Chavez shuts down TV station, sues CNN ...

I hope the Chavez catches a bullet. I hope he catches a ton of bullets.

At least Bush, for all his crimes against democracy, doesn't OPENLY subjugate the American people.

Well, he would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids.

And their big stupid dog.

I'm kinda suprised that with all the left-leaning posters around here, there's no one supporting El Jefe....

Oh, that's easy. The students are all paid stooges of Bush and Rove. That immediately demonizes them. Poof, no more need to rationalize the bad things happening to the poor kids--they deserve it for being Pro-Bush.

Yeah...this is supremely fucked up. If you're trying to promote yourself as the alternative to a fascist Bush, spraying and gassing kids isn't gonna help. Shutting down opposition tv stations doesn't work either. He is drunk with power, and pushing the continent's buttons to see how far they'll let him go. And, hey, it's worked before. But the backlash will be far worse this time, I reckon.

Who said Chavez was the alternative to Bush? That is, apart from Chavez himself.

The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend, despite what you've heard in cartoons and Star Wars novels.

Chavez is wrong here, he is abusing the popular mandate and there can be no dancing around that. This is a disturbing development for Venezuela.

That still doesn't make Bush right. It still doesn't excuse past transgressions. What it means is that Chavez is turning out to be a shitty president, not that the CIA was right when it tried meddling in other countries.

And AVP. Never, never, forget AVP.

What the hell, this thread is as good as any...

First off, understand that I do not support Chavez or any of his clones he's trying to promote in South America. But I absolutely detest the notion that exists in the US that just because they are "promoting democracy" they have the right to interfere in other countries. Such an interference a little over 40 years ago drove my country to seven years of US supported military dictatorship and eventually led to the ongoing military occupation of one third of Cyprus ( a fact that the US government conveniently forgot ). And no, it's not old history, as the same diplomatic establishment continues to drive US foreign policy even today.

Sorry for the rant.

If I'm not mistaken, nobody posting in this forum lives in Venezuela or witnessed any of what we're reading and seeing about this conflict. Clearly teargassing and water-hosing is wrong (more or less humane than the rubber bullets used by LAPD during last months immigration march? I don't know), but Chavez is under siege and I'd wager there are some cold war-style CIA black ops all deep in this. It's a he said/she said with the police saying bullets were fired by one of the groups they "dispersed."

That said, Chavez is a burr under Bush/Cheney's saddle. It's hard to know if he's a hero or a villain, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. If the station he shut down is a mouthpiece for the US CIA, it's hard to blame him.

My beef is with Chavez is silencing opposing media. Being a journalist, I simply can't accept this.

Even if the TV station in question is extremely biased, even if it's unjust towards Chavez, even if it's a mouthpiece for the US, the government has no right to pull the plug. It goes against the basic democratic principles.
If the station was broadcasting lies, it's for the courts to decide a proper penalty, not the president.

Once a government starts removing the checks and balances, democracy is under siege.

No, it's easy to blame him. Whenever a leader tries to silence the opposition by using his powers to take the tools they use to oppose him away from them, that's a big first step to a totalitarian government. For all of Bush's follies and acts of war against democracy, not once has he ever used the government to forcibly silence his detractors. Chavez is a dictator-in-training, only he's more media-savvy than most other despots.

I hope an actor shoots Hugo Chavez dead.

Thank you for the expected reaction as well as your honesty.

Flat out, in a democracy, you can't silence your critics. This must not be up for debate. Chavez is wrong.

So Chavez is using his power through government, more brute force. What about someone like Rupert Murdoch? He has arguably just as much power, or maybe more power, than Chavez, and he controls media. He doesn't even need guns to stop people from talking about him...

My point is that what Chavez is doing may be wrong, but keep in mind that there are reasons why this issue is being made such a big deal of; why other issues, like conservative control of media, don't really get as much news coverage, or news coverage with similar bias.

Maybe so, but no reporters in America are getting the hose put on them, either; not yet. Don't dilute the issue.

I know a kid who got shot by a rubber bullet and was fine afterwards, and a girl who took one in the head and died. I've heard a fire-hose sprayed in your face can pop your eyes out of the sockets. Either tactic is 'non-lethal' until they get to your head, which probably is very common.

So, has anybody here seen "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"? How did that affect your thoughts on Chavez?

Sorry, that's just not true.

I agree with the sentiment that silencing your critics is wrong. On its surface, in a vacuum, I'd say Chavez is indeed taking a step towards the kind of despotism we enjoy here in the States. But: as Stump correctly points out, this entire uproar is at least 75% anti-Chavez propaganda engendered by a corporate/political environment in the US that wants rid of him.

I'm just saying, I think we should not break out the guillotine just yet.

