Venezuela's RCTV: Sine Die and Good Riddance

[LynnTheDem]

Venezuelan TV station Radio Caracas Television's (known as RCTV) VHF Channel 2's operating license expired May 27, and it went off the air because the Chavez government, with ample justification, chose not to renew it. RCTV was the nation's oldest private broadcaster, operating since 1953. It's also had a tainted record of airing Venezuela's most hard right yellow journalism, consistently showing a lack of ethics, integrity or professional standards in how it operated as required by the law it arrogantly flaunted.

RCTV and the other four corporate-run TV stations violated Venezuela's Law of Social Responsibility for Radio and Television (LSR). That law guarantees freedom of expression without censorship but prohibits, as it should, transmission of messages illegally promoting, apologizing for, or inciting disobedience to the law that includes enlisting public support for the overthrow of a democratically elected president and his government.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5792

Venezuela's RCTV and its Acts of Sedition
RCTV will still be able to operate on public airwaves via cable and satellite, and Channel 2's concession will either be given to an RCTV worker cooperative, a public-private consortium, or to the state for use as an entertainment channel with state Channel 8 (VTV) becoming a 24 hour news channel and both channels henceforth airing a better mix of socially responsible programming.

The result will be greater democratization of the public airwaves with less control of them in the hands of media oligarchs and more of it given to the people of Venezuela. This is how a functioning democracy is supposed to work.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1941

Two Sides of Venezuela RCTV Shutdown
A usual, both sides have more at stake in this issue than just "protecting the Venezuelan people" or "defending freedom of speech," and neither side is innocent.

First of all, the facts must be explained. Unlike most of the mainstream media and RCTV would have you believe, Hugo Chavez is not "closing down" RCTV, but only refusing to renew the broadcaster's public license. That is, RCTV won't be able to broadcast on public airwaves anymore. Putting the obvious negative effects such measure will have on the station's ratings aside, RCTV will still be able to broadcast on Venezuela by cable and satellite. This refusal, in turn, was made on the basis that RCTV violated several laws in the last few years, most notably on its participation on the 2002 coup. Furthermore, RCTV didn't cooperate with tax laws and didn't pay a number of fines issued by the Venezuelan government in recent years.

RCTV did have the right to, in 2002, call the masses to protest against Chavez, as long as they haven't incited violence. But they did.
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=413116

Some DUers like to read both sides of an issue.

[Cooley Hurd]

1. K&R - thanks for the addl info, Lynn!

:thumbsup:

[Judi Lynn]

2. I'm deeply curious about why our corporate media was completely fine when Peru

declined to renew licenses for two radio stations and three television stations only LAST APRIL. Anyone have any idea why it's not acceptable for Venezuela, but peachy keen for Peru?

VENEZUELA, RCTV, AND MEDIA FREEDOM: JUST THE FACTS, PLEASE, by James Jordan

~snip~
When RCTV's broadcasting license came up for review, Pres. Chavez decided, after exhaustive research and study, not to renew the license. Chavez is legally responsible for renewing such licenses under laws which were enacted before he became president. The reasons given for not renewing the license cite RCTV's participation in the coup, plus the fact that RCTV leads Venezuelan media in infractions of communications laws. RCTV's problems pre-date the Chavez administration, having been censured and closed repeatedly in previous presidential administrations. RCTV leads Venezuela in its violation of communications codes, with 652 infractions.

Another interesting fact is that our corporate media and distinguished Members of Congress have neglected to mention that on April of 2007 the government of Peru did not renew the broadcasting licenses of two TV stations and three radio stations for breaking their Radio and Television laws. It is obvious that Venezuela continues to be a target.
(snip)

http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=3554&blz=1

[killbotfactory]

3. Didn't he also just get decree powers?

I think that was peru.

[Judi Lynn]

4. You've got a tremendous memory. I had forgotten almost as soon as I read it.

You bet he did! So glad you mentioned it. Here's what his deal was:

Last Updated: Saturday, 28 April 2007, 06:31 GMT 07:31 UK

Peru leader gets emergency powers
By Dan Collyns
BBC News, Lima

Mr Garcia has promised not to abuse the powers
Peru's parliament has granted emergency powers to President Alan Garcia in order to deal with drug trafficking and organised crime.
Congress overwhelmingly approved the move but around 20 Congressmen walked out of the session before the vote.

President Garcia has promised not to abuse the powers, which are valid for the next 60 days.

