Can someone explain to me why Chavez is a Dictator?

[Hutzpa]

Sick and tired of hearing this misconception about Chavez, but I would like to hear from the experts.

[Skink]

1. Socialist dictator.

the worst most dangerous kind.

[Hydra]

5. You mean like "Socialist Dictator Obama"? n/t

[social_critic]

214. I would say Chavez is an autocrat on his way to becoming a dictator

But he's not a dictator - yet. This is an interesting topic, when an elected president concentrates power in his hands to such an extent that no other individual or group of individuals can change his directives, where does he cross the line? I think Chavez is close to the line, but hasn't crossed it over yet. This is because he hasn't been able to concentrate enough power to do it, not because it's not his final aim.

The ins and outs in Venezuela are fascinating - I happen to live in Venezuela so I get to see the local TV (both sides), read the local papers, and talk to people, from the humblest person to individuals who are very high up in the feeding chain. There's a lot of baloney said about Chavez from both sides, like most things, it's always complex, and you got to do nuances to understand what's going on.

I can add, however, that Chavez is failing. The economy is still going down, inflation is at a world record pace, the country has a very high crime rate, government is corrupt and inefficient, and there's ongoing emigration of professionals and educated individuals which will leave a lasting negative impact on the country. As a result, Chavez' popularity is much lower than in the past, and during the September elections the opposition managed to get 52 % of the vote. And this is why I think he'll eventually move over into overt dictatorship - he can't afford another election, he's losing them consistently in the recent past.

[Richardo]

316. Wow. Thanks for that insight.

:patriot:

A lot more informative than some of the hysterical caterwauling on this thread. :thumbsup:

[SharonAnn]

307. He's not an American sycophant, thus he's a BAD "dictator". The GOOD ones are "friends".

[social_critic]

312. Chavez is bad, period

I assume you don't read much about Venezuela. Why don't you read what I posted below? It'll be an eye opener.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Hydra]

3. It's because he won't work for us

If the US doesn't like someone: Dictator
US supported dictator: Legally Elected President

Easy, wasn't it?

[upi402]

4. Oil + populist revolt

uhhh, axis of evil 'member in waiting' anyone?

[Hydra]

9. No, no!

"Al-Queda Refuge and Stronghold!"

Expect an invasion in the next week or so.

[Ken Burch]

68. I was WONDERING why all those doner stands were opening up in Caracas

:sarcasm:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. I have no expert opinion to give

however I suspect that it has a lot to do with the right-wing's hate of *strong* left-wing governments that their corporate backers can't exploit. I don't know enough to proffer my opinion about Chavez's governance of Venuzuela but the right doesn't seem to have a problem with quasi-dictatorial governments (or at least governments with a strong Chief Executive) as long as THEY'RE the ones in charge, which is why they allowed Bush/Cheney to get away with as much as they did during the past eight years (and why they're hysterical about President Obama now). :eyes:

[Hutzpa]

13. Your analysis is somewhat close to what I had in mind

that this poutrage of Chavez is based on the right wing nostalgia of Left wing Leaders whom tend to
fight for the rights and benefits of their people. But I'm sure there is a whole lot more to this
attitude, I'm thinking in the same light as Cuba during the height of Fidel Castro.

[social_critic]

215. Quasi dictatorial sounds about right

Pretty good writing - you managed to write about Venezuela while hitting the areas you do know, and letting us know what you don't know. A small tidbit: Within Venezuela, the opposition to Chavez is now both from the left and the right. I don't even know if I would say these guys are socialists, they are giving a strong whiff of fascism.

[Very_Boring_Name]

7. Ruling by decree

All you need to know

[tekisui]

10. The legislature gave him that power.

[Very_Boring_Name]

12. Dicators often go through the legislature to obtain that power

That doesn't make it democratic, and that doesn't make them not a dictator. I know godwins law and all that, but seriously, Hitler's enabling act (the piece of legislation that allowed him to rule by decree) was done through a vote in the reichstag. Does that mean he wasn't a dictator afterall?

[WingDinger]

25. You can make anyone look like anything, after plucking them from a spiderhole, or

some sleep deprivation and then photos.

[Very_Boring_Name]

29. And sometimes an apple is just an apple

[U4ikLefty]

90. And sometimes BS propaganda is just BS propaganda

and we do it sooooo well.

[BzaDem]

121. Exactly. Such as the idea that Chavez is not a dictator.

BS propaganda should be called out WHEREVER it is -- especially propaganda that insinuates that a dictator who bans media organizations somehow isn't a dictator.

[social_critic]

322. Another example of thuggish behavior by Chavez

This is how bully and Dictator Hugo Chavez runs Venezuela. Law and order be damned. When a couple told Chavez that they had not been able to move in because Banco Provincial had not approved a loan or given them the money, Chavez called the President of the bank and told him if the bank was not willing to fulfill the Constitution, decrees and the laws, then Chavez said:

“You have to begin to give me the bank, I will pay what the banks costs…do you have something to respond to me?” Chavez said.

At this point the President of the bank requested that his voice also be broadcast on nationwide TV, like that of Chavez.

Chavez said no, telling him he could go to the Government’s TV channel and ask for time.

“This is very serious” said Chavez “Tell me how much the banks is worth, I will not argue with you”

more at: http://devilsexcrement.com/

If you speak Spanish, click on the video feed, and you can hear Herr Fuehrer during one of his threatening phone calls. On national TV.

[Johonny]

212. I think that's basically the answer

Chavez appears to of had his Cincinnatus moment and failed it in many peoples eyes. At this point it is hard to tell if he is an elected leader, or a dictator. As noted people that end up dictators often start out as and maintain the illusion of democracy. How long can a leader serve under decree before they become a dictator? Got me, eventually though non-dictators step down, and dictators never give up power. Chavez is certainly getting that never going to go feel to him...

[Odin2005]

8. because he's an EVUL COMMIE!!!

[Hutzpa]

14. What qualifies him as an Evil Commie?

using your description.

[Odin2005]

15. Not sucking up to US Business Interests.

[Maru Kitteh]

110. True, but it's not a mutually excusive kind of thing. n/t

[bbinacan]

11. Because he is. n/t

[Better Believe It]

16. Because he dictates to American and domestic capitalists?

[Hutzpa]

17. Ain't that the truth.

Just like Fidel Castro.

[RZM]

33. Not an expert on Chavez

Though I'm not a particularly big fan, I don't see much evidence he's a dictator. He may not be the best democrat but by global standards he's above average.

But Castro? Anybody arguing that Castro is/was not a dictator is simply out of contact with reality.

[social_critic]

216. Chavez is almost a dictator, but not there yet. Castro is a dictator.

I don't know about global standards. But being from Latin America I tend to think we should use European nations and Canada as examples. I'm also a US citizen, and I'm afraid our brand of democracy is in decay. I guess you could call me a social critic. :-)

[The Traveler]

18. He's not exactly a fan of free speech

I am no expert on Venezuelan internal politics, but he has shut down new media that disagrees with his policies. He is a dictator in at least that regard, albeit in other ways a fairly benevolent one. It sounds to me like the average Venezuelan is doing a lot better under his administration.

As a system, democracy is much more reliable than autocracy in terms of delivering good things to the common people. But that doesn't mean all autocrats are vile. Chavez seems to actually care about his people ... So I regard him as a mixed bag.

The corporatists, of course, have no problems with dictators that conduct business "properly", so I find the corporatist ranting against Chavez seasoned with hypocrisy, and quite amusing.

Trav

[Very_Boring_Name]

19. According to his fans on DU it's ok to shut down the media if they're critical of you

as long as you're a leftist.

[Hutzpa]

23. What was the reason why he shut down the media?

would like to hear your opinion on that.

[Very_Boring_Name]

27. Why do dictators usually shut down the media?

I wonder.

[Hutzpa]

32. I asked for your opinion

not to retort with a question? Please lets try and be civil.

[Very_Boring_Name]

35. It was critical of him and his regime

[Hutzpa]

72. The media was critical of him and his regime

in that case Chavez shut them down, is that your opinion?

[provis99]

77. most of the media in Venezuela today is critical of Chavez.

He hasn't shut any of them down.

[social_critic]

264. That's not true.

He shut down a bunch of radio stations and RCTV. He made Venevision turn into a soap opera channel. The government owns a ton of TV channels, and to top it off Chavez blocks the transmission from Globovision for hours at a time using the infamous "cadena" system. Globovision is the only TV channel left which is highly critical of the regime, it's pretty right wing, but it's the only game left in town - and it wont last long, I think, because Chavez just had his lame duck national assembly pass a law on media control which gives him the ability to muzzle Globovision much better. I think he realizes it's going to be the trigger point for massive demonstrations against the regime, but he does need to move into full fledged dictatorship - and to do this he has to control informationn flow.

I know some of you like to say "but the government channels got no viewers". That's right, the Venezuelan people aren't exactly thrilled with the Soviet style programming in the government channels.

[social_critic]

217. Hutzpa, Chavez didn't shut down the media - he shut down SOME of it

I think we should set the record straight: The Chavez government didn't shut down the media, they shut down some of it. They did so because the media was very critical of his government. Sometimes the media has been a bit irresponsible, but overall they are just critical.

On the other hand, the Chavez government has taken over quite a few channels and they issue forth propaganda of Goebbelesque proportions. It's not "Glenn-Beck-on-the-left", but close to it.

Besides closing down some media, Chavez has also intimidated some (for example one of the TV channels has really changed ever since RCTV was closed). And they persecute individuals associated with media which does continue to oppose him - some of the persecution is grotesque.

Venezuela isn't Cuba, where the media is REALLY controlled. The internet is still free (but the government did pass a law to control it last December). I guess it's moving slowly into Darkness at Noon.

[provis99]

67. Chavez did not shut down any media.

The stations that shut down, shut themselves down by refusing to pay licensing fees which were established in the last right-wing government, or were illegally owned by foreign owners using Venezuelans as straw buyers.

[social_critic]

218. Yes he did

The stations the government shut down were picked out of the general population of stations due to their opposition to the government. The government also made sure they were unable to fix their paperwork according to the new regulations they have issued. I live in Venezuela, and I can say honestly, this is the way it works for almost everything nowadays. You want the paperwork done, you got to pay, or you sit on your hands. Or you got to give half the business to a Chavista.

Going rate for a passport from a crook who is associated with chavista crooks working at the passport office? 5200 bolivars. Exchange rate? Can't quote it, it's illegal to quote the black market rate, and the official rate isn't really applicable, everybody uses the black market rate to think. Why? Because inflation is about 30 % per year.

[msanthrope]

244. You live there? Then you must really enjoy reading the descriptions of the glorious utopia

you live in posted here on DU.

;)

[social_critic]

253. Enjoy it? I don't think so.

This is too real for me. I don't know where you sit in the political spectrum, but this is identical to seeing Rumsfeld lie about the WMD in Iraq, or Bush talk about "what a great job Brownie is doing" after Katrina. I spend the time trying to explain to people what's going precisely because I don't enjoy what I read here. And I can't write a book or a magazine article, it could get me killed.

[msanthrope]

260. I should not have used my snark--I'm sorry. Thank you for posting

about this--you are a refreshing counterpoint.

[Hutzpa]

20. You bring up very valid points

but I would disagree with you on one of them, which is

he has shut down new media that disagrees with his policies

If the media is trying to create an uprising instead of educating the people on the policies of the Government, then in my book as a leader you have every right to ban them, because what will end up happening is the country will move in to a chaotic environment which will in turn give some people the power to pick up arms against it's government or for lack of a better description, create coup d'etat which is what happened in Venezuela under Chavez.

[BzaDem]

26. "then in my book as a leader you have every right to ban them"

Wow. Just wow.

[Hutzpa]

39. Well , yeah I know

I realized after typing that there would be an uproar on my statement of shutting down the media, but lets look at
it from another standpoint, is it ok for the media to start an uprising? Yes? No? and if it's not, what do you do?

[BzaDem]

43. An uprising in the streets consisting of only CNN execs wouldn't be very relevant now, would it?

Now, if the people choose to start an uprising, that is not "the media starting an uprising." The media is a source of information. They don't execute mind control over citizens. If citizens hear the media and other sources and start an uprising, that is not "caused by the media" any more than it is caused by a library book.

[Hutzpa]

48. Oh really?

How was Jared Lee Loughner able to feel outrage, I wonder? and please don't tell me he is mentally handicapped. (apologies to those who might take offense to the word handicap)

[BzaDem]

51. "What's the answer to this question! And please make sure you don't give the right answer."

Your entire premise is flawed. Even in an alternate universe where Jared Loughner ever watched Fox and saw the Palin map or whatever, it was Jared Loughner who performed the act. Loughner was not a Fox employee who was acting on the orders of Fox management.

[Hutzpa]

54. Yeah, watching Fox 24/7 can make you an employee

for all I know, on a serious note though, it is safe to say that Loughner acted on what has been coming from the Right Wing media, can we agree on that?

[BzaDem]

57. Um, no, the actual facts indicate he was obsessed with Giffords years ago and had nothing to do with

anything from the Right Wing media. If you have a single piece of evidence to indicate otherwise, I would love to see it.

But this is kinds of besides the point, because EVEN IF what you were saying was true (and it isn't), that STILL would not be a reason to "ban Fox." The responsibility for actions lies with the people who perform them.

[Hutzpa]

81. Lets try this in another way

Would you consider a running candidate making false accusation of their running mate a legitimate action which
where acted upon by their supporters, considering the media has been trumpeting the candidates every word of
hate toward their running mate?

[BzaDem]

82. We have courts to deal with libel suits. n/t

[Hutzpa]

84. Yes we do

but what you missed is how the cases are similar to my point, it's still creating an
uproar or chaos.

[BzaDem]

85. And?

That implies that it is ever correct to shut down the media?

My guess is that what you would consider "libel" would actually be laughed out of court. But even if that weren't true, how in the world does that justify shutting down the media?

[Hutzpa]

86. If the media refused to pay their licence to operate then you

shut them down, which is what Chavez did. But you can continue to believe the right wing talking point for
all I care.

[BzaDem]

88. What does that have to do with my question?

My question had nothing to do with Chavez or anyone else.

You defended shutting down the media in the abstract, when the media was trying to "promote an uprising." How is that opinion at all justifiable? We have courts to deal with libel.

[Hutzpa]

89. It has a lot to do with the fact that you are basing your

argument on Chavez shutting the media makes him a dictator.

[BzaDem]

94. Well, yes, that does make him a dictator. But my question had NOTHING to do with Chavez. It had

solely to do with your abstract defense of shutting down the media in a certain situation. You apparently can't justify your defense, since you continue to bring the argument back to Chavez.

[Hutzpa]

106. If the media continues to

distort the news so much that it riles up the crowd then the culprit should be brought to justice,
I believe strongly that the media should not be above the Law whereas they can start a revolution
and go unpunished because they ARE the media and they are exercising their freedom of speech. Where
does it end? Why should the media be untouchable?

[BzaDem]

114. Who gets to decide what is "distortion?" The dictator?

For example, based on our conversation so far, my guess is that I would probably disagree with you about most determinations you made on what was "distortion." Does that mean the dictator should decide what is distortion, and ban media outlets from there?

"Where does it end? Why should the media be untouchable?"

Why should there be an "end?" Why should the media be "touchable" just because they are saying things you don't like? If the people don't like one station, they can switch to another or turn off the TV. It is not the job of government to tell a Fox viewer that they can't watch the channel they want to watch, regardless of your opinion of the channel. The entire POINT of free speech is that the government is NOT allowed to ban speech because of the speech's content.

If a media outlet participates in libel, the media outlet can be sued and prove their case in a court of law according to the stringent definition of libel.

[Hutzpa]

130. The media is suppose to be fair and balanced

right, when the media moves away from that and start transcending information that are supposed to
be misleading with the intent to spur on another group into action then I would say that is distortion.

When you read the news and give a one sided analysis of your opponent without expressing the view point
of the other, then in my book that qualifies as a distortion.

If the media continues to act upon the notion that the other party is evil e.g name calling, then there is
course for distortion and bias.

[BzaDem]

133. Says who? Who says the media is "supposed to be" fair and balanced

or that a media that isn't "fair and balanced" should be permitted to be shut down by the executive?

I thought free speech actually meant free. Not free unless some internet poster doesn't think it is sufficiently "fair and balanced" to them.

[Hutzpa]

135. Oh Dear

the medias' duty is to stay neutral. Give the news as it should be without influencing anyone's
opinion on the matter and at the same time educate the populace, that is the role of the media.

[BzaDem]

145. If the media isn't "doing its duty" then you are free to change the channel.

Not order others to do so by shutting down networks.

It is not your job to tell others what they can and can't watch. The entire POINT of free speech is to PROHIBIT the government from touching networks for any reason because they don't like the content. Yet you support the governments ability to do just that. Amazing.

