Venezuela shuts down free speech

[NefariousKoel]

I find it hard to believe anyone would defend Chavez. Especially after Avon Lady's video and numerous others featuring him publicly speaking that I've seen.

The only conclusion I have is that P_Funk is yet another young, pampered kid who wants to save the trees or help the poor rise up against their "oppressors" but gets angry if someone accidentally makes him spill his latte.

[Tchocky]

Um, anthing to say about what P_Funk has posted, or is that too much to ask?

(this oh-you're-just-a-young-'un is getting wearing)

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by NefariousKoel

I find it hard to believe anyone would defend Chavez. Especially after Avon Lady's video and numerous others featuring him publicly speaking that I've seen.

The only conclusion I have is that P_Funk is yet another young, pampered kid who wants to save the trees or help the poor rise up against their "oppressors" but gets angry if someone accidentally makes him spill his latte.

You know you guys really piss me off. Not because you disagree with me, but because you insist that since I don't bow down to your superior logic I must somehow be jiving for the downfall of society.

For starters you assume to judge me based on my age. Thats ageist. Secondly you attack me and not the article I post, thats ad hominem. Thirdly you assume that since I put forward a different theory of goings on that I am in full support of it. Argumentatively speaking you break all the conventions of logic. And what do you know of me? But it shows your ignorance that my views must certainly be justified by some irrational background. Everywhere I need to justify an alternate view of the world by having first succeeded in the capitalist world. I need money, property, a family, a house. I need a job and a career. Then I can say that I have lived the life of accepted society and I can justify my views. But then I've sold out and my beliefs are only hypocrisy. If I don't succeed int he world my views become a lazy man's attempt to get a hand out. Al you know how to do is slander someone's free thoughts with accusations of iligitmacy. And even then you must be threatened by them because you show a rush to judgement and don't bother with actual argument. Best of all it isn't the article you are railing aginst, its me for putting it out there. If someone with a more conservative persona had posted it as "heres the alternate take", nobody would have jumped on his back.

So tell me please more about my life. About how posting an article and saying "so what do you think?" is an indicator of my naiive mind. Tell me how I need to justify my right to an opinion, or even my right to hold you up and say "but these people say differently". For 5 pages it wasn't a discussion, but a free range snipe fest directed at Chavez. Everyone so pleased to get together and not bother with answering questions. I give you a point of discussion and suddenly I must be stupid, naiive, and young. Your reaction to a counter-point is ad hominem attack and contempt. You approach questions like an inquisitor needing to root out heresy.

You really are a piece of work.

[August]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

You really are a piece of work.

Maybe he is but you don't seem to want debate on the subject either given how you ignore Fatbobs very reasoned posts just above it.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by august

Maybe he is but you don't seem to want debate on the subject either given how you ignore Fatbobs very reasoned posts just above it.

He posted an article for users to read. TteFAbob went through it and answered many of the points therein. P_Funks words - "Tell me how it sits with you fellas."
It's not like Funk wrote the damn thing, although TteFAbob seems to think so, looking at the use of "you" throughout his posts.

August, how can you possibly say that Funk doesn't want to debate on the subject? Look over the thread, there's lots of evidence there that you are wrong.
The level of doublethink here is ridiculous, August. Koel posts an ageist personal attack, Funk takes time to write a full response. But you grab one line out of it and claim that Funk doesn't want to debate TteFAbob's conclusions.

Conclusions drawn from an article that was posted for the board's consumption. Let's say the first post on a thread is a news item, do you complain if no-one immediately "debates" it?

It must look like I don't want to debate the article/subject, and I don't. Could't give a rat's ass about Chavez beyond the cheap oil for the US. But blatant rubbish on the boards tends to attract attention.

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

He posted an article for users to read. TteFAbob went through it and answered many of the points therein. P_Funks words - "Tell me how it sits with you fellas."
It's not like Funk wrote the damn thing, although TteFAbob seems to think so, looking at the use of "you" throughout his posts.

August, how can you possibly say that Funk doesn't want to debate on the subject? Look over the thread, there's lots of evidence there that you are wrong.
The level of doublethink here is ridiculous, August. Koel posts an ageist personal attack, Funk takes time to write a full response. But you grab one line out of it and claim that Funk doesn't want to debate TteFAbob's conclusions.

Conclusions drawn from an article that was posted for the board's consumption. Let's say the first post on a thread is a news item, do you complain if no-one immediately "debates" it?