He will only have the power to rule by decree on nine specific types of crime, most of which relate to trafficking.
(snip/...)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6602551.stm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ahhh, ha ha ha ha ha. You've done us a large, killbotfactory! He has done the same things Chavez did, with _Bush's blessings.

I'm sure you remember the unbearably strange threat he made when he said he intends to bomb and strafe (or some term meaning heavy gun fire of some kind) suspected drug sites? Does that mean kill the ubiquitous "his own people?????" Doesn't take long to recall how liberally that kind of thing can be applied, how many "innocent bystanders" can get blown up all in the name of the bombing entity, all to make the world all better.

SO GLAD YOU MENTIONED THIS. :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[Judi Lynn]

5. So now we've got Peru's Alan Garcia both denying renewal to FIVE stations & getting decree powers.

Thank you, It is so outstanding you reminded us of something we should have remembered earlier. Very interesting, considering the right-wing controlled corporate media couldn't have cared less. It won't matter that Garcia claims to be "leftist," which some clown will attempt to highlight. He was _Bush's choice from the available candidates running for election in the last contest. He is completely neo-liberal, as well Carlos Andres Perez, the corrupt President who raised the costs of transportation for the poor so unbelievably high they couldn't afford it, and poured into the streets in protest, only to be mowed down, in the massacre called "El Caracazo."

You probably noted some worthy attempted to claim Perez was a "liberal," in one of these threads. Yeah, "liberal." So liberal he ordered his police to fire into the crowd, killing hundreds by the state's count, and around three thousand to the citizens of Venezuela, not to mention so many injured victims, as well.

After his slaughter of his "own people," and his pilfering from the country's Treasury, as in embezzling, the man against whom Hugo Chavez led one of two coup attempts was impeached, thrown in jail, and removed from office. He is still very much a part of the Venezuelan "elite," this "liberal," who calls publicly for Hugo Chavez to be shot down "like a dog."

Peru's FIVE station license denying, Presidential decree obtaining Alan Garcia and his American friends.

http://www.whitehouse.gov.nyud.net:8090/news/releases/2006/10/images/20061010-4_d-0171-1-515h.jpg



http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk.nyud.net:8090/media/images/41725000/jpg/_41725760_perugarcia1_ap416.jpg

[slipslidingaway]

61. Worthy of it's own thread. Some other examples in this article.

Easy to See the Speck in the Other's Eye

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37957

[LynnTheDem]

8. In a word...

OIL.

[Tatiana]

24. TRUTH? Reason? Exposing hypocrisy? How dare you!

I continue to be stunned over the reaction of the non-renewal of RCTV's license. Let them broadcast on satellite. A "news" station that broadcast "Pretty Woman" instead of covering the amazing and unparalleled return of Chavez to his elected office after a U.S.-backed coup doesn't deserve to broadcast over the national airwaves. They did nothing to serve the public interest of Venezuela. According to existing law, their license was not renewed.

[LynnTheDem]

42. Wow.

:wow: That is the most perfectly correct, perfectly factual, perfectly clear & concise statement I've seen on this entire issue anywhere to date.


:thumbsup:

[Judi Lynn]

6. Helpful information, thank you. This snip was good, describing corporate spin:

BBC's commentary ended saying "The arguments highlight, once again, how deeply divided Venezuela is." Unmentioned was that division is about 70 - 80% pro-Chavez, around 20% opposed (the more privileged "sifrino" class), and a small percentage pro and con between them.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5792

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The dust will settle after this planned effort, and THEN the facts will have to be confronted. We can wait. We know who's going to get the last laugh here.

[farmbo]

7. Sorry... this is censorship, pure and simple... Chavez is wrong on this one

Are his ideas so fragile that they can't stand up to the withering criticism of Venezuela's equivalent of Fox News?

I think not.

Sure, our MSM is not accurately reporting this, but Chavez has grossly miscalculated world opinion on this issue.

Obviously, these guys are a$$#oles, but he needs to renew their license.

(Flame-resistant suit on)

[LynnTheDem]

9. Nothing to do with censorship.

The facts are pure & simple;

RCTV incited violence and broke the law multiple times.

Their public license expired and was not renewed, as the law allows for.

They are free to broadcast in Venezuela via sattelite and internet.

Had RCTV done in the US what they did in Venezuela, they'd have had their license yanked, not just allowed to expire. And the owners would be in jail.

Chavez followed the laws of Venezuela, laws in place long before he was elected.