[Hutzpa]

149. But you are missing the points completely

which are misleading and distortion of information. So your suggestion about changing the channel is just
IMO looking for straws.

[BzaDem]

150. Why? Why isn't changing the channel to a "non-distortion" network a completely sufficient remedy?

Let me get this straight. Let's say I wanted to watch a network that did nothing but bash Bush. Let's say that to the extent there was a pro-Bush side of the story, I didn't want to hear ONE word of it, ever, at any time, 24/7/365.

Would you really approve of the ability for the government to prohibit me from watching this network by shutting it down? Really?

[social_critic]

226. Ok, hutzpa, start telling us where the media was distorting information

I live in Venezuela, I got my pencil here, and I'll take notes. Let's see if you know what you're talking about.

[social_critic]

225. I don't know where you come from, but the media is SUPPOSED to rile up the crowd.

I believe you are confused. The media's role is precisely to point out what's wrong, highlight it, and get people upset about it. Which means they'll vote against the bums when they're not doing a good job. What is it that you don't understand about democracy? Or do you prefer Big Brothers 's brand of "free media"?

[BobbyBoring]

314. Where is

Venezuela on the Fox news map? Next to Chad?

[Hutzpa]

323. Nope it's over there in Russia

next to Afghanistan.

[social_critic]

224. The media didn't refuse to pay for their licenses.

Radio and TV stations were picked out for their "irregular status", something which is very easy to accomplish in a country like Venezuela, where the bureaucracy is both asphixiating, byzantine, and corrupt. You may think the trick works, but it didn't work with the Venezuelan people. They understand how things work, and do realize it was trickery.

[Hutzpa]

324. It's easier to make excuses once you get caught.

Looks like you are making excuses for the media not paying their licenses and instead of putting the
blame where it belongs you point the finger at Chavez.

[Peace Patriot]

188. "The media is a source of information." LOL! Couldn't let that go by. You see "The Revolution Will

Not Be Televised," the Irish filmmakers' documentary on the 2002 rightwing coup attempt in Venezuela and about what RCTV did?

--RCTV hosted the coupters, gave them a platform, supported the cooup

--RCTV cheered, when the coup suspended the constitution, the courts, the national assembly and all civil rights

--RCTV, after the coupsters kidnapped Chavez, refused to let any member of the Chavez government speak on TV (so much for "free speech")

--RCTV, by owner order, banned any TV coverage of the pro-Chavez demonstrators (which got up to a million peaceful Venzeualans surrounding Miraflores Palace--the seat of government0

--RCTV ran proven FALSE video footage, that made it look like Chavez supporters were shooting anti-Chavez protestors (they weren't)

--RCTV broadcast the lie, on the coup's behalf, that Chavez had resigned as president (he hadn't)

--RCTV broadcast lists of the locations of members of Chavez's government so rightwing mobs could find them

--RCTV, during critical moments of the coup, ran cartoons instead of providing information (probably better anyway, since cartoons is about the level of the info they provided)

----------------------------------

No democratic government in the world would put up with this use of the PUBLIC airwaves! RCTV owners and execs should have been convicted of treason and put in jail, not just lose their broadcast license.

And that is not even to mention their other violations of the broadcasting rules. They were scofflaws and they tried to overturn the elected government.

And virtually none of this information was included in corporate news stories about this momentous event--because they really, really, really didn't want to remind us that we once had a "Fairness Doctrine" in the USA, and still could, if we could elect a leaders with the balls to do it.

[social_critic]

227. The media IS a source of information

Evidently there was media which exceeded its role in 2002. However, let's remember the "coupsters" were military officers who decided they could not fire on the crowd when Chavez gave the order to bring out the tanks.

But that was then, and this is now. Today, the Venezuelan government abuses its power, abuses NGO's, the media, and the Venezuelan people. It's no longer supported by the majority. So what do you have to say about that?

[Peace Patriot]

320. "Evidently there was media which exceeded its role in 2002...". sc, you make me laugh.

They tried to overthrow the government! And they were not alone, among Venezuela's corpo-fascist 'news' broadcasters--they were just the most complicit.

Not "evidently." That's what they DID. And they didn't just "exceed their role." They were treasonous and they fomented illegality, civil disorder and murder! They actively participated in the kidnapping of the president, and the suspension of the constitution, the courts, the national assembly and all civil rights. And they cared absolutely nothing for "free speech." No Chavez supporters (millions!) could appear on TV. Chavez's own vice president could not appear on TV, nor any of his cabinet. They banned the ELECTED government from TV!

Yeah, right, the mutinous faction of the military was just trying to protect Venezuelans' lives from Chavez's "tanks." My dear, Chavez HAD NO tanks. He was under arrest at an undisclosed location, where they were trying to force him to resign, by threatening his life--while they suspended everybody else's rights!

You are so rightwing, you fall off the cliff into Tea Baggism--utter denial of reality.

And I would like to know what is wrong with the Venezuelan government banning millions of dollars in USAID money (MY tax money!) from being funneled to rightwing NGOs in Venezuela. They should have done it a long time ago. And I'm glad they're doing it now, since we can't stop it on this end. Most of our people don't even know about it, and don't have any power to change it, if they did know. Our democracy is pretty much over. Venezuelans still have theirs, and thank God they are taking measures to protect. Venezuela's rightwing can fund itself. It shouldn't be on the USAID (CIA) payroll. That is anti-democratic.

As for the Chavez government not being supported by the people, most executive branches of government, if they stick around long enough, suffer downturns in by-elections. It's happened quite frequently here, even to FDR (who ran for and won four terms in office). Sometimes voters just get restless, or they don't like some particular thing, and so they "send a message" to the president. The only important test of the Chavez government's approval by Venezuelans is an election in which Chavez is running--and that will be 2012. So we'll see. I tend to doubt that Venezuelans will vote against their "New Deal" but Venezuela has a fair and transparent election system--despite the millions of dollars sneakily poured into rightwing candidates and issues from Langley--and if they throw the Chavez government out, they throw it out. It's up to them. Then we'll see how quickly the rightwing can undo Venezuela's "New Deal" and start sucking all the wealth back to top again, as the rightwing here has just about finished doing. I hope Venezuelans catch it and stop it sooner than we did. We're about to lose Social Security--the signature "New Deal" program, whereby workers pay into their own pension fund all their lives and then don't starve to death and get tossed out on the street, when they are old.

The people whom you evidently hang out with, or believe, want others to starve and go homeless, and work like slaves for shit wages and no future, because they have many irons in the fire--in China, in India, in El Salvador, in Colombia, in Swiss banks, and in many places all over world. Venezuela was one of victims of these multinational corporations until the people of Venezuela elected the Chavez government to fight back on their behalf. These global powers support the rightwing and the fascists in every country. They are the "dictators" and the Mubaraks and the Saudi sheiks and the Alvaro Uribe's and the Bush Jr's are their tools. I hope that the Venezuelan people realize this and retain their independence by either re-electing Chavez or electing someone like Chavez, who will deny these global powers any chance to loot Venezuela, as they have done to many others, including my own country. I don't expect you to grasp this. I am saying it for anyone who reads the rightwing comments that you make at DU and wants to hear another opinion.

Chavez has been MILD in his treatment of the rotters who own most of the media in Venezuela. He has aimed at nothing more than what we once had here, in our days of democracy--before the rightwing took over--the "Fairness Doctrine," that required politically neutral news coverage, BALANCED presentation of political opinion and public service, as the conditions for receiving a license to use the PUBLIC airwaves. Corporations have NO "right" to use our airwaves. They have to earn it. And they are regulated this way--to one degree or another--in virtually every country in the world. The five billionaire media moguls who control virtually all news and opinion in the western world screech about Chavez regulating them because they oppose ALL regulation and they want ONLY their opinion to be heard. RCTV was their ikon. That's what they want--the media doing rightwing coups and denying both the government and the people ANY voice on the PUBLIC airwaves.

But you have to be a democrat with a small d to get this. And you have to have a memory or knowledge of history--and neither of these are characteristic of the rightwing, which makes up its own "Alice in Wonderland" 'reality" as it goes.

We once had a "Fairness Doctrine" HERE. Corporate broadcasters were REQUIRED to present news as a PUBLIC SERVICE--not as a propaganda machine for their own moneyed interests. And if they criticized the government, or said anything about public policy, they were REQUIRED to give the other view EQUAL TIME. It made for much better journalism, a much better informed public, and much more informative and reliable news coverage.

Venezuela's public broadcasting is better now than it was, but it's still dominated by the rightwing. It is not bad that it is more balanced now. It is GOOD. It is more democratic. More viewpoints are heard. "Free speech" is enhanced. And if the government can't get more than a 5% audience share, with the government channel--which is all they get now--what's the problem? You want to shut that down, too? You want Chavez and his government to be unable to communicate with the people they are governing, as RCTV did to them, during the coup? That is certainly what the corporate bosses want.

[cynatnite]

55. I've read so much going back and forth over whether any of the media were complicit...

It's possible that some individuals used the media in order to gain an advantage. Not gonna deny that. A buddy of Daddy bush was in this up to his teeth.

There are far better alternatives than just shutting them down.

I will never support any leader who shuts down the media. I don't care who it is or their reasons for doing so. It goes against the grain.

[social_critic]

258. It sure goes against the grain.

Besides, the complicit with the coup baloney is like a dead fish. It happened in 2002. Like they say in Wisconsin, that dog won't hunt.

There's a charade here in DU regarding the coup in 2002. The coup was wrong, but it's mined for all it's worth by people who, more than 8 years later, continue to bring it up as an excuse for Chavez' abuses of power.

[bobbolink]

139. If any of the RW blowhards in the US were to start advocating a violent overthrow of the US gov.

including arrest of Obama and worse, do you think they would be shut down?

[Hutzpa]

141. Very good question

would like to see the response on this question.

[BzaDem]

152. No, they would not be shut down based on the whim of an executive. The executive would go to court

and file a civil or criminal suit (depending on the law the executive claimed the media violated). The court would then judge

a) whether the law the media violated is constitutional in the first place
b) whether the media violated that law beyond a reasonable doubt (or by preponderance of the evidence if it were a civil suit).

If the government won the suit/criminal case, they could press for an injunction.

If the executive tried to shut down a network without going to court, the network would get an injunction in court telling the government to fuck off.

[bobbolink]

154. If there was an imminent armed revolution instigated by media, with threats to the president,

you can be sure it would be closed down.

To think otherwise is a delusion.

[BzaDem]

156. If there were threats to the President, the government would arrest those making the threats

and go to COURT to justify it within 48 hours.

To think otherwise is a delusion.

[bobbolink]

158. bwahahahaha. Dream on.

There is already an effort to give Obama the right to shut down the internet tubes in case of "national emergency".

Dream on.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dokkie]

146. Wasn't it

Lincoln or FDR that shutdown anti war papers? I dont see anyone calling those 2 dictators

[social_critic]

306. I take it you're against freedom of the press in Venezuela

Since I'm anti war, I don't like it when anti war papers are shutdown by anybody. But Venezuela isn't at war, and its unconscionable to defend a tyrant who is trying to muzzle the media.

[cynatnite]

34. It's never okay to ban media that disagrees with you...

I'm not going to deny that Chavez has done some positive things, but I will never support any leader who silences the media.

You can insist that the media was somehow trying to create an uprising, but it's still shutting down the media. Period. No getting around it and no way to make that right.

[social_critic]

232. cynatnite, he can't argue that

The events he's discussing took place in 2002. Chavez' onslaught against the media took place later, and is continuing. It continues against media he couldn't do anything about before. A new law was recently passed to tighten control even more, and another law was passed to allow the government to control the internet. There's a law in the books which makes it illegal for media to discuss anything "which causes distress in the population". This means that conceivably a newspaper could not report a dam is about to burst.

Chavez is a disaster. Don't fall in the trap, he doesn't deserve any support whatsoever, he's joining the infamous ranks of human rights abusers, and Venezuela is entering a new dark age. I think it's so bad now, the destruction brought upon society by Chavez is pervasive, that Venezuela is wrecked for 50 years. It's gone, hopeless.

[sufrommich]

36. "If the media is trying to create an uprising

instead of educating the people on the policies of the Government, then in my book as a leader you have every right to ban them".

Wow,so you would be OK with our government doing that?

[Hutzpa]

41. No

I would not be ok with our government doing that, the media is not untouchable.

[social_critic]

233. The media isn't trying to create an uprising

The Chavez cheer squad likes to bring up the 2002 coup atempt - WHICH WAS WRONG. But it has been 8 years and a lot of water has run under the bridge since then. The issue now isn't about the media "educating the people on the policies of the government". What Chavez dislikes is the fact that when they do educate the people, they point out government policies are a mess.

So now let's educate you folk. Venezuela has the highest inflation in the world. It has a terrible crime wave -crime has increased every year since Chavez took power. Corruption flourishes in ways you guys can't come close to imagining. The economy has been getting worse and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight.

There is no rule of law, the government takes over property to punish the owners - and some of these people are poor people the way an American would see it. I'm talking about men who live with their families in 500 sq ft homes, and tend a small parking lot for a living, and similar cases. The government also takes over property because government officials want to hand it over to their buddies, or relatives (Chavez' family is getting rich stealing land in his home state).

So what do you think happens when the media reports this mess? He gets ANGRY. And he THREATENS them openly. You guys just don't get to see it, he gets on TV and begins mouthing off like a gangster. Uses coarse language, and drones on and on, mixing stupid commentary about himself and his bowel movements with decrees he wants his ministers to implement. It's Mad Hatter country, my friends.

[joshcryer]

242. "It's Mad Hatter country, my friends."

Sober quote.

[COLGATE4]

281. Thanks. Your response should be required reading for anyone

starting an "I heart Chavez" thread on DU.

[backscatter712]

56. Maybe there's something to that.

He seems to have found a way to deal with the stochastic terrorism coming from Venezuela's equivalent to Rush Limbaugh and FOX News...

Of course, that would never fly here in the U.S.

[BzaDem]

58. "Of course, that would never fly here in the U.S." Do you think it should?

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. Chavez rules by decree, circumventing the Venezuelan parliament.

The Venezuelan parliament passed the enabling act allowing rule by decree in its last session before a new parliament with enough anti-Chavez opposition to block him from doing what he wants was seated. Kindly explain to me in what sense this is not dictatorial? What would you say if George Bush had done the same thing in December 2006 before a new Congress with a Democratic majority was seated?

[Ozymanithrax]

22. He rules by decree. That makes him a textbook dictator.

Now, you may consider him a beneficent dictator, but he is a dictator because he rules Venezuela by decree without limits by Parliament.

'Dictator' Chavez to rule by decree

His own actions make him a dictator. Dictators are not defined by right or left politics. It is the rule by decree thing.

[BzaDem]

28. If he's still around in 25 years, some people will STILL be saying "the legislature let him!"

Just amazing.

[Ozymanithrax]

45. It isn't the length of rule, but the way power is used.

In ancient Athens they elected a dictator. Having Parliaments hand over power to one individual is common in history, that is how Hitler became a dictator.

[social_critic]

259. The length of rule does have a bearing

Not every citizen is Cincinnatus.

And I want to add, how do we judge the way power is used, if the people aren't allowed to judge, and are ruled by a dictator? What do we do, we give an individual the power to decide for everybody? It doesn't work.

[upi402]

31. Our leaders take thing 'off the table' that most of us want

We are told what is an option and what is not. Our media is propaganda. There is no opposition to corporatism, so we're disenfranchised. Investigations of war crimes are off the table, as Wikileaks is persecuted for telling truth.

So, what's going on in Venezueal? I am not there, but I sure am here.

[BzaDem]

37. Just because you don't get the election result you want doesn't mean we don't live in a democracy.

In fact, if there were no people upset at a given election result, that in and of itself would signify a problem.

The vast majority think wikilieaks is doing more harm than good, and do not want war crimes trials for the past President. Of course there will be people like you who disagree, but it should be totally unsurprising that they do not get their way.

[Hutzpa]

47. Where did you get that facts from

that the vast majority feels wikileak is doing more harm than good. Would you like to elaborate.

[BzaDem]

49. This

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/10/105106/poll-people-behind-wikileaks-should.html

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1823/poll-wikileaks-harm-serve-public-interest-press-handling

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/30/cnn-poll-wikileaks-has-few-fans-in-u-s/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/14/AR2010121401650.html

http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/wikileaks-illegal-say-most-americans-new-poll

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20024619-503544.html

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[upi402]

203. I was disenfranchised

Both candidates were corporatists. Or do you disagree with that?

How could I get the election result I wanted when the deck was stacked? So I was not disappointed in Obama. I knew what he would do.

[Common Sense Party]

282. "Disenfranchised." I do not think it means what you think it means.

How, precisely, were you "disenfranchised?