Being way behind on deadlines at work I haven't been able to look into this as thoroughly as I'd like at this moment, but BoingBoing has posts up right now with emails from Venezuelans that take both pro and con stances on Chavez vs. RCTV.

Here and here.

Stormin, you're from Boston right? You knew that girl that got killed in '04? I'm sorry man.

I'm still not saying Chavez is right, but I'm just trying to talk about the situation instead of just saying kill Chavez. What would happen here if the current administration felt that certain publications were trying to incite violence against political leaders?

I don't think I'm diluting the issue, either. I think that there are maybe some other bigger issues that are being diluted by the way this is being handled in the press right now.

And? Freedom of speech works both ways. I agree, it's a good chance they may be influenced by outside sources, but it doesn't matter who does the talking.

Don't be blinded by your position on Bush. I am always going to be on the side of free speech, regardless of who is speaking. And Chavez is wrong.

But what if they are lying? One of the people quoted on boingboing stated that RTCN (is that the name of the channel? I forget now) was behind a '99 coup attempt and they fabricated some footage in order to incite violence. That is not something that can be covered by freedom of speech.

ALSO:
-That channel wasn't shut down. They were denied a license to broadcast over airwaves.

-The violence was from protests. It's not like police are going to where reporters work and shooting them with hoses. Protests like this get violent, it's not cool, we've seen that here, but some of the posts so far I think may have exaggerated a little, at least compared to what I've read.

Oh sorry. I forgot that time that Bush had that network shut down and replaced with state propaganda. Oh wait, it NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED.

Despotism? Our government has never gone even close to that far, and god willing never will. Sure, they've made attempts to control the 'facts', but they've always been beaten back by people who saw through it. You don't see the government shutting down the internet as a punishment, do you?

And? Just because a bunch of misguided blind people believe that Chavez is something other than a slimy dictator-in-training doesn't mean it's a good fucking idea. What about the 50% of high-schoolers who believe that the government should be allowed to censor papers? Are they right all of a sudden as well just because there's a lot of them?

If it ever gets to the point of guns and overthrows, call me. Until then, it's speech. And it should be protected.

Did you guys know that in this country, you can get arrested for even joking about assassinating the president? True story. (edited to add: and for the record, I think it's a completely justified procedure.)

Anyway, further grist for the mill... here's an AP story on Chavez defending his position:

Chavez Defends Decision on TV Station
May 29 02:42 PM US/Eastern
By JORGE RUEDA
Associated Press Writer

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez defended his decision not to renew the license of a popular opposition-aligned television network on Tuesday and warned he might crack down on another critical TV station, accusing it of trying to incite attempts on his life.

Chavez said his refusal to renew the license of Radio Caracas Television, which went off the air at midnight Sunday, is "a sovereign, legitimate decision in which there is no argument."

He said the remaining opposition-sided channel Globovision had encouraged attempts on his life and warned that if it wants "to continue calling for disobedience, inciting assassination ... I'm going to warn them before the nation... I recommend they take a tranquilizer, that they slow down, because if not, I'm going to slow them down."

Chavez did not elaborate, but also warned that radio stations should not be inciting violence by "manipulating feelings" among the populace.

Thousands of Venezuelans—both Chavez supporters and opponents—staged separate marches in Caracas on Tuesday. The Chavez opponents chanted "freedom!" while government supporters said they were in the streets to reject an opposition attempt to stir up violence.

Information Minister Willian Lara on Monday accused Globovision of encouraging an attempt on Chavez's life by broadcasting the chorus of a salsa tune—"Have faith, this doesn't end here"—along with footage of the 1981 assassination attempt against Pope John Paul II in St. Peter's Square.

"They incite the assassination of Venezuela's president," he said.

Globovision director Alberto Federico Ravell denied any wrongdoing, calling the allegations "ridiculous."

The government turned over RCTV's license to a new state-funded public channel, which showed a documentary on explorers in Antarctica, a children's program and exercise programs, interspersed with government ads repeating the slogan "Venezuela now belongs to everyone."


Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

I don't even know where to start. Watch this Frontline documentary: Buying the War. Then we can resume this debate.

If only!

Not yet, but if the current administration had the know-how, you don't think they would?

No. I don't believe in censorship. I think the situation in Venezuela is more complex than a black & white censorship issue. The tenor of my posts is that what's happening down there is not 100% clear and I don't trust the mainstream media enough to let them interpret these events on my behalf.

But some reporters in Iraq got shot when a US tank fired on their hotel.

Why should this be a contest between Bush and Chavez? Bush's handlers control most of the media not through the use of force but money. Chavez doesn't have that luxury and is more old-fashioned in his approach.