[fishwax]

13. i don't think they're the equivalent of fox news

and the media in Venezuela remains both overwhelmingly private and overwhelmingly critical.

[High Plains]

22. So...is what Garcia did in Peru also "censorship"?

If not, why not?

Does the state have the right to regulate broadcasting on the public airwaves?

[OilemFirchen]

23. No.

Yes.

And, I believe the OP's point is that there was no comparable outcry over Garcia's actions. Especially not here.

[eridani]

43. Why? Since when does any broadcaster have a right to public airwaves? n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

73. Why have licensing at all? If a licensee can do anything at all and not jeopardies

their license, what's the point?

[Joe Chi Minh]

79. Needs to? You seem to be too naive to interest yourself in a political thread -

- if you really think the the MSM of the world reflect world opinion. Maybe you should stay on the farm a bit longer.

"Are his ideas so fragile that they can't stand up to the withering criticism of Venezuela's equivalent of Fox News?"

Just being able to peddle their lies via the MSM gives the far right a sense of power. And the less of that they have the better. Just that sense of power is oxygen to them. However, even in a country with a good national education system, the lies of evil cretins like Fox are all too effective. They will have been a major factor in the deterioration of your public education system.

Censorship? You bet. I believe fascism is still proscribed in Germany and was in Italy until fairly recently.

[farmbo]

137. Then we agree... it IS censorship. You're OK with that. I'm not.

eom

[Joe Chi Minh]

147. Whoopee!

But you know what I find really funny? You've given yourself a real, folksy, downhome kinda name, but your posts read like a university lecturer's. Are you a Republican? You don't have to be a Democrat to post on here. Or be shy about it.

[NashVegas]

152. Fox News Has Yet to Urge People to Overthrow a President, Let Alone w/out a Ballot Box

...

[malaise]

10. Funny how the right wing like to

define 'the law'. There are sanctions for breaking laws.

[Rage for Order]

27. You mean like breaking this law?

"Venezuela's Law of Social Responsibility for Radio and Television (LSR). That law guarantees freedom of expression without censorship but prohibits, as it should, transmission of messages illegally promoting, apologizing for, or inciting disobedience to the law..."

Using this standard, any newspaper or broadcaster that advocated "Sanctuary Cities" for illegal aliens in the US or was in favor of civil disobedience to get Civil Rights laws passed in the US should've been shut down. Oops, I'm sorry - they should have "not had their license renewed". After all, they would've been inciting disobedience, apologizing for it, and maybe even inciting it. What a wonderful society that would be.

[OilemFirchen]

29. That, of course, is Venezuela's law

Our FCC can revoke / refuse to renew a license for much more mundane reasons. Like, for example, an owner's felony record.

BTW, no newspaper was "shut down" in Venezuela. Nor here, as far as I know.

[Rage for Order]

55. When was the last time that happened?

I can't recall the last time a broadcasting license was not renewed in the US for any reason. And yes, I realize that no newspapers were closed, but using the standard of the law mentioned in that article, every newspaper in the country is one editorial away from having their license revoked.

[fishwax]

63. it still happens. And hwo would a newspaper lose its license?

There is a fundamental difference between print media and media which is broadcast over the scarce resource of the public airwaves. Because space on the airwaves is limited, the government regulates broadcasters through licensing. That's why, even though RCTV did not have their broadcast license renewed, they are still free to transmit their programming through cable or satellite (which aren't regulated in the same way because they aren't using scarce resources).

[John Q. Citizen]

74. Here:

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3513A1.html

Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )
) EB Docket No. 02-367
RADIO MOULTRIE, INC. ) EB-01-IH-0259
) Facility #54680
Licensee, Station WMGA(AM), ) FRN #0007570443
Moultrie, Georgia )

I googled the phrase - FCC licence revoked - and got lots of hits. this is the top one

ORDER OF REVOCATION


Adopted: November 3, 2003 Released:
November 4, 2003

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

I. Introduction

1. By this Order, acting pursuant to authority
delegated to the Enforcement Bureau under Section
0.111(a)(16) of the Commission's rules,1 we revoke the
above-captioned broadcast license held by Radio Moultrie,
Inc. (``RMI'') for RMI's having violated Section 310(d) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''),2
and Section 73.3540 of the Commission's rules,3 and for its
having failed to follow the Commission's directives. We
conclude, based upon the evidence of its conduct, that RMI
lacks the basic requisite character qualifications to be and
remain a Commission licensee.

