-linked station RCTV prepares to go off the air after losing its broadcast license. http://www.reuters.com/article/worl...E_&pageNumber=2

And evidence in the present:

quote:

Unpopular TV closure consolidates Chavez's power Wed Jun 6, 2007 11:54AM EDT CARACAS (Reuters) - President Hugo Chavez's unpopular closure of Venezuela's last nationwide opposition TV station consolidated his power despite sparking anger at home and abroad. Chavez's move six months after a landslide re-election was the calculated culmination of years of marginalizing the opposition in the OPEC nation. For a president who calls Cuban leader Fidel Castro his mentor and vows to rule for decades, the benefits to him of the May 27 shutdown outweighed the costs, said Luis Vicente Leon, a political analyst at polling firm Datanalisis. "It has significantly hurt his image abroad ... and people are really upset here too," Leon said. "But Chavez took the hit because he is looking to the future. He has removed an enemy, he has removed the only institution that criticized him and reached his poor supporters." Replacing the most-viewed station with a dull public service channel drew rebukes over democracy from typical critics such as Washington and international rights groups as well as from allied governments from Brazil to Spain. Most Venezuelans also rejected RCTV's closure -- complaining as much about losing their cherished soap operas as their right to freedom of speech -- and the measure has become a rallying cry for a nascent pro-democracy student movement. Still, Venezuelans have also repeatedly shown in national votes they care more about Chavez keeping up his spending of oil revenue on food handouts and clinics than about any erosion of freedoms. The man who led a botched coup in 1992 before winning office at the ballot box six years later has amassed full support in Congress, the courts, the military and the national oil company for his drive to create a socialist state. With political rivals either discredited as part of the old guard or unable to offer the majority poor a credible alternative to "El Comandante," the media had been the president's main opposition. But, dependent on the government for advertising revenue, major private stations have changed their editorial line to favor a president whose brief ouster they had openly supported in 2002. The lone hold-out was RCTV. The ex-colonel pulled the plug on the 53-year-old station by refusing to renew its concession license on the grounds it backed the putsch. Chavez, 52, granted other channels an extension but changed their contracts so that their licenses come up for renewal again a few months before he faces re-election in 2012. The one Venezuelan station that avoids self-censorship and remains staunchly opposed to Chavez is only seen in limited areas across the South American nation of Amazon jungle, Andean mountains and Caribbean coastline. Chavez, who rules by decree, has publicly warned the station he will close it if he deems it has gone too far. RED ALERT The president has also so far faced down the largest and most persistent daily demonstrations against his government in months. After days of sometimes violent demonstrations in the polarized country, Chavez brought tens of thousands of his own supporters to the streets. He chillingly ordered shantytown dwellers in the hills around Caracas, many of whom are armed, to be "on alert." Student demonstrators, who give security forces flowers and paint their hands white as a symbol of peace, appear to have little appetite for confrontation, preferring to cancel marches rather than break police cordons blocking their path. At one anti-Chavez rally, dozens of his supporters on motorbikes sent the mainly middle-class university students scurrying by riding slowly toward the crowd. The helmeted men dressed in Chavez's signature red laughed as they passed the marchers jumping over barriers to get out of the way. "We doubt that the opposition will be able to organize itself effectively and place the administration in a tight spot," Bear Stearns said about the protests. The investment bank advised its clients to buy more Venezuelan debt, a sign it saw the risk of political turmoil waning despite concern over a wave of nationalizations. And Chavez dismisses the demonstrations as a futile U.S.-backed effort to oust him the way street protests ushered in a new government in Ukraine in 2004. "We will pulverize the imperialist soft coup strategy," he told a pro-government rally. "It's a show, it's a show set up to get a photograph that can be sent around the world." (Additional reporting by Jorge Silva) http://www.reuters.com/article/reut...E_&pageNumber=3

Nope nothing to see here ... silly right wing reuters. Plus criticism from the EU merely substantiates the fact that nothing is wrong because we all know how fucking retarded they are.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Two questions - you fail to answer these and you lose the argument... 1 - Please tell me what law says Chavez is obliged to renew RCTV's licence to broadcast on that specific frequency?

I already answered that my question which asked (since you seemed to have skipped it) why he felt, after 20 years of being the country's leading independent station that their license needed to be suddenly denied?

quote:

2 - If RCTV had instigated and organised a military coup in America (or Canada or the UK), would you expect the government to allow it to continue broadcasting or would you expect them to shut the station down and throw the owners in jail?

How exactly did they instigate?
The only instigation was their disapproval of Chavez and for that, Chavez shut them down.
Are you telling me that if the BBC had scathing reports of the prime minister they'd be suddenly denied their license over it? What happened to free of speech? There would be people in the streets!
And you know what? They were in Venezuela and you know what happened?
They were met with a hail of rubber bullets for it and there is now NO opposition to the government in Venezuela with being under the barrel of a gun.
The other two independents, in case you missed the above article, were also critical of Hugo and were forced to retract their statements and act like good little socialists.

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I already answered that my question which asked (since you seemed to have skipped it) why he felt, after 20 years of being the country's leading independent station that their license needed to be suddenly denied?