Was your legal right to vote taken away?

[Ozymanithrax]

44. No person in the U.S. government rules by decree...

or has aboslutly unchallanged power.

And as for taking things off the table, we are a representative demcoracy. We elect representatives to handle the government. They are not required, and it isn't possible, to do exactly what all citizens want.

[Nevernose]

52. Weren't people on DU trying to get Obama to do an end-run around DADT

By claiming he could issue an executive order to not enforce the law congess had passed? Is that not "executive decree?"

[BzaDem]

53. Yes, and they were wrong. Fortunately, Obama did it the correct way. n/t

[Very_Boring_Name]

62. The difference is, an executive order can be reversed by congress

A basic civics lesson might be in order if you wish to participate in the debate.

[Nevernose]

105. And Chavez's executive orders are good for 18 months

After which, the Venezualan congress can review them. Given the glacial pace of the American congress, the two really don't seem so radically different. Granted, Chavez's powers are more sweeping, but that's the law elected Venezualan lawmakers chose to pass.

The ad hominem attacks aren't really needed, but stay classy anyways.

[Ozymanithrax]

182. So he is a dictator for 18 months.

That is assuming he will let them take the power back. While he holds all laws in his hands, he is a dictator.

[social_critic]

221. Ozy, I beg to disagree - he's not a dictator, yet.

My analysis of the ongoing situation would tell me he's an autocrat, but he's not quite a dictator yet. This was shown when the University law (which he had asked the outgoing lame duck assembly to pass) became such a flash point he chickened out and asked the new incoming assembly to vote it down before it became effective. In other words, he saw the huge demonstrations being planned to protest the law, read the tea leaves, and decided to punt. Like he likes to say, for now.

I think he'll consolidate power, throw a few kisses, and then go back at it again. But first he needs to control the internet and the wayward media which refuses to bow down to herr fuehrer. Once the media is completely controlled, and the internet is in his paws (and he already had a new internet control law passed), then he'll proceed to pass the university law, which will give him absolute control over the universities (they are a hotbed of resistance against his regime). Eventually, Venezuela will be ruled by a dictator. But not yet. By the way, I live in Venezuela, and I have been observing this closely. It's a case study on government takeover by demagoguery, mascarading as socialists, and implementing a grotesque system which is mainly about corruption and theft.

[Ozymanithrax]

180. Ruling by decree is not a narrow application of the law...

it is an executive that takes the power of writing laws and rules. Executive orders are limited in scope, and do not reach that level. An executive order, for instance, could not do anything that requires funding, because only the Congress can raise funds.

Yes, some people wanted him to use an executive order, though I did not.

[Hutzpa]

60. Really?

where were you when Bush/Cheney were in power?

[Ozymanithrax]

184. Bush and Cheney still were short of a dictator.

They had a complaint Congress and Senate, but they still required that Congress and Senate to fund their excesses and pass laws. At no time were they given the power to simply write the laws themselves free of any oversight of the Congress or the courts. Neither Bush nor Cheney could rule by decree. For the most part, they had a Congess that agreed with them and a public that that agree with their policies.

[Hutzpa]

186. A public that agrees with their policies?

were you part of that public?

[Ozymanithrax]

192. No, but the majority of Amreicans did agree with them..

whether we like it here or not. Only in 2006, did that majority turn and bring the Democrats back into power. Were you there for that?

[social_critic]

269. Bush and Cheney were kind of weird

I think we can execute them for giving orders to torture prisoners (it's US law). And I don't think Congress took a vote on that.

[provis99]

63. the Supreme Court rules by decree.

they are elected for life, cannot be removed from their post, and their decisions cannot be appealed.

[BzaDem]

75. Congress can remove them from their posts, and can reverse decisions by changing the statute or by

proposing Constitutional amendments.

[U4ikLefty]

91. ...and the last significant time was???

[BzaDem]

93. Let's see. Court ruled against income tax -- out came amendment 16. Court ruled against 18 year olds

voting -- out came amendment 26.

Not that any of this matters -- you stated that it was impossible, and that is false.

[U4ikLefty]

96. WRONG!!!!

I never said such a thing...you are wrong!!!

BTW, the last time was 40 years ago???

[BzaDem]

99. The poster I responded to said such a thing.

I didn't realize my partner in conversation changed midstream -- my apologies.

Yes, the last time was 40 year ago. I don't necessarily think that this means we should go to majority overruling of Supreme Court decisions. That would basically nullify the bill of rights.

[U4ikLefty]

100. Not necessarily a "majority" in Congress, but maybe another remedy is in order.

The Citizen's United decision is the latest turd in the punchbowl here.

[msanthrope]

249. The Lily Ledbetter Act--2009. n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

190. The Supreme Court does not rule by decree.

They can determine if a law is unconstitutional. They can not fund the government or do anything that the Executive branch can do. They do not rule. They can not establish international or domestic policy. They can be over ruled by the people, with a Constitutional amendment (a very rare act). A later Supreme Court can reverse their decisions, which has happened many times.

[toddaa]

24. He's got lots of oil, but doesn't kiss our ass

Human rights and all that other inconsequential stuff means nothing.

[social_critic]

222. Human rights means something to those of us who live in Venezuela

As you may say, when things go wrong, we pay the piper with our flesh.

Regarding his "lots of oil", it's running out. Oil production is going down. I think the decline isn't reversible as long as Chavez is in power because the people he has running things are not able to figure out what to do.

Do you know what else? Many nations have lots of oil and they don't kiss America's behind either. They kiss America's behind for other reasons, but not BECAUSE they have lots of oil.

[cali]

30. As people have pointed out, he rules by decree.

I think that Chavez has done a lot of good, but ruling by decree without a legislative brake, does indeed make him a dictator.

[provis99]

65. there is a legislative brake.

Parliament can take away the decree power from Chavez at any time it wants.

[social_critic]

248. No there isn't

It's not called "Parliament", it's called the "National Assembly". The incoming assembly was elected in September, the opposition managed to get 52 % of the overall vote, but districts were heavily gerrymandered, so they got about 65 seats to the government's 90-plus.

The way it works, the national assembly leadership is designated by Chavez, they do have the majority. And there's no way in hell these guys would dare oppose Chavez. They were handpicked for their loyalty to herr fuehrer. Furthermore, Chavez can veto a law, so it would take a super majority. Realistically, the Venezuelan people are now under the rule of a "democratically elected" autocrat. Soon to become a tyrant.

[paulk]

38. by the dictionary definition

"In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly. Dictatorships are often characterized by some of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures; these include single-party state, and cult of personality."


IMHO - Chavez crossed the line into dictatorship when the most recent rule by decree law was passed by the VZ lameduck legislature -a law that would not have passed if the duly elected legislature had been allowed to vote on it.

[Hutzpa]

66. Here is a question for you

Is the Patriot Act a Rule By Decree?

[paulk]

126. here is a question for you

how is that at all relevant to your OP?

[Hutzpa]

131. But, but you haven't answered my question. n/t

[paulk]

136. I'm not going to answer it

why don't you respond to my initial post with something relevant to your OP?

Isn't that why you started the thread?


Do you have a response?

[Puregonzo1188]

40. He's a rather strong executive, much more than I'm comfortable with.

However, that doesn't make him a dictator--he's been democratically elected numerous times and is hugely popular with the people, because his economic policies have reduced poverty and raised their standard of living.

The RCTV stuff is troubling, but it's also overblown by his opponents. He didn't shut them down, they lost their license to broadcast over the public airwaves and are still available on satellite. They were actively involved in the coup, which is not the same as being "critical" as some would have us believe. There are criticisms of his policies and he's not the world's greatest civil libertarian, but he's never been accused of extraordinary rendition or extra-judicial executions like our own President. Oddly enough those critical of Chavez often support those things.

[davidinalameda]

42. this doesn't make him a dictator

but there is his close relationship with the theocrats in Tehran

and his regime has a history of actions that can certainly be construed as Antisemitism

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020402428.html

[WingDinger]

46. Chavez, has been forced in several ways, to act undemocratically.

The elites in his country, had staged a dove strike. All the monied sectors went on spending general strike. And some of the major industries went on sickouts, and work stoppages. He has been contending with class warfare on a brutal level, and initially, tried to bolster the weak. But the general strike of the elites, has drained the coffers. Along with his other potlatchlike promises. He has created a framework that allows a country to survive telling the IMF, world bank system to go pound sand, and take their Fing austerity with them. His EGO is atrocious. His actions, amateurish. He has yesmen around him, would be my guess. His ambitions are mostly personal, or more than they should be. He has flirted with postponing, and bypassing elections.

[social_critic]

255. That's old news - happened in 2002

PLEASE. Don't dredge up the same 2002 event over and over to justify human rights abuses and autocracy in 2011. Get real.

[COLGATE4]

283. Don't you understand? - It's not that he WANTS to do the things

he does - he does it because all the filthy oligarchs FORCED him to do it.:sarcasm:

[GreenStormCloud]

59. Ruling by edict is the definition of a dictator. N/T

[provis99]

64. that definition is wrong.

a dictator is one who rules by sole and absolute power. Since Chavez is limited to how long he can stay in office, how long he can issue decrees, and is checked in power by the Supreme Court who can overturn his decrees, and the Parliament which can withdraw the decree powers, Chavez is in no way a dictator.

[social_critic]

275. Absolute power isn't required to meet the definition

Many dictators have ruled as kingpins of oligarchies and mobs which picked out one of their own to run things. Chavez isn't really limited by how long he can stay in office - he had the Constitution changed to allow himself to run forever. For all practical purposes the National Assembly can't withdraw the decree powers.

Now that I think of it, you do need to come up to speed. Why don't you try reading Venezuela's Constitution? It's a start.

[Peace Patriot]

61. I can clear up the blather about the "enabling" law....

First of all, "enabling" laws are common in Latin America. They involve time-limited, issue-limited powers regarding something that the legislature isn't equipped to deal with, in detail, or doesn't want to deal with. Lula da Silva, for instance, used an "enabling" law in Brazil to set aside a big swath of the Amazon for an uncontacted tribe. The tribe was at great risk. Action was needed. The details--surveying of the boundaries, the regulations, enforcement provisions, how to monitor it, putting systems in place for what to do if the tribe still gets contacted, etc.--up to the executive, who rules the matter "by decree," which is called a "Provisional Measure" in Brazil.

--

How enabling laws work in Brazil

Presidents in Brazil also have significant lawmaking powers, exercised either by proposing laws to the National Congress, or else by using Medidas Provisórias (Provisional Measures), an instrument with the force of law that the President can enact in cases of urgency and necessity, except to make changes to some areas of Law (provisional measures cannot be used to create new taxes, to change criminal law, electoral law, etc.). A Provisional Measure comes into effect immediately, before Congress votes on it, and remains in force for up to 60 days unless Congress votes to rescind it. If Congress, on the other hand, votes to approve the provisional measure, it becomes an actual law, with changes decided by the Legislative Branch. The provisional measure expires at the end of the 60 day period, or sooner, if rejected by one of the Houses of Congress.<1>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Brazil

--

Venezuela's legislature has been passing enabling laws for presidents since 1959. It is nothing new.

The "enabling" law in question in Venezuela was prompted by catastrophic rains and floods, which wiped out entire communities and all their infrastructure. Tens of thousands of people are homeless and their livelihoods gone--and their schools, and their roads, and everything else. It also did serious crop damage. The "enabling" law that the National Assembly passed granted Chavez the power to move funds around, get loans, rearrange agencies, create new positions and appoint people to them, and so forth, to immediately house, feed and take care of these masses of people (he invited 60 families to live in his presidential mansion, by the way) and to rebuild these communities--a massive undertaking. It was similar to (but not exactly the same as) our president or a governor "declaring a state of emergency" in a natural disaster. The executive has to have to rightful powers to ACT. The Venezuelan law was limited to this crisis and the powers are for 18 months--time enough, at least, to arrange decent, temporary housing, schooling and other services, and to get construction under way.

That's what it was all about. Now for the politics of it. And I will try not to be as sarcastic as I feel. The USAID has been using millions of our tax dollars to fund rightwing groups in Venezuela and to "train" them in political techniques such as focusing on "talking points" and (I'm sure) telling them what "talking points" to focus on. One of those "talking points" is that Chavez is a "dictator." So the rightwing will throw this out--and it will get trumpeted throughout the world by the corpo-fascist press--at every possible instance. The consequent corpo-fascist 'news' articles/broadcasts will all be slanted toward that view, and will leave out any information by which you could make up your own mind about it--relevant facts, context, all into the black hole where information should be.

The irony is that the rightwing "opposition" in Venezuela has decided "dictatorial" tendencies of its own. When they did their 2002 coup attempt, the first thing they did was to suspend the constitution, the courts, the national assembly and all civil rights. (So much for "free speech"!). So, when they talk about "Chavez the dictator" and point hysterically to one more "dictatorial" thing that he has done, and all the 'news' we get is slanted--very slanted--that way, it is very hard to dig out the facts. You have to put a lot of effort into it and consult many sources. After a while, though, you begin to understand that it a lie, but, more than this, it is an orchestrated "Big Lie" (a Stalinist technique--repeat something over and over and over again, and it starts to become "reality").

The "rightwing opposition" in Venezuela boycotted the last legislative elections, for no reason at all. It was a stupid move (probably Bushwhack USAID idea). They shouldn't have done it. They changed their minds this time, ran candidates and won about 40% of the seats in the national assembly--enough to block major Chavez initiatives. The catastrophic rains and floods hit about the same time. Chavez needed emergency legislation to deal with it. The "lame duck" all-Chavista national assembly (all-Chavista because the "opposition" had boycotted the last elections) passed the "enabling" law as described above.

The rightwing "opposition"--which had been looking forward to blocking every Chavez government effort to aid the flood victims--were dumbfounded to wake up and discover that the all-Chavista national assembly had outfoxed them. They had passed the 18-month "enabling" law insuring that Chavez (ahem, the elected president) could succeed at aiding the flood victims and restoring their communities. The rightwing wanted him to fail--and to use that against him in the 2012 presidential election. (Like our rightwing here, they don't give a fuck about the country, or its poor majority, or flood victims, or good government--they just want POWER to enrich themselves, as they did for decades before the Chavez government).

The rightwing went ballistic. 'Dictator! Dictator! Here's the PROOF! An ENABLING LAW just like Hitler!' And that went all over the world.

Please remember WHO suspended the constitution, the courts, the national assembly and all civil rights, back in 2002, and boycotted the last by-elections just to make a "talking point." (--flopped; Venezuela has an excellent election system). And who, in Venezuela, has never broken any law, has strictly adhered to the constitution, has harmed no one and has many great achievements, for instance, reducing poverty in Venezuela by 50% and extreme poverty by over 70%, and produced sizzling economic growth during the 2003 to 2008 period, despite a rightwing oil bosses' lockout, a rightwing recall election, and non-stop hostility from the U.S. and from the Mad Hatter Tea Party behavior by the rightwing "opposition"? Whose policies just got Venezuela designated as "THE most equal country in Latin American," on income distribution, by the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean? Who have the people of Venezuela voted for three times, by increasing, big majorities?

The Chavez government is not a "dictatorship." It is doing the will of the people. It is very like the "New Deal" and that is why our corporate rulers and war profiteers hate it.

--------

I have the facts on many other rightwing "opposition" (USAID) "talking points," which I would be happy to discuss if anyone asks about a particular point.

[scarletwoman]

71. +1000. Excellent post, not that any of the dedicated Chavez demonizers will pay attention. nt

[social_critic]

257. Most of what he wrote is off the mark

Enabling laws aren't "common". One could argue they are wrong no matter who does it. The use of enabling laws wasn't common in Venezuela until Chavez came around. The enabling law was presumably passed to allow Chavez to deal with floods. Yet one of the first decrees he passed was one to re-configure the military.

Those of us who saw what the floods did understand very well there was no need for an enabling law. The guy has so much power and his own offline budget, so he can do pretty much what he pleases to get the flood victims fixed up with emergency housing and so on. And golly, he did have his lame duck assembly passing laws to control the media, the internet, and universities in December. So if he needed a law to help flood victims, all he had to do was write it and they would have passed it. They were a bunch of trained seals anyway.

You see, those of us who point out these problems aren't "demonizers". We're merely pointing out things we see. I think you are making a big mistake if you allow your emotions to rule your thought processes, and join the merry band of Chavez defenders in DU. They're good, they're organized, but they are wrong. I happen to think they're mostly decent folk who are blinded, suffer from cognitive dissonance. So they can't face just how awful things have turned out. I wonder what they'll do as they do get worse.

[Hutzpa]

83. Thank You, Thank You and THANK YOU again

I nominate your post to go viral. Very informative.