It must look like I don't want to debate the article/subject, and I don't. Could't give a rat's ass about Chavez beyond the cheap oil for the US. But blatant rubbish on the boards tends to attract attention.

Well first off Tchocky I don't disagree that Koel made a personal attack I just don't give, as you put it, "a rat's ass" since i neither made it nor was it directed at me.

Second I am interested in hearing Funks response to Fatbob very good post which he indeed has (so far) ignored.

Satisfy you?

[Tchocky]

Wouldn't say that. It's interesting that you pick Funk as the one who doesn't want to debate the issue, quoting his response to Koel's ageist rubbish. Do you see where I'm coming from?

(oh, nevermind)

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Wouldn't say that. It's interesting that you pick Funk as the one who doesn't want to debate the issue, quoting his response to Koel's ageist rubbish. Do you see where I'm coming from?

(oh, nevermind)

It's interesting that you are attacking me instead of Koel.

[Gizzmoe]

This thread needs a cool-down period. I´ll reopen it in about 10 hours from now.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by August

Second I am interested in hearing Funks response to Fatbob very good post which he indeed has (so far) ignored.

I'll answer it. I'm just taking my time with it. Honestly, thats alot of replying to do. When he breaks it into a sentense by sentense list of critique broken up by quotes and then throws in weird pronouns then you gotta take a step back and be careful what you say. That and I've been busy the last 2 days with you know... living. Playing hockey, seeing friends, seeing one friend off who I wont see for a year. So life can interrupt these quaint little talks we have.

But the other thing I want to say is why does everyone assume that I'm 100% behind these articles? Is it just the harsh partisan nature of so many of this board's members that causes everyone to assume that anything you post must and will be motivated by your deepest ideological favouratism? What I saw was a thread that was going nowhere and where there was alot of lazy discussion with no real accountability to unbiased reason and more of a "lets all take the piss out of Chavez" feel. I'm just injecting a counter point here. If you're all so secure in your beliefs and points of view then you should be able to face a contradictory point without making it personal.

I see what Tte FaBob wrote as a serious criticism but I also see alot of anger there too. Can't we not get along and still be civilized? Anyway I'll be back with something to respond to that treatise by fabob. And remember this. RESPOND. Not necessarily outright contradicting and deriding as a loyal servant of the blind pinko commie left wing psychohaters of freedom and democracy. Dig? Okay. In the mean time read my last reply about how I'm sick of being attacked because I'm young and a lefty. I think that deserves some weight too.

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

He posted an article for users to read. TteFAbob went through it and answered many of the points therein. P_Funks words - "Tell me how it sits with you fellas."

It's not like Funk wrote the damn thing, although TteFAbob seems to think so, looking at the use of "you" throughout his posts.

I was definitely answering the professor and the jounalist, not P_Funk, except for the start, and purposedly used the ambiguous "you" for the sake of brevity as every other word would have more than three words but also for a much more relevant reason that is indeed related to the author, but first things first. You can't be serious in your impression because at least in the first case I did acknowledge the author at the end: unless I couldn't connect the dots, the signature with the rest of the text, I definitely knew who wrote it and that it wasn't P_Funk.

But here's why I didn't bother calling them properly:

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Argue the points, argue the ideas, ...

I don't see you debunking my ideas and my words...[you] don't bother to
actually articulate...

That doesn't dismiss the content directly of the article.

Given P_Funk's triple call (and there's the 4th after my post) to focus not on the author but on the points, I was doing it whenever possible and filling the blanks with what could be replaced for "Paris Hilton", "whoever says this" or even consider their words mine and argue against myself. At the same time it's a defense against this, a paradoxal extreme appeal to the author:

Originally Posted by P_Funk

this is pointless. I can't get you to see it my way in one little message
board post. In the end I'm justifying every subtle detail of something that I
believe in. Articulating it is hard indeed to those who believe in the status
quo. Confronting conventional wisdom is something that even the most adept
idealogues struggle to do. But what exists between us is a fundamental difference
in how we view the values in the world. You see my views as dangerous to freedom,
while I see the status quo as its own hinderance to freedom.

Would August's claim fit here? Did you include this in your "lots of evidence"?

Originally Posted by Tchocky

...an article that was posted for the board's consumption.

And to be hashed:

Originally Posted by P_Funk

I guess we're gonna have to hash the details of the Chavez article rather than jsut dismiss its sources.

I have to go sharpen my knife now.