They are both wrong. The state of media in the US is a disgrace. The state of media in Venezuela is a disgrace. There's no good guy here. And I don't think we should even be discussing if there's a "better" guy here. I'm not comfortable with a contest between different shades of immorality.

Corporations control most of the media in the USA and most of the rest of the world through the use of money. The corporations don't care which of the two major parties are in the white house, because they own both heart and soul. The ideal of democracy is just propaganda, and does not exist. Further more who here would really want to live in a democracy. Do you really want white, raciest, homophobic, trailer trash telling you how to live your life, because that is exactly what democracy would mean in the USA. Majority rule would totally such for most of us here on these boards in most countries on the planet.

That would totally suck.

But at least he can't tell you how to live. He just run the government.

It's not like the U.S. has a no holds barred press. Compared to BBC reporters, American reporters handle prominent U.S. politicians with kid gloves. Too afraid of not getting invited back to the next press conference I guess.

I like this guy's work, but I don't think it has quite the iconic appeal of "Chinese man stopping tank" (1989).

El Capitan, I get what you're saying and you make an important point. But I do believe it's all too easy for people like me and everyone on this message board to form opinions based on what gets filtered through the press to us. I'm not trying to justify what Chavez is doing; I'm trying to understand it. With my own bias against the CIA black op tactics that fueled situations like Honduras and Afghanistan, and the obvious conflict between the Bush administration/Big Oil and Chavez, I just want to try to understand as much as I can about the situation in Venezuela before calling Chavez the devil.

I think is the minds of most that post here, as long as Bush is on one side of an issue they will join the opposite side.

Bush could say, "I love ice cream. Everyone should have some every day."

The opposition would say. "I'm lactose intolerant, he's trying to kill me! Besides, obesity is rampant in America today, doesn't he get it? It's just him trying to sell more ice cream for his Big Sweets cronies Baskins and Robbins!"

Bah, humbug.

I've seen the light of how both the Executive and Legislative branches of goverment are failing us. It's the shrill arguments of the extremes of both sides that are setting my teeth on edge.

You're right, but where Bush is concerned, I do not believe he deserves the benefit of the doubt; he had it and he has spit in its face time and time again over the past six years.

But interesting you should bring up biases because I just read an interesting blog about it. It's a fascinating subject. I believe the following are mine:

There are more here, where the point is rightly made that one is not qualified to judge one's own biases.

Does anyone else find posts like this simplisitic, reductive and insulting? 'Cause I sure do...

Ditto.

Hey....wait a minute.

No one enjoys being insulted and marginalized because their views don't match that of a certain majority, be they progressives in the America of today or anyone that's not an atheist or socialist on the CHUD political forums.

That old saying about sauce for the goose? It's very true.

Hey, insult and marginalize me all you like -- just do it for good reasons. I honestly don't think people here mindlessly, blindly oppose Bush, I think most of us here oppose Bush for obviously valid reasons. If the man ever starts making any kind of sense whatsoever, I'll be the first to give him whatever sort of credit he deserves.

But I wouldn't hold my breath...

FYI, if Bush said everyone should have ice cream every day, people would be right to deride him. Though it certainly sounds like like something he'd say.

See what I mean?

Have you not been listening to the man the last 6+ years? He still refuses to pronounce "nuclear" correctly. If you can't see through your dogma to comprehend the absolute base intelligence this mouth-breather president has, then believe me, any faults you see in his critics are irrelevant to the discussion.

It's not about my dogma that is in question here, it's that of the posters here that have bent over backwards to refuse to say that using watercannons and gassing the anti-Chavez protesters is just plain wrong. They create boogymen in the guise of Bush's henchmen being behind it all and discount the true crimes here.

I completely understand the frustration they have, sure. And as I said above, to me Chavez is wrong no matter how you slice it. Unless the guy under the hose is holding an assault rifle attempting to storm a government building, there's no way in hell that can be justified. I don't need some sort of press filter to not see what my own eyes are showing me.

But Bush has been fucking with the Venezuelan government for years. That's fact.

Wait, you really think it's okay for the president of the US to recommend everyone eating ice cream every day? Really? Just come up with a good example if you're going to try and make such a point.

Eh..............

*edited to remove the insult. It was unnecessary. Childishly satisfying, but unnecessary.

And if, at this stage, the best you can do in defence of Bush is to accuse people of automatically disagreeing with him - the single most incompetent, moronic fuck-up of a President this world has ever seen - a man who is a national embarassment every time he opens his yokel mouth....you really are clutching. I disagree with pretty much everything that Bush says because he is an awful, imbecilic, dreadful human being who has proven consistently over the last 6 years that he is at odds with the most basic ideals of humanity. How's that?

So I take it you were this indignant when the riot police was gassing anti-WTO protesters in Seattle?

Yes. Does that make a difference?