[Peace Patriot]

143. I hope it does go viral. I'm sick to death of these lies about Chavez.

He is no saint but neither is he a demon or a "dictator." He is a good president, who has brought a "New Deal"-type revolution to Venezuela, peacefully and democratically. We could use some of his ideas here. And they aren't just his ideas. That is another lie. They are the ideas of the people of Venezuela, being acted upon because of their courage, vigilance and persistence in protecting their democracy and their awesome grass roots organization. When the State Dept and the corporate media punch their bogeyman Chavez, they are punching the poor, the workers, the real democrats and the majority of the people in Venezuela. And they are, by extension, punching the poor majority throughout the region, who have been inspired by the Venezuelan people and have elected their own leftist leaders to implement their "New Deal"--leaders who cooperate with and are friends and allies of Chavez--leaders like Lula da Silva (Brazil) and Evo Morales (Bolivia) and Cristina Fernandez (Argentina). The Venezuelans were the first. They are the pioneers of this leftist democracy movement. And, believe me, it terrifies our corporate rulers and war profiteers.

It's interesting that one of the generals in the U.S.-supported rightwing coup in Honduras said that their coup was intended "to prevent communism from Venezuela reaching the United States" (--quoted in a report on the coup by President Zelaya's government-in-exile).

Think about THAT. Honest, transparent elections = "communism." Cutting poverty in half and extreme poverty by more than 70% = "communism." 10% economic growth, most of it in the private sector (not including oil) = "communism." Why? Because Venezuela is "THE most equal country in Latin America," on income distribution (according to the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean). Decent income for the poor in a growing economy = "communism" (all the wealth should be concentrated among the wealthy). Bargaining hard with Exxon Mobil to get a better deal for Venezuela = "communism." Merely advocating for the poor and trying to balance things out = "communism."

This upshot of this very telling statement by the Honduras general is that anything democratic and fair is forbidden by "capitalism" (actually, corpo-fascism, or predatory capitalism, or "corporate rule") and is to be demonized as "communism." Don't ask for fair wages--that is "communism." (Zelaya raised the minimum wage in Honduras--one of his "communist" crimes.)

The lies about President Zelaya are a whole nother story of our corporate rulers' terror at well-organized democratic people demanding a fair deal. Their terror is reflected in their demonization of these leaders, and it is also why they inflicted 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines on us. Latin America set the example of what honest, transparent elections can do. No more honest, transparent elections in the U.S. We might vote in a "communist" (translation: a new FDR).

[Hutzpa]

159. I must admit

I used to be in the undecided group of Chavez but I had to quickly wake up and do my own research to find
that this man is a supporter of equal rights for his own people, believe in the sharing of wealth which most
5% Americans are against, so no surprise there, but having dug further, I found that the man is only doing
what the majority of Venezuelans want and I was unable to find any conceit evidence that says this man is
a DICTATOR. I got mad at myself for falling for the old okey doke.

So I thank you once again for your educational piece into what Chavez is all about and I just wish we can have a
leader that can stand up to the establishment for the benefits of the masses.

[social_critic]

261. But the majority of Venezuelans don't want what Chavez wants

I don't know where you are getting your information, but it is a flawed source. The man doesn't support human rights for his people. I suggest you google Human Rights Watch Venezuela, Amnesty International Venezuela, Reporters without Borders Venezuela, Interamerican Court of Human Rights Venezuela. But wait, there's more.

Chavez' party didn't get the majority of the vote in the last National Assembly elections.

As I said, the man isn't a dictator, he's an autocrat. And I'm very concerned when an intelligent individual like you falls in the trap and allows the deceit and fake propaganda to blind you this way. Why do you think Chavez pals around with Kaddafi, Assad, Lukashenko, and Amahdinejad? They have a "tyrant's club", share information, and try to look out for each other as much as possible.

[social_critic]

265. Let's set the record straight about Chavez

He is a lousy president. What he brought to Venezuela has nothing to do with the New Deal. Venezuela already had the laws in place with much more than a New Deal. What it lacked was a government willing to enforce the law (sound familiar?).

What Chavez does has nothing to do with the region. Poll results show today Chavez is the most unpopular ruler in Latin America.

And this thread is about Chavez, not Honduras.

[Hydra]

104. Best post so far

And a history lesson to boot.

+1000!

[social_critic]

272. Baloney

Smirk.

Most of it is wrong.

[ipaint]

107. Thanks so much for your post.

You may not make much headway with those who wring their hands over Chavez the "dictator" but speaking for myself I always learn from your posts. Much appreciated.

[leftstreet]

112. +1

Good info

[paulk]

132. the point is that the opposition gained enough seats in the most

recent election to prevent the rule by decree edict to pass. That it was shoved through before the new members were seated, thereby circumventing the will of the voters, is an act of a government intent on maintaining power through through whatever means possible.

It is not defensible, imo.

[Peace Patriot]

175. Aw, give it up! The rightwing got outmaneuvered! Nothing illegal in it.

The ELECTED national assembly--the sitting national assembly, the only national assembly--passed it, fair and square.

So the rightwing, with their back pockets stuffed with our tax dollars, were lying, AGAIN, this time about what the enabling law was FOR, and fuzzed up some voters' brains. I tell you what, they need to regroup, get back to Washington and get funded for another recall election. They can try to fuck up the flood catastrophe reconstruction that way.

They wanted a gravy train. That's all they've ever done. That's what they do. Like the Bushwhacks here, they neglect and destroy, and make billions doing it. They don't build anything. They don't create. They loot and hoard. They were even importing machine parts for the oil industry. That's how much they cared about building an economy or a country.

I'm GLAD they got outmaneuvered! The reconstruction now has a chance to actually help the victims, without these louts getting their dirty fingers into it.

It reminds of FDR "packing the Supreme Court"--how the rightwing of that era characterized it. What he actually did was propose increasing the number of Supreme Court justices--a perfectly legal thing for Congress to do, since the Constitution does NOT specify the number of justices--because the old rightwing asshole justices appointed by the assholes who caused the Great Depression, out of malfeasance and greed, were declaring all the remedies--all the "New Deal" programs--"unconstitutional." The rich got so screechy about this, FDR withdrew the proposal, but not before one Supreme Court justice changed his mind about the "New Deal." Thus, Social Security was saved!

That old fox, FDR, knew exactly what he was doing. And thus, today, our elderly, who paid into SS all their lives, are not being dumped out onto the street, starving and homeless. Not yet anyway.

Chavez and the Chavistas are like FDR and the New Dealers. They aren't afraid to play chess, within the legal boundaries, and trap and whomp the rightwing crybabies and screechers and Mad Tea Partyers, in a good cause. And, believe me, keeping those thugs and liars out of the reconstruction was a good cause.

I wish we had some chess players like that in the Democratic Party leadership. But they give up the game before the chess pieces are even laid out.

[paulk]

208. thank you for telling us how you really feel

personally, I find the far left just as objectionable as the far right.

and just as dangerous

the disregard for the rights of others is the same

as long as the cause is furthered

[Peace Patriot]

210. Social Security is "far left"? Helping tens of thousands of flood victims is "far left"?

Political leaders being smart, playing good chess, outfoxing the opposition on behalf of the poor majority is "far left"?

This is false positioning of the "center." And what it leads to is the far right (f.i., the Bush Junta) ripping society, the economy, the constitution, the law, democracy, civil life and peoples' livelihoods to shreds, and the rich absconding with all the wealth, and with those who are MERELY into good government and fairness then get accused of being "extremists" ("far left") if they happen to be skillful at undoing some of the harm.

Our Democratic leaders are not so skillful, yet they get accused of being "extremists" anyway--over things like not looting Social Security or extending unemployment benefits in the midst of Great Depression II (while the banksters run off with multi-million dollar bonuses!). If they were "New Dealers," I guess they'd be called "communists." Unfortunately, they are not "New Dealers." The "New Dealers" of the past--who were skillful at restoring good government, and responding to the poor majority--WERE accused of being "communists." Undoing the utter mayhem and ruin that the "far right" had inflicted on the country was called "communist," "far leftist," extremist. It WASN'T. The "New Deal" was the CENTER.

Venezuela was faced with a similar situation to the US in the late 1920s. Rightwing/corporate/"neo-liberal" government had been ruinous. The greed of the rich oil elite had been more than ruinous; it had been treasonous. They were giving away the oil profits to the likes of Exxon Mobil, and raking off the top for themselves, while utterly neglecting the poor majority and the development of their own country. While millions were stuck in hopeless poverty, they were importing Gucci bags and luxury cars. While they gave away land to their rich cronies (calling it "land reform") and large estates went fallow, producing no food, they imported luxury foods, destroying Venezuela's food security. They also let their rich cronies drive millions of peasant farmers (food producers) from their land into urban squalor--no retraining, no jobs. While millions went jobless, they imported everything--even the machine parts for the oil industry--instead of creating manufacturing jobs for Venezuelans.

The people of Venezuela finally got fed up with this (after the government slaughtered about 300 protestors), re-grouped, got organized, wrote and passed (by a vote of all the people) a new constitution and elected the Chavez government--just as we in the U.S. had elected FDR and the "New Deal"--to fix the goddamn mess that the rich and the greedy and the murderous had made. (Pre-"New Deal" governments supported violent repression of labor strikers and other protestors against unfairness.)

The rightwing "opposition"--let's call them by their right name--the fascist elite--rebelled at having their power to loot everybody curtailed by the people, mounted an overt coup d'etat, in 2002, literally overthrowing the elected government and putting themselves in its place. They kidnapped the elected president, and suspended the constitution, the courts, the national assembly (congress) and all civil rights. They put out hit lists on the members of Chavez's government. They had all the corporate media cheering them on (not just RCTV, the most directly complicit). They had the Bush Junta cheering them on (complicit in the coup). They had the rest of the corporate media here and worldwide salivating over the end of democracy in Venezuela. Their next move would have been death squads killing the leftist leadership in the country.

You are positioning THIS--the END of democracy--as "far right"--and the restoration of GOOD government--lawful, beneficial government, responsive to the majority--as "far left"?

That is wrong. The Bush Junta was not "far right." It was TREASONOUS. The "rightwing opposition" in Venezuela is not "far right." It is also TREASONOUS, even more visibly than the Bush Junta. The object of both the "far right" here and the "far right" in Venezuela is NOT to govern, it is to establish a TYRANNY of the rich. "Far right" is a misnomer. They DON'T BELIEVE in democracy. They believe in an anarchy of the rich, with everyone else enslaved to it.

This is very similar to what FDR and the "New Deal" faced. The object of the "far right" of that era (the operatives of the rich few) was not to govern but to loot; not to be lawful but to inflict mayhem on the poor majority, in callous obliviousness to their suffering and to democracy. They believed in a "dog eat dog" world and that's what they had created--that's what they had turned America into. And, frankly, they were less civilized than dogs. And the same thing is true of the Bushwhacks and of the fascist oil elite in Venezuela. They are less civilized than dogs. They don't even believe in a beneficial hierarchy, in which the rich and the powerful exhibit "nobless oblige" toward the "less fortunate." They believe in naked greed, looting of everything and everybody and violent repression.

And you want "the left" to be moderate--to be "centrist"--in these circumstances?

The conundrum for democrats with a small d, who believe in good government--government that is responsive to the needs of everyone, to the country as a whole, to the "common good"--in a situation of treason by anti-democrats (fascists) is to CORRECT the country's course without steering it off the cliff of "leftist" tyranny (the ultimate risk being Stalinist dictatorship). The treasonous fascists have NO regard for lawful government, for good government, for democracy. But short of rounding them all up and shooting them all--how do you correct the country's disastrous course with this treasonous, mutinous and very powerful and wealthy element on board? How do you re-establish the rule of law without a "purge" of the people who don't believe in the rule of law?

The Chavez government would have been within its rights to prosecute and imprison every signer of the "Carmona Decrees" (which suspended the constitution) and to pull the broadcast licenses of every corporate station that supported the coup. (It has been called the first "media coup.") They DIDN'T. They believe in DEMOCRACY. This same fascist faction is now running for office--under the tutelage of the USAID--angling to return to power to loot all the gains that the Chavez government has achieved for the people of Venezuela. It is a tricky business to deal with them in a lawful, democratic context. The Chavez government has done VERY WELL in this regard. The "far right" is free to protest; they have most of the public airwaves exclusively spouting their viewpoint; they are free to run for office; they are free to lie like Bushwhacks and Mad Tea Partyers (their lies promulgated by the international corporate media); only a handful of very corrupt people have been prosecuted; almost no one has been punished for the coup (a few military officers removed; RCTV de-licensed); they are still free to be rich and own what they own; they have been deprived of nothing but their power to loot everybody else; the tax laws are now enforced so they can't evade their taxes and it's trickier to stash their wads in Cayman Island accounts; and they get the benefits of an economy that is doing well (considering the Bush Junta-induced worldwide Depression) and a society that is now being educated, employed, bootstrapped, uplifted, made viable--poverty being massively alleviated.

You say: "thank you for telling us how you really feel"--implying that I wasn't saying what I really feel before. I will put that insult aside, and address the substance of your comment as best I can. In correcting decades of abuses, ruinous policies, greed and repression by the rich fascist elite ("organized money," as FDR called it), where is the line between what is merely strong leftist leadership in a lawful, democratic context, vs harmful powermongering that may ultimately subvert lawful, democratic government?

And, was the democratically elected National Assembly outfoxing the opposition and giving Chavez the powers to address the flood catastrophe before a rightwing minority could come in, in the next national assembly, and obstruct the aid program, an example of the former (strong leftist leadership) or the latter (harmful, subversive powermongering)?

Social order is a delicate business. In a democracy, we create laws and systems, mostly via majority rule, by which we hope to keep disputes within lawful bounds and rein in some peoples' raw desires to be rich, to be powerful, to lord it over everyone else. We appeal instead to our higher natures--to our love of community and cooperation, to our sense of fairness, to our compassion. The laws forbidding certain things are meant to deal with those who live only in their raw desires, regardless of anyone else's rights. The laws creating systems that help people--Social Security, for instance--are meant to assist and encourage social cohesiveness--our regard for the elderly (who work all their lives paying into Social Security), or our care for our children and hope for more progress in the future, via our various publicly funded educational systems.

When the social order that these laws and programs are aimed at is deliberately targeted by elements of our own society--when very rich, very powerful people undertake to "drown government in the bathtub," and abandon all lawfulness, for horribly unjust resource wars and massive looting, without any regard for the social consequences of their greed or their violence, it is a VERY GREAT DILEMMA what to do about it. How do you hold people accountable who don't believe in a system of accountability, who have, indeed, grossly twisted your system of government to their own ends, at the expense of the majority. How do you restore order? And if you don't--or you can't--at what point is the poor majority going to come to blows with the fascist few, in a general conflagration--such as in Russia in 1905? or such as in many Latin American countries in the 1960s-1990s, where thousands of people took up arms as leftist guerrillas, because of the gross unfairness and atrocities of the fascist few?

The "New Deal" fended off a violent revolution here by ADDRESSING the needs of the majority, as a democracy should do. Though it was a bit high-handed at times--in objective terms (theory of democracy, as opposed to reality of conditions), while remaining lawful--we are blessed because of it. Some people romanticize violent "revolution." I do not. I would not wish it on anybody. But when you frustrate the will of the poor majority, and mess with democratic systems by which their interests are addressed--as has been done here (in so many ways, but most obviously with the "TRADE SECRET" voting machines and fraudulent elections)--that is what you are risking--the horror of violent rebellion, the utter breakdown of social order and the social contract.

The Chavez government has fended this off, in Venezuela. They have led the way in fending it off throughout Latin America--with other leftist governments getting elected all over the landscape.

Yes, there is a danger of "Chavez" (the Venezuelan people) becoming tyrannical. That is an inherent danger of majority rule. That is WHY democracies protect minorities. "Chavez" (the Venezuelan people) have, in fact, been protecting THEIR far right, fascist minority. They have not driven them out of the country with pitchforks. They have not beheaded the lot of them (as the revolutionaries in Russia did). They never took up arms. They persisted in democracy until they could make it work for the common good.

And when the Chavez government gets clever at making all this work--letting the fascists and their rightwing blowhards have their say and outmaneuvering them, and frustrating their greedy and anti-democratic designs--that is BRILLIANT. That is what FDR did.

The Chavez government is imminently lawful, as the New Deal was. The whole point has been to RESTORE order--and to create a social balance that is VIABLE. The 'rightwing"--here and there--are off the cliff. They don't want viable.

So THAT is what I "really think" of the "enabling" law in Venezuela and how it was passed. It was an example of "strong leftist leadership." It was NOT "harmful powermongering." Its purpose was beneficial and it was done legally. And anyone who compares this to the "enabling" laws that empowered Hitler is utterly off their rockers. It is no such thing.