Originally Posted by P_Funk

I see what Tte FaBob wrote as a serious criticism but I also see alot of anger there too...

I've removed the yous (if that also made you think I was refering to you) and tried to organize it in a more accessible manner, separated not in hashed parts but by arguments. Maybe this makes it easier, maybe it doesn't make any difference at all. I'd just be grateful if you could point out where the lot of anger is.

Main argument: RCTV was closed because it supported a coup against Chavez.

Propositions in linear order:

1. The US media's (of the date this was written) coverage of the event in the past week is wrong. RCTV was not closed because of criticism.

I have not followed or seen enough of the American coverage to tell. I do feel rather safe to presume that the coverage was lacking, incomplete or even misinformed but I suppose for different reasons.

2. The media is more willing to carry water for Washington than reporting the truth.

That's exactly what Chavez's programs do, exclusively. Why Caracas can not only get away with it but be supported while Washington cannot needs explaining. It can't be because of water carrying per se since whatever is being qualified as "water carrying" in the American media would most definitely fit Chavez's media. It's more reasonable to assume that the priviledge has something to do with the specific governments themselves.

3. All nations license radio and TV stations because the airwaves can only accommodate a small number of broadcasters, fewer than could fit. In democratic nations the license is given for a specific term, subject to renewal.

The first part has nothing to do with the closure of RCTV as Chavez had already created the TeleSur, even if we ignore everything else this fact alone proves that space was not an issue, yet the programming of the TVes (RCTV's replacement) is similar to that of TeleSur (there simply isn't enough programs to fill either grid), this would be a massive waste of precious space if space was indeed lacking, but it isn't. If democratic nations license TVs and renew these same licenses, not rewening a license is an undemocratic action, removing a voice of the airwaves.

4. Venezuela is a constitutional republic. Chavez has won landslide victories enviable by almost any elected leader in the world, in internationally monitored elections.

These terms are too loose. Is a constitutional republic a republic which merely has a constitution or is it necessary for the constitution to limit the powers of the powers? And what about the republic itself? Considered rigorously and by comparison, Venezuela ranks on the bottom in republicanism and constitutionalism. Chavez has made his own constitution, he has his own absurd TV show, currently rules by decree and the separation of the Legislative and the Judiciary has been eroded: the first will shortly become insignificant as soon as the single-party regime is established, the latter is pervaded both from inside and outside. Hardly a model for a constitutional republic. Only the most naive fool would take the Venezuelan electoral system to be credible after the series of events that took place since Chavez assumed power (stacking the electoral council with his men, making the last president of the council his vice-president, the voter list, all the evidence of fraud that cannot be more emphatically proved because nobody can have access to the official documents, the failure to abide to the Carter Institute's methodology, etc). For an overview on the leaked list of voters of the 2004 referendum: http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/categ...nSFascistList/, for a summary of the 2004 referendum:http://www.proveo.org/hausmann.pdf. These are not examples of elections in constitutional republics, they're examples of elections in "banana republics".

5. The vast majority of Venezuela’s media is in private hands and constitutionally protected, uncensored and dominated by the opposition. RCTV has options like cable and satellite or launch a print empire.

Saying "vast majority" gives the impression that the Venezuelan media is vast and one channel wouldn't make a difference. It isn't, but there's a derailment here: so far the subject has been the RCTV, a TV channel, not the "media" in general. But now the "vast" media is one channel short, with another on the crosshairs. Chavez has not only changed the constitution but also amended it whenever necessary leaving little trust to be put in it. During his weekly shows or in speeches Chavez attacks the media as outright criminals, enemies. Pressure on the stations themselves and on advertisers has silenced former critics who now adhere to the "officialist" line. We can note a massive contradiction here: criticism to Chavez is treated with disdain while more criticism towards the Bush Administration is desired in the US. Lastly, the options of the RCTV are irrelevant to the fact of its closure. University professors can clean toilets if they get fired from their university for attempting to coup the intelligence and dignity of their studends.

6. Aggressive, unqualified, political dissent is alive and well in Venezuela in a manner few other nations have known including the US.

Journalists have been persecuted, protesters have been arrested and in the government and state companies, like the PDVSA, peer pressure and mutual spying ensures dissidents don't get far in their jobs or break their minds and get them to submit. The comparison with the US is absolutely false: this professor is living proof of how well and alive aggressive, unqualified, criticism is in the US, unlike Venezuela, where the coffin of RCTV's owner was paraded on the streets in a clear death threat.