Licences have to be renewed every so often. RCTV's licence was due for renewal in 20 years. It is the decision of the government to renew that licence or not according to law. So I shall ask you again, what, according to Venezuelan law, states RCTV's licence MUST be renewed?

quote:

How exactly did they instigate? The only instigation was their disapproval of Chavez and for that, Chavez shut them down. Are you telling me that if the BBC had scathing reports of the prime minister they'd be suddenly denied their license over it? What happened to free of speech? There would be people in the streets! And you know what? They were in Venezuela and you know what happened? They were met with a hail of rubber bullets for it and there is now NO opposition to the government in Venezuela with being under the barrel of a gun. The other two independents, in case you missed the above article, were also critical of Hugo and were forced to retract their statements and act like good little socialists.

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

The anti-Chavez dominated media broadcast messages urging the overthrow of the government. They also refused to broadcast any messages from the government. This was not "criticism" of the government, as you are deviously trying to suggest, but the organisation and execution of a military coup.

You need to watch this:

[[ LINK REMOVED ]]

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Clearly you cannot see the forest for the trees on this one. Your MO appears to be to shoot the messenger without providing any evidence to the contrary. Call it lazy, it was simple. Notice if you type "hugo + chavez" + hypnotist, the results are rather scant in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of citings that come up when you use dictator. Consider this: Have any dictators come to power through democratic process? History says you bet your ass. Your argument (or whatever is left of it) has a massive hole in it. It is irrelevant how Chavez got to his position (though it is quite telling), what is relevant is how he is abusing his position to attain more power and influence. Shall we simply revisit this thread periodically to review the facts to see whose side the weight of the evidence supports? I'll put $100 on me right now.

Just to show you how idiotic your line of arguing is, lets have a Google Fight...

http://www.googlefight.com/index.ph...chavez+dictator

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well there is history in the past: And evidence in the present: Nope nothing to see here ... silly right wing reuters. Plus criticism from the EU merely substantiates the fact that nothing is wrong because we all know how fucking retarded they are.

I notice you did not highlight two events from the timeline (strangely enough) so here they are:

quote:

April 2002 - TV stations back opposition efforts to oust Chavez through a bungled coup, then turned their cameras off when his supporters' protests help return him to power. December 2002 - Private media joined a two-month strike meant to force Chavez from office. TV stations suspended regular programming to show anti-Chavez marches and propaganda.

Now tell me what would happen to those media companies in America?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Just to show you how idiotic your line of arguing is, lets have a Google Fight... http://www.googlefight.com/index.ph...chavez+dictator

Lol. So then you're ready to put your money where your mouth is?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Lol. So then you're ready to put your money where your mouth is?

Erm no!

I think we have both proved that we can find enough articles and analysis to back up any of our arguments.

The point I have been trying to make throughout is that you simply cannot trust the word of Western (and Venezuelan) media as Gospel. Most articles contain certain buzz words such as "dictator" or "censorship" but when you read between the lines, it's not actually true.

When you compare the actions of Chavez to other countries, the situation appears even further removed from what the media tell us. For example, "rule by decree" is effectively practiced by any system of Parliamentary government where the ruling party wins an absolute majority, such as has been experienced in the UK for the last 10 years (in the the UK is referred to as an "elective dictatorship" (link) whic bares a striking resemblance to the situation in Venezuela). Many western democracies also practice "indefinate rule" whereby the ruling party can be elected as many times as they want.

The problem you have in understanding these comparisons is that they are different styles of government than America. The UK Prime Minister is far more powerful in the UK than any American President will be in America. But you would never consider the UK a dictatorship because of the amount of experience you have with the country. But because these systems of governments are different to the one you know, you're struggling for an explanation as to where the ruling party gets its power from and it's a lazy habit to just fall back on the "it's a dictatorship" argument.

The opposition in Venezuela knows full well they have no chance at the moment of regaining power as they are fundamentally opposed to the interests of the poor who make up the vast majority of the electorate. Confronted with this fact, they need alternative options to regaining power and creating the impression in the international community that Chavez is a dictator is part of this method. They have now refused to participate in Chavez's government because to do so would give legitimacy and their approval to it. This is why they boycotted the elections to the National Assembly because they knew that should they do that, the NA will be 100% pro-Chavez, giving the false impression this has been achieved undemocratically. And guess what? The media portrayed it as such and you all believe it right on cue! Another tactic of the opposition was their refusal to challenge the decision not to renew RCTV's licence in court (a challenge they apparently would have won) because to do so would give legitimacy to Venezuelan political society - and they need to maintain the impression of dictatorship.

These facts can all be found in the anti-Chavez media campaign if you read enough between the lines. You need to look past the buzz words and the false claims that nationalisation = dictatorship.

IMO, the only reason why Chavez has been targetted by the American corporate right is because of nationalisation of the oil industry. This poses a direct threat to American interests and here lies the source of the campaign to portray Chavez as a dictator, fully supported by the Venezuelan opposition who realise this is their only way back into power.

Don't get me wrong, I Venezuela is not the kind of place I would want to live, but that is because of life in South America as a whole, and Venezuela is certainly not unique in the region for poverty, police brutality, crime and general lack of wealth...