I have satisfied myself--through years of research, reading hundreds and hundreds of news articles, reports and interviews, from many sources--and from other kinds of information (personal contacts, personal accounts, film documentaries) that not one of the charges of "tyranny" that our government and the corporate press and the "rightwing opposition" in Venezuela have made against Chavez is true. Not one of them! They have created a bogeyman, "Chavez the Dictator," that is entirely false. This certainly influences my viewpoint of the current matter, the "enabling" law. I know a great deal about the context. If Bush had done it, I would cry "tyranny." But he exhibited tyrannical behavior all along. Chavez has absolutely not done so. He is a strong leftist leader, like FDR. He is not a tyrant. He is furthermore totally beholden to the Venezuelan people for his power. They elected him, in an excellent election system; they defended him against the coup; they voted for him by a big margin in the recall; and they re-elected him, by an even bigger margin, in 2006. And, last of all, they VOTED--by popular referendum--to let him run for a third term. FDR ran for and won four terms in office. Chavez is an FDR. He is a strong leftist leader and he and his government are dealing with a treasonous, greedy, U.S.-funded "opposition" as well as they can, in democratic context. Neither he nor his government nor the Venezuelan people are "tyrants." They want BALANCE--the kind of social, economic, political balance and fairness essential to social order. The rich can be rich and do their thing. They can't rob the poor or harm the country with greed, malfeasance and treason.

We're losing our "New Deal." The Venezuelans are achieving theirs. That is the reality. And our multinational corporate rulers and war profiteers don't want to us to know this. So they seize on this thing or that thing, to again enhance their portrait of their bogeyman "dictator," but NEVER, EVER provide any context and often omit--and even outright lie about--important facts. They have created an impression--not a factual thing, not a real thing--that they DON'T want us to think about. And they "sell" it to us as if it were a toothpaste. It's a corporate P.R. game. It ain't reality.

[paulk]

228. the problem with your thesis

and it's the problem that most extremists, right or left, have - is that you live in a binary world.

It's us vs them. Black vs white. Good vs evil.

To say that all opposition to Chavez is right wing/rich elite/fascist, etc, is a gross simplification, which impresses only those simple in their beliefs and desire for easy answers.


ps I did not mean "thank you for telling us how you really feel" as an insult - I meant that sincerely, in that exposing yourself as one who puts ideology ahead of all else is a valuable thing to keep in mind when discussing anything with you. For everyone on this board.

[social_critic]

298. When I was a child, I was trained by communists

One thing I was taught was "the end justifies the means". This is why these guys like to use slogans such as "Fatherland or Death", or Chavez' "Fatherland, Socialism, or Death". In other words, either we play ball or we get killed.

I was lucky because my father had a collection of subversive books, including real nasty ones like "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch", "Animal Farm", "1984", and others. He made sure I read them. When I got away from the communists, having been exposed to their training PLUS having been innoculated against it by my father, I was able to cut through their mustard with ease. And I have been cutting their mustard for a long time.

[social_critic]

266. It's not illegal, but it sure is immoral

When the National Electoral Commission gerrymandered the districts, it was an immoral act. It was anti democratic, it insulted the Venezuelan people, because the majority is opposed to Chavez (as shown by the popular vote). It stank.

I can't do anything about it, not really. This I understand. I'm powerless. I don't even support violence, and I don't think somebody like Chavez will leave power on his own, even if he loses election after election. He's in for good, until death catches up with him. Like a carcinoma.

But I assure you, all you'll taste is ashes. This damned regime is going to ruin Venezuela, and your buddies will be known around the world for the thugs they are. And in the end, they won't even get to enjoy the money they stole. They'll be outlaws, running like the Tunisian "president", and like all the other tyrants whose time has come.

[Forkboy]

153. Very telling that his detractors in this very thread are bending over backwards to avoid your post.

Tells one all they need to know about their position. They don't like to debate informed people.

[BzaDem]

174. Perhaps that's because he is a dictator for other reasons?

Him shutting down entire media organizations because he doesn't like what they say is proof enough. Whether or not he properly used enabling laws is irrelevant to that question.

[Forkboy]

206. I look forward to the exchange between you two then.

[social_critic]

270. Forkboy, that's slightly off the mark

I do like to debate. We're engaged in friendly debate almost every day shoot, just google us and you'll see all sorts of stuff. I do point out when I disagree and why.

I do have an advantage: I speak Spanish, I live in Venezuela, and I have access to information. Plus I'm like a ferret when it comes to digging up information.

If you do want to discuss Venezuela, just ask. I'll let you know what i think, or what I know for the most part. I can also give you survival tips if you decide to visit Venezuela. Crime here is incredibly high, so it's important to know what to do.

[BlueCheese]

167. Can you cite your sources?

Thanks.

[social_critic]

273. I don't think he can cite quality sources

The enabling law can't be justified under the circumstances. A lot of what has been said about enabling laws in other latin american countries is irrelevant. If we focus on this particular enabling law, and read its text (I have), it delegates power to the President in a way no other enabling law has ever done. I think we would have to go back to Hitler to find something similar.

[Catherina]

238. You're terrific! n/t

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[cynatnite]

70. It's called difference of opinion. n/t

[provis99]

74. right wingers usually do have differences of opinion.

Their opinions are still wrong.

[tekisui]

76. Of course. Right-wing opinion compared to a left-wing opinion.

[BzaDem]

73. Amazing how some people think a dictatorship is fine as long as it's a left-wing dictator. n/t

[Hutzpa]

78. Depends on the side of the lence you are watching from. n/t

[BzaDem]

79. Actually, it doesn't "depend" -- dictatorships are wrong regardless of the ideology of the dictator.

[Modern_Matthew]

87. Exactly. n/t

[U4ikLefty]

92. Amazing how some people think a cheerleader is fine as long as it's a Democratic cheerleader. n/t

fixed

[BzaDem]

95. Not sure who thinks that, unless you equate disagreeing with you as a "cheerleader." n/t

[U4ikLefty]

98. Anyone on DU with eyes to see the pom-poms.

I would never call you out personally, becasue that would be against the rules but.....

[BzaDem]

103. There is always a tiny portion of both parties who call the vast majority of both parties

"cheerleaders," because the candidate they support isn't pure enough. This has been going on since the early nineteenth century and is nothing new or unusual.

[Peace Patriot]

120. No, dictatorship is not fine, in ether case. But you really have to look into the matter

and work hard to assemble facts from many sources, when the corpo-fascist press goes on a tear, like they have on Chavez, to enforce their view him. It's clear that the five righwing billionaire bosses who control all information/opinion in the corporate press hate Chavez. They are relentless in their portrayal of him as a "dictator." They publish no other viewpoint, ever, and they DON'T publish ANYTHING positive, not ANYTHING, not in the entire last decade of my perusal of the press on this matter--though Chavez has MANY positive accomplishments to point to, a number of them having to do with democracy itself.

Nothing. Nada.

So the first thing that you begin to realize, after you start looking into the facts about Chavez for yourself, is that the corporate press has an agenda with regard to him and his government. How come they never mention Venezuela's stirling election system--one of the most transparent, honest and aboveboard in the world (far, FAR better than our own)? The Chavez government INVITED the Carter Center, the OAS, the EU and other election monitoring groups to help set the system up and to monitor it. Would a "dictator" do this?

How come we haven't seen a single article about Venezuela being recently designated "THE most equal country in Latin America," on income distribution, by the UN Economic Commission for Latin American and the Caribbean?

Not one.

And when you go down the list of anti-Chavez "talking points," researching and studying each one--you find that they either just collapse--they are not true at all--or there were mitigating circumstances or a much different interpretations that could be put on some action, if you had all the facts--circumstances, contexts and facts which the very slanted corporate 'news' articles don't tell you.

The classic has to be Chavez's de-licensing of RCTV. In that case, first of all you need to remember the "Fairness Doctrine" here--that corporate broadcasters were obliged to serve the public interest, including providing politically neutral news coverage, a real balance of opinion of public issues and public service, in order to EARN a license to use the PUBLIC airwaves. Virtually all countries have some regulation of these licenses. Corporations do NOT have any inherent right to use the public airwaves or to promulgate only their own viewpoint, and no one else's. Secondly, RCTV's owner and executives actively participated in the 2002 rightwing coup attempt. They hosted the coupsters, they broadcast outright lies for them, they broadcast proven false video footage for them, and they forbade any member of the Chavez government--the ELECTED government of Venezuela--to speak on TV. The coupsters had cut off the state broadcast station. After Chavez was kidnapped, Chavez's VP and other members of his cabinet WERE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO THE PEOPLE. (How's that for "free speech"?) They also broadcast the names and locations of Chavez government members and key supporters to direct rightwing mobs to go beat them up or kill them.

When the Venezuelan people peacefully defeated this coup--by their massive presence (about a million people surrounded the presidential palace and seat of government)--and put Chavez back in power, he would have been within his rights as president to send storm troopers into RCTV studios to shut them down on the spot. No democratic government in the world would put up with this use of the public airwaves. He didn't act right away--probably for the sake of restoring order in a destabilized country. He waited to the end of their 20 year license and didn't renew it.

These facts--and the fact that other countries had recently denied licenses to use the public airwaves, for much less cause--were almost completely omitted from corporate news articles about this matter. All of their articles--every one--gave you the impression that Chavez was "suppressing free speech." He was doing nothing of the kind. He was ENHANCING free speech--not to mention protecting democracy and civil rights--by denying this license renewal. The government then gave that airwave over to independent broadcasters with a mandate to improve coverage of minority and excluded groups--the Indigenous, African-Venezuelans, women, the poor.

Corporate broadcasters DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW that they have no inherent rights over our public airwaves. They want us to forget the "Fairness Doctrine" and the laws, still on the books here, that say that these airwaves are PUBLIC property. That is one reason they went nuts demonizing Chavez over this. And another is that the 'dictator' meme was the chosen main demonization "talking point."

---

You say, "Amazing how some people think a dictatorship is fine as long as it's a left-wing dictator."

But who gets to say who is a "dictator"? And how do we make a judgment of these things when the facts are so skewed to the rightwing/corporate viewpoint?

Neither I nor others whom I've read who defend Chavez defend him because we LIKE "dictators" if they are left-wing. That is an unfair and absurd charge. We defend Chavez because we have looked into the facts that the corporate media doesn't tell us, and have made up our own minds about this--rather than be DICTATED TO by the rich creeps who run all the news media here as their fiefdoms.

I have really looked into this. I know, for instance, that Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, said, of Chavez, "They can invent all kinds of things to criticize Chavez but not on democracy!"

And when I look into the facts about Venezuela's election system, public participation, voter turnout numbers, public debate, numbers of channels still relentlessly opposed to Chavez (most of them--with print media about half and half), and other democracy indicators such as income distribution, and items like Chavez's own chatty weekly broadcasts with call-in's and guests (reminds me a bit of FDR's weekly radio broadcasts, i.e. leaders willing to put themselves on the line, out there explaining their policies directly to the people), the Chavez's government's publication of thousands of books, its devotion to education, its printing of the constitution on grocery bags in state discount stores, and many other such things, I realized that Lula da Silva was telling the truth, and our government and media were LYING--a profoundly dirty lie in the interest of our multinational corporations and war profiteers. They want to get back control of Venezuela's oil and they are terrified of the comeback of ideas like the "Fairness Doctrine" or Americans hearing of free medical care for the poor in Venezuela.

Who decides who is a "dictator"? The CIA, the Pentagon, the State Department and the collusive corporate media decide. Sometimes they have something to work with, as with Saddam Hussein, in that case using his tyranny as the excuse to slaughter at least a hundred thousand Iraqis who were NOT Saddam Hussein. But their real triumph of demonization is Chavez, who has harmed no one, who has done much good and who is NOT a "dictator."

They misconstrue strong leftist leadership as tyranny because it is a counter to THEIR tyranny. Leaders like Chavez and FDR, who are not afraid to use power on behalf of the poor majority against "organized money" (as FDR put it)--understand that "organized money" MUST be curtailed--strongly regulated, reined in--for democracy to work. And those who demonize Chavez ARE "organized money" --or are its media horns and government servants. They don't want the notion of government standing up to "organized money," on behalf of the people, to catch on. So they try to make us loathe Chavez, as a bogeyman menace, and they just ignore the people of Venezuela, whose will Chavez is carrying out and who, in fact, is completely dependent on them for his power. They elected him, defended his rightful presidency against the coup, voted down a (USAID funded) recall election against him, and elected him again, each time by bigger margins. Their accomplishments as a democratic people are the biggest black hole of all in the corporate "news."

[ima_sinnic]

137. thank you so much for your effort to get out the facts

the "dictator" bullshit is SO predictable from certain quarters, and NEVER backed up with any facts or research, just trite, superficial talking points and hyperbole. Learning about the real situation in Venezuela would require turning off the TV and actually having an interest in learning the truth, doing the work to find out--something some peeps just don't want to do. It's so much easier to have their thinking done for them, and so much more convenient for their own little selfish bottom line.

[social_critic]

219. I look into Venezuela every day - I live in Venezuela - Chavez is an autocrat.

Chavez is an autocrat. Because his popularity is dropping ( due to poor economy, high inflation, high crime, government corruption and ineptitude), he's trying to consolidate power as fast as possible. It's doubtful Venezuela will have free and fair elections in the future. Venezuela delenda est.

[marmar]

80. Because he won't do what the Multinationals tell him to do.

nt

[Mnemosyne]

97. No, I cannot, he isn't. knr n/t

[travelingtypist]

101. Very interesting discussion.

I'm on the fence about Chavez. He shut down the media, he's a dictator -- okay, there are legitimate reasons for this action that involve those media outlets not following the law. He rules by decree, he's a dictator -- yeah, but of the definition of a dictator, that's the only one he really meets. He's not doing all of those other things, suspending elections, disbanding his parliament, throwing the supreme court in jail, and so on. It's never simple. But I definitely love how Chavez has told the World Bank and IMF to go pound sand re: their austerity programs, and so forth. I guess I'm no clearer now on is he/is he not than I was when I started reading.

[BzaDem]

108. Just because the media "violates the law" does not mean it is appropriate for the executive to shut

them down by decree.

The first question is whether the law is consistent with free speech. If a hypothetical regime passed a law that forbade criticism of the regime, and the executive shuts down the media for violating that law, that doesn't make the executive any less a dictator.

Now, even if the law was consistent with free speech, the executive is welcome to bring a criminal prosecution in court and prove the violation. That is far different than the executive being the judge/jury/executioner (for the media no less).

[travelingtypist]

124. Yep, this sure sounds like a dictator to me.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5915

In late November, Venezuela was hammered by torrential rains and flooding that left 35 people dead and roughly 130,000 homeless. If George Bush had been president, instead of Hugo Chavez, the displaced people would have been shunted off at gunpoint to makeshift prison camps--like the Superdome--as they were following Hurricane Katrina. But that's not the way that Chavez works. The Venezuelan president quickly passed "enabling laws" which gave him special powers to provide emergency aid and housing to flood victims. Chavez then cleared out the presidential palace and turned it into living quarters for 60 people, which is the equivalent of turning the White House into a homeless shelter. The disaster victims are now being fed and taken care of by the state until they can get back on their feet and return to work.

Funny how the people carping in this thread about those special powers neglected to mention what he wanted them for. Now I'll have to look more at the real reasons for the alleged "media shutdown."

[BzaDem]

128. Just because a dictator does something good doesn't mean he isn't a dictator. n/t

[Hutzpa]

138. lol

you are funny.

[travelingtypist]

148. So he did something specific and good with the enabling powers.

That you neglected to mention because it didn't comport with your thesis that he's an evil man who is only looking out for himself and his own interests.

So how is that grounds for him being a dictator again? This circular reasoning of yours basically is boiling down to "because I said so."

[BzaDem]

157. Where are you getting "my thesis" from exactly? A link to a post authored by me would be awesome.

My grounds for him being a dictator were a media crackdown (among many others).

[travelingtypist]

191. Oh, please.

Is that the best you can come up with? Dictators are by definition evil men who are only concerned with their own interests. You have called Chavez a dictator repeatedly ad nauseum. Therefore you must think he is an evil man who is only concerned wit his own interests. A = B, B = C, A = C.

Your grounds of a media crackdown are insufficient, especially now that Chavez's use of the enabling powers has blown up in your face.

[BzaDem]

194. "Dictators are by definition evil men who are only concerned with their own interests." Totally and

utterly wrong.

A dictator can be totally concerned about his people -- and still be a dictator.

And "grounds of a media crackdown" are not "insufficient" -- regardless of how Chavez might have used or not used his enabling powers.

Try again.

[Hutzpa]

196. WHAT???

total hogwash. You cannot be serious.