7. RCTV is not accused by Chavez of having supported a coup as the press distortedly reports, that’s a fact. The press has done everything to discredit Chavez.

As the professor has done everything to discredit the American press. The ambiguous sentence does not allow me to conclude if Chavez is or isn't in fact considered a credible source. Now if that is a fact, why haven't Chavez formely accused RCTV? But this is true, Chavez did not close down RCTV on the basis that it supported a coup against him, but based on his new Social Responsibility law that allows him to dictate what is ethical and what isn't.

8. RCTV, along with others, played such a leading role that it is often described as the “world’s first media coup”.

The will of the Venezuelans don't count outside uncredible elections? It's as if nobody wanted to bring down Chavez, except for the manipulating "media". But Chavez was the first to attempt a coup, thus, unless he intends to serve the rest of his sentence, he's not in a position to accuse others, or better, he is now that he has all the power in his hands. During the 70's dictatorship in Brazil the TV stations ended up having to fill their grid with soap operas and what they wouldn't say in the news programs was subtletly infiltrated in the soap operas. I take it the same condemnation applies to all TV stations that ever served, more or less, as opposition to a military dictatorship on the planet.

9. One of RCTV’s most infamous and effective falsified reportings was to mix footage of Chavistas firing pistols with gory scenes of demonstrators being shot and killed creating the impression that the Chavistas actually shot these people when in fact the victims were nowhere near them.

The worst RCTV can come up with does not reach the level of distortion, manipulation and falsification that is the entire programming grid of the TeleSur or even Chavez speeches themselves. But why is the fact that Chavistas fired at the crowd ignored? That was one episode, every other anti-Chavez protest was faced by a Chavista mob that since is not officially affiliated with the state are free to engage in brawl while the police turns a blind eye and only arrests the anti-Chavez crowd.

10. RCTV banned pro-government reporting during the coup and later that year supported the strike of the PDVSA.

Perhaps they should've aired propaganda, like the TeleSur? If they were supporting riot it is obvious that they would not praise the government at the same time. Venezuelans aren't complete idiots. Granier himself has said that "we're not politicians, but in a situation like this you can't avoid being considered as part of the political battle by those without effective representaton and democratic safeguards and those responsible for eliminating them.". The cause of the strike at the PDVSA is not mentioned: Chavez's attempt to take control of the company from above.

11. If RCTV were broadcasting in the US its license would’ve been revoked years ago and its owners likely tried for criminal offenses including treason.

False alternative. The US is not a banana republic with a fond for coups or successive replacements of the constitution. But a major point is raised here: if the RCTV committed criminal offenses, including treason, why wasn't it sued? Why didn't Chavez sue RCTV? Why didn't he use the Justice? To support this is to support guilt without a due process of law. Given the proper chronological order, if an Army Colonel invaded the Congress with a bunch of thugs he'd be thrown to rot in jail (also for treason) with probably the support of most of the media. There would never be a coup against his government because he'd never be elected in the US. If elected, he'd be impeached and face charges of unconstitutionality for every action similar to Chavez's.

12. RCTV's replacement [TVes] is now broadcasting programming from thousands of independent producers in an effort to let millions of Venezuelans who have never had a viable chance to participate in the media to do so, without government censorship.

This is a massive exaggeration and the producers are not "independent" by any means. For those fond of logic: if Venezuela is a poor country exploited by the rich oligarchy where did all these independent producers came from? The money comes from the state, one way or another. The real number is at best by the hundred, not thousands, and definitely no single million of Venezuelans will ever participate, much less if they don't abide by the official directions. There couldn't be more censorship when everything must be pre-approved. The RCTV and the other stations have alot of audience, the state channels have none or little, depending which channel is tuned at the time in government or state buildings. The Venezuelans don't want to participate in the media, they want to watch their favorite programs, they're too busy with the rest of their lives to go participate in the media anyway, unlike university professors who participate in radio shows, magazines, newspapers, websites, etc.

13. The Bush admin does not oppose Chavez for democracy, otherwise a long list of governments to subvert or overthrow would come first of Venezuela. The press shed little light on this subject.

This started with the media carrying water to Washington, is it implied then that the media does not oppose Chavez for democracy aswell? But how long can this list be since it's very reasonable to focus on Venezuela in detriment of Zimbabwe, for instance: Venezuela is located close to the US, it's a major Oil supplier and Chavez is involved with other nations in the region. He supported the coup-threatener Humalla, the fascist Morales, has been trying to bribe Argentina and feeds Cuba with some money. To be concerned with Venezuela is to be concerned with a short list of governments, or nations. But is the professor suggesting that Bush forgets about the rest of the American continent, again? He doesn't shed much light on this subject.