[BzaDem]

198. If you are going to continue to conjure an incorrect definition of "dictator" out of thin air

then we aren't going to get very far. Whether or not someone is a dictator has ONLY to do with the distribution of power, and the use of power. Not what intentions the dictator has. Someone might have the best intentions in the world -- and still be a dictator. Similarly, someone might have bad intentions -- and not be a dictator.

[travelingtypist]

297. No, he or she can't.

That's why I stopped talking to them. From "because I said so" to semantic nitpicking just gives me a headache.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

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

[social_critic]

313. Read what I posted - it's all true

If you need to clarify something, ask.

[jody]

102. IMO the head of any govt that claims 100% authority, not power, to decide what citizens can do is a

dictator.

That claim is diametrically opposed to a government that acknowledges its authority comes from sovereign individuals who retained some rights as sovereign individuals and expect their government to protect those inalienable/unalienable rights.

I believe those thoughts were central to Jefferson and Madison's composition of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

[Hutzpa]

109. When did Chavez claimed 100% authority?

or are you reading from the same play book as the right wing media?

[jody]

117. Please reread #10 and note I did not mention Chavez. Are you trying to defend him? nt

[social_critic]

315. I guess he asked for the enabling law, didn't he?

If he puts the national assembly out of business, knows the supreme court is packed with his loyalists, and the army and security services are in his pocket...then that's mighty close to 100 %. As I mentioned before, only the internet and the few remaining media willing to challenge his power are left as a resource for the people to oppose him, and he already has the laws in the books to muzzle them, laws passed in late December by the lame duck national assembly before it handed absolute power to Herr Fuehrer.

Venezuela is entering darkness at noon.

[Prometheus Bound]

111. He is a democratically elected leader, not a dictator.

[Hutzpa]

113. Exactly, but there are those who strongly believes he is a Dictator

even though he has been elected by the people twice.

[BzaDem]

116. So it is impossible for someone elected multiple times to be a dictator? n/t

[Hutzpa]

134. Why would a Dictator hold an election?

in a simple explanation, I thought a Dictator is one that dictates to their people. right?

[BzaDem]

160. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? You do know Zimbabwe holds elections. Egypt holds elections. China holds

elections. Russia holds elections. Iraq under Saddam held elections. Mugabe was popularly elected for decades. Even Hitler was popularly elected.

Are you actually saying that they are not dictators because of that?

[Hutzpa]

162. On that note Bush was a Dictator. right? n/t

[BzaDem]

163. On what note? I merely gave numerous examples of elected leaders who were also dictators.

That doesn't mean that EVERY elected leader is a dictator.

That is simple logic. If one egg is rotten, that doesn't mean every egg is rotten.

[Hutzpa]

164. Well Bush was considered to be an elected leader. n/t

[BzaDem]

165. And? n/t

[Hutzpa]

168. From your list of Dictatators that you gave

each and everyone of them were elected numerous times, Bush was elected twice, that makes him a dictator.
No?

[BzaDem]

170. Do you understand the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition?

Honestly, this is simple logic. Just because there are SOME dictators who were popularly elected does not mean EVERY popularly elected person is a dictator. A implies B does not mean B implies A.

[Hutzpa]

200. lol

you can do better than this, I'm sure.

[BzaDem]

201. At least I know the difference. n/t

[Hutzpa]

202. What you are failing to realize is how you went

from Chavez being an outright dictator because of his ban on the media to you
trying to justify his dictatorial efforts. I taught a dictator is one who does
not follow the rule of law. Why try to justify whether it is necessary condition
or sufficient condition?

[BzaDem]

204. You say if a leader follows the "rule of law," he is not a dictator?

Regardless of what the law is?

[social_critic]

230. if the law is abusive, and the supreme court is in the president's pocket then?

Venezuela's supreme court has been packed with Chavez supporters. The National Electoral commission is packed with his suppporters. National Assembly districts are gerrymandered to make it impossible for the opposition to take a majority EVEN IF THEY WIN THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULAR VOTE. The President chooses to ignore election results when it's convenient. And laws are passed which are clearly unconstitutional. So what do we call this thing?

[social_critic]

267. It's called make up, government propaganda, bs

Saddam Hussein used to hold elections. He usually won 99 % of the vote. The Iraqi people loved his guts, they just never got to stir fry them. I can cite lots of examples around the world. The one thing about Chavez is he hasn't got to the 99 % yet. Maybe in the future, after he becomes god.

[Hutzpa]

325. Did Saddam allowed international organisation to monitor his elections?

I don't think so, but Chavez has all sort of organization monitoring his elections
but yet he is the seen by you and others as a dictator.

[social_critic]

326. Monitoring of Elections in Venezuela is no longer effective

You are out of date. They have been closing off access to monitoring organizations. But let's go over the details. We have had two significant elections in the recent past. First the elections for local city councils and mayors in 2008, and then the National Assembly elections in September 2010.

In the first, the Metropolitan District elected what is called the metropolitan mayor - in this case the winner was Mr Ledezma, the opposition candidate. Thus it was shown that Caracas had now swung to the opposition. The elections were monitored, there were very few irregularities. After the elections, Chavez used a simple solution: he ignored the results. Mr Ledezma's office was invaded and gutted by his followers, and he proceeded to name a new "Vice President" who is in charge of Caracas. He cut off all the sources of revenue to the Metropolitan mayor, and they even had the outgoing chavista mayor order his people to drive away with city vehicles. So today Mr Ledezma is the nominal head of a government without a working site, nor a budget, nor any city equipment. Meanwhile a Chavez henchman, designated by Herr Fuehrer, calls herself the one in charge.

The second election took place late last year. By then, the Chavez forces realized they wouldn't be getting the vote, so they gerrymandered the electoral districts to allow themselves to capture more seats even if they lost the majority of the popular vote. So they took the majority of seats indeed, but lost the popular vote 48 % to Chavez - 52 % to the opposition.

To make matters even worse, Chavez then asked for the outgoing National Assembly, which was packed with his people, to delegate their legislative powers to him. The lame ducks then issued what is called the enabling law - which enables Chavez to issue laws and sign them himself. The term is for 18 months, which extends beyond the term of the National Assembly delegating its powers. Thus the new incoming National Assembly, which has many more opposition reps (and who can also claim they were backed by the majority), lacks any meaningful powers - they can sit there and chat and drink coffee, but meanwhile Chavez legislates by himself at the Presidential palace.

Thus the question you bring up, about monitoring of elections, is somewhat moot. The government has taken a simple line, they don't have to bother to have them monitored, because in any case they'll make whatever moves are required to ignore the results, or void the popular will.

This is an issue many of the Pro-Chavez types who post in DU ignore or gloss over. But this is an issue which really bothers the people in Venezuela. They hate to see the government babbling on about how democratic they are, only to see them gut the popular will over and over. So the more of this type of behavior they see, the more they hate Chavez and the government. When you add the usual problems of inflation, bad economy, crime, and lack of preperty rights, this government is very very unpopular with the middle class and even the lower classes. Chavez' remaining support is with people who benefit because they are tapped into the theft and corruption - they are gaining wealth by the bushel - and also the very very poor, who are uneducated, and which Chavez showers with little handouts. His "robolution" thus is based on theft and handouts. And he's running out of money as the economy melts down. Not a good situation.

[Hutzpa]

327. That is not a sign of a dictator

Bush stole the election in 2001 and 2004 all of us on DU knows that, yet Americans did not see him as a dictator. I understand there are always two sides to a story which are the right side and the left, you being on the right side can make your point while I can make mine from the left side standpoint because I am a pragmatist who is willing to come to your side with my opinion and I'm willing to look at your opinion of events as you see it, but at the same time I can say this to you which is I will rather have someone like Chavez as a leader who cares more for his people that is the very poor and disadvantage than one who controls their people for the benefits of the few. (1%)

You need to see 'eyes wide open & Latin pulse' produced by LinkTV it might help you a little to understand most of what is going on in Venezuela, here is a link feel, free to check it out.

http://www.linktv.org/programs/eyes-wide-open?doc

You might then understand why some are not happy with what Chavez is doing but will rather see the top 1% continue their domination of the lesser class. In Chavez's case he is fighting a class war -- {the haves and the have not}
That in my opinion is whats driving the bitterness toward him. What he is doing is no different from what a corrupt Government will do that is in power. I can accept the chargers of corrupt Chavez but I do not think he is a dictator just because he is using the same tactics corporate sponsored President will use to prevent poor people from gaining access to wealth.

[Prometheus Bound]

140. Look, let's face it. It's a right-wing thing.

You'll find the same ones calling him a dictator take the right-wing position on every other issue here too.

[social_critic]

268. I call him an autocrat, a dictator in waiting

And I take very few right wing positions. Let me think....let's see.....I do like to balance the federal budget...but that's not really a right wing position because Bush blew the budget 8 years in a row...

Let me think harder...I'm for legalizing pot? Nah, that's neither left nor right wing. I GOT to have some kind of right wing in me.

Darned it.

I got it, I'm against tatoos. I think they're ugly. That's right wing, I think.

Not good enough? I don't think we invaded Iraq for oil...that's not right wing either!

How about this? I think there's a place in society for corporations!! Heck, I'm at least as right wing as John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. There you go.

[social_critic]

235. Democratically Elected Autocrat, not a dictator.

The bum used the democratic system to take over. Now he's tightening the screws. Not a dictator yet, though. Almost, but not quite (see the my analysis in other posts).

[Prometheus Bound]

287. What democratically elected party doesn't "take over"?

That's the whole idea.

You'd have to explain what you mean by autocrat. It can be defined in different ways.

[social_critic]

304. Autocrat defined by Social Critic

An individual who rules in near absolute terms, after having achieved control over the other branches of government (National Assembly, Supreme Court) as well as the police and military. An autocrat's wishes are followed, and there are no insitutions able to opppose his will.

Because the auocrat is usually supported by a party structure (in Chavez' case it's the PSUV), individual players, realizing that power is now concentrated to such an extent, join the ruling party so they can get the means to steal. This means countries ruled by autocrats usually have a lot of corruption at all levels. This is the case in Venezuela, where corruption is endemic and saps society.

Autocrats, once they have power in their hands, also tend to dismember the opposition, control the media, and otherwise take action to make sure no one or no organization can challenge his rule. This leads to a serious erosion of human rights. And this is what's happening in Venezuela as well (see numerous NGO reports about this problem).

But things get really out of hand when the autocrat happens to be stupid, and/or is trying to implement a stupid system. And this is what Chavez is doing. So the economy is suffering, and there's high inflation. This in turn drives people to join the opposition, which in turn makes the autocrat fear he may be about to be unseated, and drives him to increase the level of repression. And this is what's happening in Venezuela as well.

Thus, what we have in Venezuela is a vicious circle, a country spiraling down into a maelstrom. High inflation, a poor economy, crumbling infrastructure, collapsing health system, not enough housing, electricity shortages, an ever increasing crime rate, government corruption at high levels, and a leader whose behavior in public is thuggish and borderline crazy. What do we have in Venezuela? Caligula dressed in red. And it's starting to bother people a lot. Many of them are choosing to flee the country. Others are just angry. Quite a few are depressed and despair for their country. But one thing is clear, the majority doesn't like Chavez, and this situation isn't sustainable. I think he's headed towards a terrible dictatorship, similar to Castro's, but with the added ingredient that Chavez does seem to be crazy. I think he may be manic depressive.

In either case. Venezuela's is toast. Too many educated people are leaving, the crime wave isn't about to be stopped, the economy has been crippled, and the crooks who have set their claws on the government aren't about to go without violence. It's a very sad event in Latin American history.

[BlueCheese]

115. According to Freedom House...

Venezuela scores a 5 in both political rights and civil liberties, on a seven-point scale in which 1 is most free and 7 is not free. The trend is in the wrong direction, they say:

"Venezuela’s civil liberties rating declined from 4 to 5 due to a raft of legislation that granted President Hugo Chávez wide-ranging decree powers, tightened restrictions on civil society and the media, and attempted to vitiate opposition gains in September 2010 parliamentary elections."

I think history has taught us to be skeptical of people who want to rule by decree, crack down on opposition press, and stay in power indefinitely.

[Hippo_Tron]

119. I was just about to post the Freedom House score, I'm glad you did

[jahlove17]

118. Domestic Propaganda

Chavez has many flaws. I believe many who have replied have pointed out some of the autocratic tendencies that have manifested within his regime. But calling him a dictator serves as propaganda to the domestic population. Sure, Chavez is corrupt, but not as corrupt as Washington.

[Hippo_Tron]

122. In order to answer this question, you need to establish criteria for one to be a "dictator"

Or to be more general, an authoritarian regime. Both The Economist and Freedom House have set such criteria and created a scale, and they put Venezuela in a category of semi-authoritarian but not completely authoritarian.

Now, one can disagree with the criteria that The Economist and Freedom House have set or they can even argue that the people who scored Venezuela were incorrect in their findings of where they ought to be ranked based on these criteria.

But, the bottom line is that these people define what it means to be a democracy vs an authoritarian regime and thus are able to make a coherent case for which countries fall into which categories. Therefore, if you want a good answer as to whether or not Venezuela has an authoritarian regime, you need to decide that you agree with these criteria or set your own criteria for what constitutes an authoritarian regime or what constitutes a democracy. Then you need to find out whether or not Venezuela meets these criteria or not.

Keep in mind, that there's no black and white definition for a lot of this criteria. For example, conservatives in this country would say that campaign finance laws are undemocratic because they restrict free speech. Liberals would say that they are democratic because they prevent the wealthy from having undue influence on the political process. You have to decide which is more democratic and then evaluate based on your beliefs.

[BzaDem]

125. Perhaps, though there are certain things that imply a dictatorship under any meaningful definition.

Such as the executive unilaterally shutting down and banning media outlets.

[Hippo_Tron]

144. I think you are going to need to elaborte on those "certain things" if you want to convince anybody

I assume that your sole criterion is not an executive unilaterally banning a media outlet. I suggest that you make a list of these "certain things" that imply a dictatorship under any meaningful definition and then explain how the Chavez regime has done them.

[southernyankeebelle]

123. OK, I can think of a couple of areas. (1) OIL (2) SUEZ CANAL-----

Its really important to keep the Suez Canal open. Ship traffic is vital to get through.

[sabrina 1]

127. He's not. It's rightwing propaganda, bought and paid for

by special interests. They hate him because he wants to share Venezuela's wealth with the people who own it rather than handing over 80% of it to Multi-National Global Corps. He's interfering with the takeover of all the world's resources by the relatively small cabal of criminals who have been getting away with it for so long.

I love Chavez and all the other new, democratic Latin American leaders. They are changing the world, for the better.

Now it's moving to Africa, the same pushback against old Cold War brutality against ordinary people.

[BzaDem]

129. So if Bush shut down media organizations, you wouldn't call him a dictator?

Perhaps the "propaganda" is that he "isn't a dictator," rather than that he is?

[ima_sinnic]

147. please provide links that support your specious claim that Chavez "shut down media organizations"

hint: links from Fox "news" don't count. Links from valid sources would give your efforts credibility -- until then, you got nothing but your own imagination. You DO know how to do research, right?

[BzaDem]

155. You really think Fox is the only one that covered it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/02/venezuela-chavez-radio-station-licences

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-18/world/venezuela.radio_1_venezuelan-president-hugo-chavez-venezuelan-law-press-freedom?_s=PM:WORLD

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/22/world/fg-venez-censor22

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7321168.stm

[sabrina 1]

179. It gets exhausting countering the propaganda over and over again.

Venezuela's media is dominated by opposition media. The media outlets that had their licenses suspended had not abided by the law. Those that complied later, had their licenses restored.

Nice spin except it's been debunked over and over again.

A dictator would by now have shut down the media that routinely calls for his death and the toppling of his democratically elected government. If there was such bile coming from any media here when Bush was president, he would have shut them down. In fact I'm sure we have laws against advocating for the overthrow of this government. He's TOO tolerant actually. What goes on there would not be tolerated here, not for a minute.

You need to give it up. It's not working, the anti-Chavez propaganda. The world knows what it's all about. Even in Africa they have figured it out.

You simply have to accept the fact that his people have elected him over and over again in some of the cleanest elections ever, monitored by the likes of the Carter Foundation. He's a democratically elected president and couldn't be further from being a dictator if he tried. It's simply ridiculous Fox News propaganda to try to convince intelligent people otherwise.

You might get somewhere if you dropped the hyperbole and simply stated what, of his policies, you disagree with, not that it matters since the people of Venezuela are the ones to make the decision. But at least it would make for a more intelligent, less Fox-like, discussion.

[BzaDem]

181. "Venezuela's media is dominated by opposition media"

So what?

"You need to give it up. It's not working"

It may not be working for you. But fortunately for DU, even most of DU would disagree with you. The fact that it "isn't working" for you must mean I'm on the right track. A dictator who shuts down media organizations who disagree with him is a dictator who shuts down media organizations that disagree with him. A few on DU might be perfectly fine with that, but that of course doesn't mean it is right or appropriate in any way, or that he somehow isn't a dictator.

[sabrina 1]

187. And if there was a word of truth in your statement, you might have

a point, regarding Venezuela that is. But there isn't. Which is why I repeat, give it up, it CAN'T work when the facts contradict you.

[BzaDem]

189. Fortunately for me, the facts don't contradict me. :)

[sabrina 1]

207. 'There are none so blind as those who will not see'

:hi:

[inna]

234. " fortunately for DU, even most of DU would disagree with you"

where in the world do you get your ideas?

:shrug:

nm, purely rhetorical, no answer needed.

[sabrina 1]

185. A question ~ speaking of dictatorships.

Why can the American people not get Al Jazeera English on their cable channels? Why is it being censored? And why can you not get a copy of the award winning documentary 'The Revolution Will Not Be Televised' in a video shop here?

Canadians eg, have access to these outlets. Why are Americans subjected to these kinds of draconian censorship tactics?

And why can't Americans travel freely to certain countries, like Cuba, without risking the government throwing them in jail?

And why do they put up with it? 'Land of the free'? And why is the government spying on Americans?

It's laughable to see anyone from this country railing against any other country when they themselves are so restricted and monitored themselves. Really, it never fails to amuse me, and I suppose by now, the rest of the world.

[social_critic]

277. That's not dictatorship

You are confused. The American people do not have easy access to some information. But you DO have the ability to order the DVD from the right organization.

Also, it's sort of weak when the only defense you can put up for the Chavez regime is "well, we have it bad here too". This is a Chavez thread. Discuss Chavez and his government.

The failed coup took place in 2002, by the way. It's stale. That dead fish won't serve you much when you debate intelligent opponents about what is happening in Venezuela TODAY. So you need to dig up something better.

[inna]

237. thank you, Sabrina, for another great post.

I appreciate your posts tremendously, btw, and so do, I'm sure, many others.

[social_critic]

278. I thought it was a diversion from the topic

It's commonly done when there's nothing better to say. I see Chavez defenders use it quite often. By the way, you never did answer.

[social_critic]

305. He's an autocrat. It's not right wing propaganda. He's disliked because he's an autocratic bum

You may love Chavez, but you have no idea whatsoever about what goes on in Venezuela. Don't come back to tell us later "gee, I didn't know it was like that".

[UTUSN]

151. Uh, because he's only got 20 more yrs TO GO?!1 n/t

[UTUSN]

171. Adding, 'cause he's a bully and a thug. Just think back to kindergarten. n/t

[BlueCheese]

166. Does this sound like something that would happen in a free society?

CARACAS, Venezuela – A single number topped the front page of El Nacional one recent morning: 1,734.

It was the number of violations of private-property rights attributed to President Hugo Chavez's government since 2005, as tallied by an advocacy group that promotes economic and personal freedoms in Venezuela.

Now that group is one of many that could be affected by a new law that bans certain vaguely defined organizations from accepting foreign money. The law is one of multiple efforts during Chavez's 12 years in power that have given him new tools to clamp down on critics.

The "Law for the Defense of Political Sovereignty and National Self-determination" empowers the government to fine a group double the sum it receives from abroad, bar offenders from running for office, and impose similar penalties for inviting foreigners who publicly give "opinions that offend state institutions."

---------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110131/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_venezuela_crackdown

---------------------

I don't know what your definition of a dictator is (Is Vladimir Putin a dictator?). But he's certainly an authoritarian.

[Hutzpa]

172. So when a leader bans vaguely defined organisation

that makes them a dictator? Even if it's for the benefits of his own people.

A dictator does not live by the rule of law, that is what you have to remember.

[BlueCheese]

176. Did you read my last sentence?

It makes someone an authoritarian at the very least. Stamping down dissent could hardly be otherwise. I'm not interested in the semantics of what makes someone a "dictator". Chavez is someone who has accumulated more and more power, stifles the freedom of the press, and wants to stay in power indefinitely. This is not a man who cherishes Venezuelan democracy.

An enlightened despot is still a despot.

[social_critic]

271. But Chavez isn't enlightened

You would have to understand Spanish to listen to his speeches. If you did, you would realize the guy is an arrogant thug. He doesn't even try to hide anymore, uses coarse language, makes jokes about his bowel movements on national TV, threatens judges openly, and issues macho challenges to the victims du jour. It's shameful.

[Name removed]

169. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlueCheese]

173. Committee to Protect Journalists press release from December 2010

New York, December 21, 2010--President Hugo Chávez Frías must veto two laws regulating the Internet and telecommunications that could promote further censorship and seriously limit freedom of expression in Venezuela, the Committee to Protect Journalists said today. Both provisions were passed on Monday by the National Assembly.

"These reforms, passed without any debate, are a clear attempt by the Venezuelan government to further its clampdown on critics and independent media," said Carlos Lauría, CPJ's senior program coordinator for the Americas. "We condemn these laws and believe that if they are not vetoed, Venezuela's democracy and freedom of expression will suffer serious setbacks."

It only took a week for the Venezuelan legislature to approve a reform of the 2004 Law on Social Responsibility in Radio and Television that expanded existing broadcast regulations to the Internet. The new law bans messages that "incite or promote hatred," "foment citizens' anxiety or alter public order," "disrespect authorities," "encourage assassination," or "constitute war propaganda," according to Article 8. It also curbs electronic media content according to the time of the day, with adult content reserved for shows after midnight, including violent or sexual content and soap operas--and news images of violence.

[BlueCheese]

177. July 2009: "Freedom of expression must be limited."

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Venezuela's top prosecutor insisted Thursday that freedom of expression in Venezuela "must be limited" and proposed legislation that would slap additional restrictions on the country's news media.

The new law would punish the owners of radio stations, television channels and newspapers that have attempted to "cause panic" and "disturb social peace," Attorney General Luisa Ortega said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-07-30-venezuela-news-media_N.htm

[BzaDem]

178. Thank you. It's amazing how people who are worried about "biased sources" don't consider Chavez's

own words.

[social_critic]

279. If Chavez' defenders listened to Chavez and his buddies speak, they would vomit

I think you put it so well. It's a pity so many of you can't understand Spanish, because listening to Chavez or some of his high level ministers is a real eye opener.

My most shocking experience was to listen to Rafael Ramirez, his oil minister, go into a hissy spit and start screaming "We hate the middle class". He was so worked up, he was spitting saliva as he said it. After I heard that, I realized two things: One, he's a pretty good actor, because he's middle class himself, and two: the government does have as a basic tactic the instigation of hatred.

Being in Venezuela and being middle class, one starts to feel a bit scared, sort of like the jews in Germany in 1933, or blacks in Selma Alabama in the late 50's.

[L. Coyote]

183. Because Rupert Murdock say so.

That's all you need to know. Move on.

[MrMickeysMom]

193. I can't because he isn't...

... unless being legally elected these days is reason enough... :shrug:

[Rex]

195. I see very few Rwing robots hating on Chavez these days.

Must be climate change.

[social_critic]

263. Nah, it's Tunisia, Egypt, and the Republicans are busy making trouble in Congress

However, I do think you're way out of line if you think people who criticize Chavez are "right wing robots". Tell us, do you think Chavez' human rights record passes the smell test? Have you bothered to find out what human rights NGOs have said about Chavez in the last couple of years?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

197. I've seen this movie before

All through the Reagan administration, the American people were told what horrible, repressive Marxist dictators the Sandinistas were in Nicaragua.

Were they perfect?

No.

But a lot of the worst stories were pure lies devised by John Negroponte. (If the name sounds familiar, he came back during the Bush administration to do further dirty work in Iraq.)

Furthermore, the U.S.-backed Contras were far worse. They targeted civilian infrastructure, especially if it was a newly built school, clinic, or irrigation project.

Whatever Chavez is, and if any of the accusations are true, he's still much better than the murderous governments (Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador) that the U.S. enthusiastically supported during the 1970s.

Nations have the right to determine their own political and economic systems, and all the ganging up on Chavez sounds like it's inspired by a bunch of disgruntled Miami Cubans who can't stand the idea of land reform (something the U.S. imposed on Japan and Taiwan after WWII) but are just fine with massacres of peasants (in the Amazon).

[social_critic]

274. So I have to sit here and enjoy being abused by Chavez...

Because he's not as bad as the generals running the junta in Argentina? Give me a break.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

295. Are you in Venezuela, and if so, how is Chavez abusing you?

:shrug:

[social_critic]

309. how is Chavez abusing the Venezuelan people?

Let me count the ways.

He is muzzling the press.

His security forces put people in jail, they're not tried, and languish in terrible conditions for years.

Judges are controlled by the President, and they are jailed if they render decisions contrary to the president's wishes. In other words, there's no rule of law.

Government officials are corrupt. They demand payment to issue documents, and some of the charges are outrageous.

The government violates the law all the time, taking individual's property without going through any sort of due process or legal procedure. People have seen their apartments, places of employment, and other property taken by government officials or thugs encouraged by government officials.

There's a huge crime wave, and the police are quite often part of it. They kidnap people, sometimes torture them. Extra judicial killings are quite common - the police just pull up and start shooting. Jail conditions are horrible, getting arrested can mean a death sentence.

The government presumes to tell people what price they can sell their houses for. THey are also imposing price controls on food and other goods, but the prices are too low, and there are food shortages as a result. Sometimes the prices they set are set so low people are ruined. For example, these monsters decided they would control the hourly charges for parking lots. This may sound like a small thing, but Caracas is full of very small businesses run by people whose only livelyhood is to park cars in small lots.

I'm referring to little people, widows who rent their rooms out, the low middle class types who run a small parking lot, small time farmers, you name it - everybody is getting hurt by these maniacs.

The government is abusive, government officials insult people all the time.

Today, in Venezuela, what we see is a government run by thugs. They are corrupt criminals. And to make matters worse, they are incredibly stupid - they are ruining the country. So how is Chavez abusing the people? All of the above.

Living in Venezuela is difficult, very difficult. You don't know when a stray bullet is going to get you, or when a thug is going to pull up and shoot you for your cell phone. You don't know if the two policemen down the street are eyeballing you and your family to kidnap you, and you don't know if some goddam government official has taken a liking to your home or business and is planning to take it from you. Venezuela is a lawless country, it's full of hopelessness, incompetence, crime, corruption, and despair. It's hellish.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

321. What's your source for this?

:shrug:

Because it sounds an awful lot like what people were saying about Salvador Allende in 1973 and about Nicaragua in 1985, most of which was untrue.

[MasonJar]

199. I admire Chavez. America, including Obama, likes to paint him a

dictator because it is popular to do so. He works for the poor people, instead of the rich. The rich don't like it. Those rich influence us and our policies. Is he perfect? No, but who is?

[social_critic]

220. See the post about Judge Afiuni below.

Chavez doesn't "work for the poor people", he's a demagogue. The majority of the Venezuelan people don't like it, this is why they voted against his party in the last election. He's not only imperfect, he's a wreck, a buffoon, and a would be dictator who is destroying the country. Want more? Ask me. I live in Venezuela.

[boppers]

205. Ask Maria Lourdes Afiuni.

If you don't know who that is, try google.

[apocalypsehow]

209. I could explain it to you, but you'd no doubt ignore the explanation and hit the mighty OBFUSCATION

BUTTON at every twist & turn of the discussion when irrefutable facts concerning the Chavez dictatorship was laid out for you, just like you've done to others who've tried to rationally explain it to you throughout this OP.

So, no thanks. :thumbsdown:

[bvar22]

211. VIVA Democracy!!!

I pray we get some here soon!

"Over a decade now has passed since the beginning of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela. Can you provide an overview of the type of gains that have been made since President Hugo Chavez has come to power and what Venezuela looks like today?

Federico Fuentes: Well, I think the first thing to note in regards to the gains that have been made in the 10 years of the Venezuelan Revolution is the huge improvement that has occurred in peoples' daily lives. The fact that the previously excluded majority of people now have access to free health care, free education, unemployment has fallen by more than half of what is was before, the level of poverty has decreased, and many other statistics and social indicators that show that general Venezuelan living standards have improved dramatically. But also extremely important has been the active political participation of people in daily life; we are talking about a country where, literally, something like 80 percent of the nation were excluded and felt that they were not represented at all by the sort of representative democracy and two party system that had existed.

It's the collapse of that system and the important movement for change that erupted – prior to Chavez's election but, of course, which then has been stimulated even further by Chavez's election – in the re-writing of the new constitution that's brought about these important gains that Venezuelans have been able to achieve... This reflected itself in important mobilizations that occurred particularly in 2001, 2002, 2003 that defeated a military coup and an attempt by the capitalist class to strangle the economy, which of course meant that the government basically was unable to carry out a lot of the 'missions' that it first set out for itself, but through that struggle was able to move into a position where it could begin to carry out a lot of these social programs, and as always places emphasis on the people involved in them. I think one of the most exciting things is, for instance, the health care social missions – it's not just that free health care is now being provided but that this health care is being carried out by the people, for the people."

http://upsidedownworld.org/main/venezuela-archives-35/2413-for-venezuela-there-is-no-going-back-a-discussion-with-federico-fuentes-and-kiraz-janicke

Hugo Chavez has been elected and re-elected by the Venezuelan people in transparent, fair, verifiable elections, and enjoys the support of the majority of the Venezuelan people. The elections in Venezuela have been monitored and certified by several international organizations. They are much more transparent, fair, and verifiable than elections held in the USA.

Venezuela belongs to the Venezuelans.
Its none of our business who they choose for their president.

We should be looking at the state of our own democracy and elections instead of worrying about Venezuela.

[Hutzpa]

213. Thank you for this link

very informative. Those that wants to believe Chavez is a dictator will abandon
info like this.

[social_critic]

223. On the other hand, we can say Chavez is an elected autocrat

I mentioned this in other posts, so I'll leave it at that. Venezuelan democracy is almost non-existent at this point, Assembly districts are gerrymandered, and election results are ignored by the President. The country is headed in the wrong direction, and the people are tired of Chavez and his stupidity. He wouldn't win another election if it were free and fair - which means he's going to become a dictator by the end of 2012, when he has to face the people.

[bvar22]

229. Chavez Review:

Since his election, Chavez has diverted Corporate Profits to:

*Feed the Hungry

*Clothe the naked

*Heal the Sick

*Educate the Ignorant

*Reduce Poverty


Yes.
I can see why you hate him and open democracy that serves The People.
When the Venezuelans are tired of Chavez, they will replace him
in elections that are more fair and transparent than our own.

But whatever happens, Venezuela will never go back to being a colonial puppet state.
Venezuelans are much better off today than they were before Chavez.
I know.
I lived and worked in Venezuela before Chavez.

Viva Democracy!
The Bolivarian Reforms started by Chavez that are sweeping across South and Central America
gives me hope for The World.
I pray they migrate here soonest!!!
:patriot:

K&R

[social_critic]

241. let's break down your comment and respond

"Since his election, Chavez has diverted Corporate Profits" - Check. He did divert corporate profits. He also created a business environment so poor, the economy is dropping and inflation is raging.

to:

*Feed the Hungry" - check, but a country can't have an economy based on taxation and distribution of food to the poor.

*Clothe the naked - BS. Venezuela didn't have naked people before.

*Heal the Sick" - BS. The health system is in collapse, doctors and nurses working in public hospitals are underpaid. I'd like for you to try to get a hernia operation in a Venezuelan public hospital and see if you can survive it.

*Educate the Ignorant" - BS. The educational system is pretty much the same. The Universities are WORSE.

*Reduce Poverty" - check. He did reduce poverty a bit. But he did benefit from a very high oil price environment. In Venezuela, poverty goes as oil goes.


"I can see why you hate him and open democracy that serves The People." I don't know who "them" are. I do know the Venezuelans don't like him.

"When the Venezuelans are tired of Chavez, they will replace him
in elections that are more fair and transparent than our own."

BS. I don't think you understand how the system works down here.


"But whatever happens, Venezuela will never go back to being a colonial puppet state."

Who knows? They could become a Chinese colony in the future.

"Venezuelans are much better off today than they were before Chavez."

No they are not. Even if oil prices today are a lot higher, things are worse.

"I know.I lived and worked in Venezuela before Chavez."

But you don't live in Venezuela today. So you're missing key information.

"Viva Democracy!" - how trite.

"The Bolivarian Reforms started by Chavez that are sweeping across South and Central America
gives me hope for The World."

The "Bolivarian reforms" are mostly about corruption and theft, abuses of human rights, and criminal gangs roaming the streets.

"I pray they migrate here soonest!!" My gosh. I sure hope you live in Belarus or some place I don't plan to move to.

[Name removed]

247. Deleted message

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

[social_critic]

252. Debate, my dear Inna.

And I didn't pick it. I was looking around the internet with my son and he showed me DU, and so it got started. He lurks around with his own goofy avatar.