14. The US news media should learn the lesson of Iraq and regard the government’s claim with the same skepticism they properly apply to foreing leaders. If so the Americans might get a better picture of the world and be able to effectively participate in their foreign policy.

Does this include Chavez? Since the professed skepticism most definitely didn't allow the professor to get a better picture of the world I take it is a form of extreme skepticism: whatever Chavez says, don't believe in it. If he says he'll close another channel, don't believe in it. If the channel is closed, don't believe in it. This mindset will effectively participate in the creation of a null foreign policy that can't tell heads from tails.

So, we have a trend of diminishing freedom of expression, concentration of power and a forced class struggle: supporters vs dissidents. If the RCTV committed a crime it should've been prosecuted. Excuses such as airwave pollution or absurd ex post facto justifications such as the lunacy about the closure being an effort to let millions (there's only 20 of them) of Venezuelans participate in the media (just look at the millions running to the channel...) doesn't touch the legal point. If it is suggested that the USA has a better legal system, one that would've diligently and quickly judged the RCTV, then why isn't the same legal system defended for Venezuela? On the contrary, the distancing from it is supported. If anomy followed by the police state is the goal then appealing to the justice system of the USA is a hypocrisy, a bluff. If the belief in the American Rule of Law is real then Venezuela must be condemned. The question is: no matter how deceitful, defamatory or insulting, Chavez's channels aren't in check. There is one law for him and one law for everybody else, some pigs are simply more equal than others. He used the legacy of what little democratic laws Venezuela had to destroy the last remains of democracy.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

I've removed the yous (if that also made you think I was refering to you) and tried to organize it in a more accessible manner, separated not in hashed parts but by arguments. Maybe this makes it easier, maybe it doesn't make any difference at all. I'd just be grateful if you could point out where the lot of anger is.

I don't see any anger now. I'm not sure if I imagined it or if it was the "yous". Either way now I don't have much of a beef with anything you've said. Really I very much can't disagree. I never supported Chavez in all this. It seems that I was given that characterization by others but my main part in this thread until I posted these articles was some ill-conceived attempt to counter the notion of the "failure of marxism". That was seperate from the real point of the thread though attached by a realvence to the preferred conclusion based on Chavez running away with himself.

My only beef since AL stopped saying anything is with koel's ad hominems at me which were totally illogical. Thats something I don't let people get away with. Being outspoken and against the grain attracts alot of flak so I need a thick carapace and a quick tongue to not let it stand as a legitimate reply.

Really fabob I agree. I just wanted to inject some discussion of it into the thread. You are the first person in a while that I've seen really back up his position around here in depth. Usually the concensus gets a free ride. Me I don't really have the background knowledge to assess the Venezuela situation on my own in much depth. This is where my young naivete comes in. But I don't have the illusions about Venezuela that I'm accused of. In fact I don't think I ever directly defended Chavez outside of effectively saying "can you back that up?" I'm not sure what will come of Venezuela really but I did read one article by Gwynne Deyer where he supposed that Venezuela might become another Zimbabwe. That isn't a very nice thought but Chavez wouldn't be the first man of his people to turn against them.

Btw that is a very fine piece of academic analysis fabob. I don't see much to argue with. Maybe a few assertions you made in the previous "hashed" replies but only over a few details. The "cleaned up" version is very neat and to the point. Thats something that the rest of this board would do good to catch onto. You know its funny but once we wipe away the ideological face of each other's personas there is alot more that we can agree on. I sense that my politics and yours otherwise clash a fair bit but I respect a sharp mind and especially one that is articulate.

Cheers

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

You know its funny but once we wipe away the ideological face of each other's personas there is alot more that we can agree on.

Yes, I agree, that's what we all need to try and keep in mind. We should recognize that people with opinions different from ours are generally good folks. And it is not a very effective debate technique to tell someone that because they are young, they are wrong. That will usually not help them see your side of the arguement. We were all young once. I can remember reading Marx's Manifesto with an open mind at one time... a long, long time ago. I think it was still in first edition...

[The Avon Lady]

This is going to require a new attitude from producers.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

[The Avon Lady]

Beware the imperlialist bogeymen!