But tell us, why don't you debate the issues? I'm very good at it, and I'm also willing to listen.

[bvar22]

251. Don't worry.

You can come live in the USA.
We are headed where Venezuela was before Chavez.
Greatest wealth disparity than anytime in the last 100 years...AND INCREASING.
The Working Class have almost NO representation in the government.
Labor Unions are a quaint relic from the past.
The Poor aren't even mentioned anymore by our politicians.
Good Times for the top 1%.
Our Ruling Elites hate Chavez too!
.
.
.
Yes.
You would like it here.
I can see why you are bitter about the Bolivarian Reforms.

[social_critic]

262. I'm familiar with the US, thank you for inviting me over.

The problems you list are the tip of the iceberg - but let's stick to the thread, shall we?

I'm not bitter about the "bolivarian reforms". Do you even know what the heck you're saying? Do you even understand what the "reforms" are about? When you use the term "bolivarian reforms" you show you're truly lost. Chavez has nothing to do with Simon Bolivar. Chavez is a petty tyrant whose main line of business is to put himself in absolute power, rule like Emperor Caligula, and help his family and friends steal as much as possible. Bolivarian reforms, what a pathetic line.

[bvar22]

276. Then I issue this challenge to anyone reading this thread.

Google "Chavez & Bolivarian Reforms",
and then decide who knows what they are talking about in this thread.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=Chavez+%26+Bolivarian+Reforms&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=58e253966a28398e

[social_critic]

280. Google all you want, then read a couple of books about Simon Bolivar.

After you do your homework, come back and tell us what's the similarity between Chavez and Simon Bolivar.

Then read the Venezuelan Constitution, the enabling law, the media muzzling law, the internet control law, the urban development law, and the university law passed last December.

Then tell us what you think about the legality (or sense) of the taking or expropriation of small parking lots by the government.

For extra points, tell us why do you think Chavez had Simon Bolivar's corpse dug up.

I don't do Google to learn about Venezuela, dear. I live in Venezuela. This isn't theory, this is practice speaking.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

231. The easy litmus test: Years in power.

He's at 12.

It's shit or get off the pot time. Regardless of the efficacies of his policies.


Hell, I consider some of our Congressfolk as mini-dictators.

[social_critic]

236. The overall grade for Chavez is negative

He's destroyed the country. I don't think the process is reversible because the crime wave and government abuses is causing a massive emigration movement - and those who emigrate are professionals and individuals who have what it takes to dare to go (with a few exceptions such as rich folk who are punting and taking off before it's too late). When a society is as stratified as Venezuela's (about 50 to 60 % live in poverty and have a very poor education), this professional and middle class flight is a death blow. When this is coupled to the ever increasing cohorts of young criminals entering "the system", the lack of police response, the breakdown in the courts, and the horrible conditions in jails, this country is kaput.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

239. I'm more concerned about the length of his stay. Per this question.

Personally, I think he's been a net positive. But he can still be a benevolent dictator.

[social_critic]

245. Personally, I have seen the metrics, and he's a net negative.

And he's not benevolent at all. Do you speak Spanish? Listening to Chavez live is a real eye opener for you guys. If you do, go check his bs on you tube. I live in Venezuela, and I listen to him to try to understand what's happening - the country is mostly ruled in ad hoc fashion by Chavez, who comes up with bright ideas on the fly, or has little reports (sometimes slips of paper) handed to him to think about during the week. On Sundays, he gets on the tube and all hell breaks loose. A lot of what he says is non sense, some of it is dirty words, but some of it is key to understand government behavior.

By the way, do you realize inflation in Venezuela is running at about 30 %? Do you realize what this does to poor people, retirees, and working stiffs who can't get raises on time to track inflation?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

254. Convince someone else.

I was speaking to the OP.

[social_critic]

256. I hope I am

I am trying to make sure the thread stays up. We COULD discuss other details about Venezuela if you want to. I have some really interesting observations I could share.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

308. Fair enough.

I kicked it for ya.

[joshcryer]

240. He has been given decree powers for the majority of his reign. Those powers allow him to make law.

To make law without any legislature having any say whatsoever.

[social_critic]

243. By a lame duck legislature

A point many miss, the legislature which gave Chavez such powers was a lame duck legislature, passing laws in a panic just before its term ended on January 4th.

They "delegated the power to legislate" to President Chavez for a term extending beyond their term in office. In other words, they "delegated" the power of the incoming assembly. The incoming assembly happens to have a lot more opposition representation. They didn't want to see the laws they wanted to pass being debated in the open. So Chavez grabbed the tin crown and put it on his head.

[joshcryer]

246. Yes, thank you for explaining that to me, that the opposition got 52% of the vote...

...yet somehow lacked the majority in the assembly (ie, Bush v. Gore). At least our elections, even with gerrymandering, support the majority of the voters (both the Senate and the House went the way of the voters in the last elections).

Open debate would not have bode well for Chavez and his group, getting people talking is the last thing you want if you're trying to attain dictatorial powers (powers that last a lifetime).

How would you see Chavez attaining dictatorial powers? He cannot amend the constitution with his power level can he?

[social_critic]

250. How would Chavez attain dictatorial powers?

I explained it in another post, but here is what I think:

To be able to really control things, he has to control the media absolutely. And he doesn't yet. The outgoing assembly passed a law to allow him to exercise a lot more control - it provides for very high punishments for media outlets which don't toe the government line (details would have to be forthcoming).

He also has to control the internet - there's too much internet penetration in Venezuela, too many private lines, too many cyber cafes. So he had the outgoing assembly pass a law to control internet content. (details on how this is done would have to be explained later).

So right now he has the laws in place to clamp down on information flow, which is critical so he doesn't have a Mubarak done to him. And it's clear he's very worried about it. Yesterday he called Kaddafi and Assad, his Arab dictator buddies, and they exchanged notes.

Oh, and he has to take control of the universities - they are too independent, and they are a focus point for oppposition demonstrations. He had a law passed to do this, but it was so disliked, he realized it was going to TRIGGER demonstrations before he WAS READY, so he cancelled the law.

So the way I see it, he'll have to implement the media and internet control laws, and have a new university law passed AFTER he has the media. Then he'll close unfriendly media (or scare it so it clams up), clean out the universities, start jailing opposition leaders, possibly bring more Cuban security personnel over to make sure he's got interested parties loyal to him in key spots.

It's going to be done gradually. But I think it's not reversible. And meanwhile the economy is crashing, and people are fleeing. Sound familiar? It's like Eastern Europe, Viet Nam, Cuba, or any other country with the bad luck to fall in communist hands. Except Chavez isn't that much of a communist. When you look at him closely, he's more of a thief and a megalomaniac.

[onpatrol98]

284. Thank you!

I was always wondering if I was missing something when I did not see what was so wonderful in Chavez. I assumed that I was simply uneducated about his leadership. Clearly, I am still lacking in knowledge, but your first hand experience and insight has been wonderful. This is part of what is good about DU for me. Your perspective is not what I would ordinarily have access to in my day to day life. Since you live there, your opinion far outweighs any notions that I may have had. Thank you for sharing your experiences with us. Good luck with your endeavors.

[social_critic]

310. No problem. And information is usually hard to get.

This is one of the problems i see in modern society. The information we get is so filtered and biased, a lot of it is garbage. I didn't really get my eyes opened until I traveled abroad and saw things first hand, and I began to have access to the internet. It also helped when I had an epiphany: I realized a lot of what I "knew" was a bunch of lies.

So ever since then, I've been digging carefully. Try not to make an opinion until I got enough information at hand, and then get prepared to change sides if it turns out I'm wrong. I learned to listen, and today I can even learn from 16 year olds, which is quite an accomplishment because most of us tend to ignore what they say.

I see two types of pro Chavez posters here. Group one is just ignorant, have formed a romantic idea about the man, and they hang on to it with passion. This is human nature, we really don't like to accept we can be wrong.

The other group is darker. They are willing to justify just about anything to see their communist dream imposed. They are the "the end justifies the means" crowd. Some of them, I'm sure, are strong believers in "power flows from the barrel of a gun". And they have no problem whatsoever defending the imposition of a dictatorship and misery on people.

An interesting bit, some of them are also racists. I am latin, and I've seen this quite often. There are lily white anglos, professional leftists, who think we latins should be willing to accept substandard conditions of freedom and wealth, because after all that's all we are, little dark guys whose lives have been so miserable, we should be grateful when a Castro or a Chavez shows up and declares they are "for the people". They think we should surrender our freedom, and allow their petty dictators to rule our lives as if we were little children, because these petty dictators "bring us equality". They think we have no hopes for something better, or that we don't dream of traveling, or living in a nicer home. They make me puke.

[Marr]

285. I see no reason why I can't support Chavez and consider him a dictator.

Venezuela is not the United States. It's a small country, sitting on top of a lot of oil that foreign (mostly US) capitalists are anxious to take back. We've seen their work all over South and Central America, installing and supporting oppressive right-wing dictatorships that enslave their own populations to service a tiny group of elites.

You aren't going to fight influences like that with milquetoast, feel-good platitudes. They don't want to get along. They've sponsored multiple coup attempts, for crying out loud. If Chavez gave these people the kind of access that our own President gives them, he'd be out in a month.

I really wish American liberals would wake up to the fact that you don't have to be "above" the opposition in terms of tactics. You either want to win or you do not.

[BzaDem]

286. Everyone who supports Chavez should read this post and then ask if they still do.

Especially if they disagree with the idea that democracy is "milquetoast, feel-good nonsense."

[Marr]

288. Can I assume you're of the opinion that a little milquetoast "dialogue" would do the trick?

Do you suppose giving these small, wealthy interests more access wouldn't result in a coup? That is, another one?

[BzaDem]

289. See, I start out with principles such as free speech and democracy, and go from there. You start out

with goals of "doing the trick," and "winning," and if any other principles are inconvenient for the aforementioned goals, then so much for those other principles.

It's a very illuminating post -- not just of your own views, but (my guess) that of other pro-authoritarian-if-its-MY-authoritarian folks who nevertheless don't want to sound like that. It explains much of the view in this thread that a media universally critical of the administration should be able to be banned by the government, for example.

[Marr]

290. Odd. On other subjects, I've seen you argue that principles are for starry-eyed children who don't

understand the way the world works. Now they're the north star again, eh?

You're being incredibly naive. Venezuela is not New Hampshire.

[BzaDem]

291. I assume you wouldn't support Chavez if he (hypothetically) mercilessly tortured his opponents.

I assume you would support the people of Venezuela's right not to be tortured, just as you would for the people of New Hampshire.

So I guess my question is to you -- what differentiates the principle of no cruel and unusual punishment, and free speech/democracy? Why is one sacred, but the other something that can be easily dispensed with if convenient to stop those looking for oil?

[Marr]

292. No.

I would not be supportive of Chavez if his government was torturing prisoners. In fact, I'd stop supporting him if he shipped prisoners to foreign countries to be tortured, or kept people locked up without a trial. How about you? Feel the same way about Obama?

As for free speech, it's a good ideal, yes-- but it's not absolute here, either. It's regularly squelched for "national security". Weren't you one of the people arguing against Wikileaks?

[BzaDem]

293. I was absolutely arguing that Assange should not have published secret diplomatic cables. What I was

specifically NOT arguing was that it is or should be ILLEGAL to publish said cables (absent some conspiracy with people charged with protecting the information).

In fact, I specifically said they had the right to publish the information http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=103614#104605">here and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=112172#112240">here.

You think it is OK for the government to squelch the free press for "national security?" If I wanted to watch a network devoted entirely to bashing Bush 24/7/365, would you support Bush's right to shut down the network? For reasons of "national security" or any other reason?

[Marr]

294. And imprisonment without trial? Where are those absolute principles...?

You asked if I would support the squelching of free speech in the name of national security inside the US, as if it's a hypothetical. I don't generally support it because 99.99% of the time, it seems to be about established interests protecting themselves from the law or simple embarrassment. But would I always be against it? Of course not. There are certain situations, particularly in wartime, where it might be necessary.

I would say Venezuela's position is a perilous one, and yes, frankly, I can understand certain abridgments to free speech being taken against groups that have previously fomented coups.

[BzaDem]

296. When you assert that the US squelches free speech inside the US

in what way are you referring to? They certainly aren't banning media organizations critical of the administration.

If Chavez were to ban a media organization that was not "fomenting a coup" or urging violence, but instead just simply criticized Chavez 24/7/365, would you support that?

The way I understood free speech, allowing free harsh criticism of the administration in power is absolutely the most important speech that could possibly be protected. I've seen reasonable people disagree on what time/place/manner exceptions there should be (fire in a crowded theater, etc), but I never heard someone that said that speech critical of the government should ever be banned. Democracy doesn't work at all if criticism is stifled -- here or in Venezuela.

[social_critic]

303. The coup was in 2002 - that's a dead fish

Sorry bud, but that's a dead fish. People in Venezuela don't buy the excuse that their freedom has to be encroached by the government because there was a failed coup in 2002. If you were to stand up in the Chacaito metro station and started saying this stuff you post here, they would pelt you with eggs (figuratively speaking).

Trust me, I live in Caracas. You don't understand the visceral dislike for the government here. This is like Cairo now - and it may be about to explode.

[Prometheus Bound]

319. The President's approval rating is still around 50%

It's pretty hard to find a leader anywhere these days with an approval rating that high, with the world economy as bad as it is.

[social_critic]

302. OK, so now we got something to work with

You would not support Chavez if he were torturing prisoners. What if he took a middle aged woman, ordered her put in jail, and did so in the most terrible conditions? Without a trial being held? What if he ignored election results? What if he designated himself to rule by decree, thus gutting the constitutional right of the national assembly to legislate? What if his regime was full of thieves and thugs, and they stole money in large amounts? What if the economy was being run in such a shoddy fashion inflation was running at 30 % and GDP was dropping? What if the country was under a huge crime wave, and little was being done about it?

And what do you have against free speech?

[social_critic]

301. BzaDem, I don't think he understands very much

I think we got a very confused young man prone to violence in our hands. Evidently he is confusing the internal workings of Venezuelan society and its government with the Venezuelans' attitude and methods used to deal with foreign multinationals.

What he doesn't get is that we're discussing an internal issue - whether Chavez is a tyrant or not. Has nothing to do with whether he has to deal with Repsol, the Chinese state oil company, and Chevron. I guess some of these guys don't understand one doesn't have to be a buffoon and an autocrat who runs down his people's human rights to deal with foreign corporations. Must be living in lala land, I guess. I suppose he also likes Kadaffi, Assad, and the Saudi Royal Family.

[social_critic]

300. Must be a young male with a lot of tetosterone flowing through his veins

They get like that.

[social_critic]

299. Marr, so lets set your record straight (this is getting to be fun)

"Venezuela is not the United States" - That's right

"It's a small country" - It has 30 million inhabitants, and 353,841 sq mi. The population and area are larger than Texas. I wouldn't call it a small country.

"sitting on top of a lot of oil that foreign (mostly US) capitalists are anxious to take back" - That's right, but this is quite irrelevant.

"We've seen their work all over South and Central America, installing and supporting oppressive right-wing dictatorships that enslave their own populations to service a tiny group of elites." - Irrelevant. We're discussing whether Chavez is a dictator or not.

"You aren't going to fight influences like that with milquetoast, feel-good platitudes". That's right. Neither is the answer to become a dictator and a human rights abuser.

"They don't want to get along." Actually, they do. You don't know big oil companies, I guess. The one thing they do like is to get along - all they want is their profits to be reasonable.

"They've sponsored multiple coup attempts, for crying out loud." This is baloney. There has been ONE coup atempt against Chavez, in 2002. His current autocratic and tyrannical tendencies can't be justified by a coup atempt in 2002 - one in which foreigners didn't have much of a role anyway.


"If Chavez gave these people the kind of access that our own President gives them, he'd be out in a month." Wrong. First, we're discussing whether Chavez is a tyrant or not. Whether he abuses human rights or not. But let's play along with you. Chavez does give them access, he just doesn't see eye to eye with them, which is the reason why Venezuela's oil industry is in a shambles.

"I really wish American liberals would wake up to the fact that you don't have to be "above" the opposition in terms of tactics. You either want to win or you do not." Like I said, some of you believe the end justifies the means. I live in Venezuela and I'm opposed to the regime. You would kill me if you get a chance, won't you?

[Demstud]

318. You can support whomever you want

No matter how stupid your decision is. No one is stopping you.

[bvar22]

311. K&R

The Egyptians are doing today what the Venezuelans did in 1999.

VIVA Democracy!

[Demstud]

317. It's not a misconception

Rule by decree, state controlled media, and other anti-democratic practices = dictator or at least someone working very hard to become one.