II. Background

2. The Commission designated this case for hearing.4
The OSC specified the following issues:

(a) to determine the facts and circumstances
surrounding RMI's operation of WMGA(AM),
Moultrie, Georgia, in connection with
possible violation of Section 310(d) of
the Act, and/or Sections 73.3540,
73.3615(a), 73.1745, 17.50, 17.51, 17.48,
17.4, 11.35, 11.15, 73.1820, 73.1125, and
73.1870 of the Commission's rules, as well
as orders from the Enforcement Bureau to
provide responses to letters of inquiry;
and
more...

Here is a cut and paste from the first google page to come up with the search phrase -FCC license revoked.- I suggest you try googling the phrase and read up on the issue. There is no point licensing if there is no penalty for failure to comply with licensing requirements.

license revokedBased on the foregoing, we conclude, as a matter of law, that RMI's broadcast license for WMGA(AM) should be revoked. In light of our decision to revoke ...
www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-3513A1.html - Similar pages

FCC 605 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Main Form Information ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
I have not been denied a license or had my license suspended or revoked by the FCC. I will obey all applicable laws, treaties, and regulations. ...
www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form605/605.pdf - Similar pages
< More results from www.fcc.gov >

Decision Affects Plans By EMS Technologies To Develop Ka-Band ...EMS Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ - ELMG) announced that the FCC has revoked the license held by NetSat 28 Company, L.L.C. to launch and operate a ...
www.elmg.com/pdf/Press2000/netsatrevoked_6_27_00.htm - Similar pages

Telecommunications Certification Endorsements (Program Suspended)(Operator and/or Maintainer) FCC License, 1 reference. 60.7 SHIP RADAR FCC License, 1 reference. 69.0 SPECIAL/ON-REQUEST AND NEED ...
www.narte.org/h/telendorse.asp - Similar pages

Current.org | KQED loses second channel, 1988FCC revokes license for San Francisco public TV station KQEC ... including the Community Coalition, again asked the FCC to revoke KQED's licenses. ...
www.current.org/ptv/ptv888kqed.shtml - Similar pages

Politech: More on FCC wants to yank Kevin Mitnick's radio licenseThis is the only time I can remember anyone having his GMRS license revoked. "Is the FCC trying to generate a new principle of law that anyone who has been ...
seclists.org/politech/2001/Dec/0111.html - Similar pages

Amateur Radio License PlatesOwner must submit a copy of the un-revoked and unexpired official amateur radio license issued by the Federal Communications Commission. (FCC). ...
bmv.ohio.gov/vehicle_registration/amateur_radio.htm - Similar pages

FCC - Obtaining a Commercial Operator LicenseUse the FCC Form 605 and the FCC Form 159 to renew your license or to replace ... person's commercial radio operator license was not revoked, or suspended, ...
wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/htocrol.html - Similar pages

FCC - Additional Licensee Information... a person's commercial radio operator license was not revoked, or suspended, ... You may apply for a duplicate license by submitting FCC Forms 159 (Fee ...
wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/ai.html - Similar pages

FCC is asked to revoke the licenses of two D.C. stations as new ...The groups argue that the two stations have not complied with the FCC’s 1996 ... The act has never before been cited in a petition to revoke a license and ...
broadcastengineering.com/news/fcc-revoke-license-20040906/ - Similar pages

[Rage for Order]

94. And who is now broadcasting on their old spectrums?

Is it the US gov't official channel? I'm guessing not (unless it's fox news of course).

[John Q. Citizen]

123. I don't know. I see in one of the googled returns that they took away a public broadcasting channels

license.

I also read that in Venezuela they are opening up the channel of the former licensee to community broadcasting, kind of in the spirit of the few cable public access channels that some places have. You know, the public can come in, use community video equipment and produce their own independant TV shows or works.

Why, did you read something different?

[Rage for Order]

140. The gov't controls the content on that station now

I'm sure there are many others you could find, but here's one link:

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/05/25/AM200705254.html

"...The government plans to set up a national public-service channel bankrolled by the Chavez administration."

"President Hugo Chavez rails against Venezuelan media owners, who he says are biased against him. But during his eight years in power, he's become a media mogul in his own right. His government controls three national TV stations, eight radio broadcasters, a state news agency, an international news channel, a daily newspaper and a cultural magazine."


Hopefully they will soon auction off use of the broadcast spectrum previously occupied by RCTV.

[John Q. Citizen]

146. I hope they put it towards public access. That was a huge movement here in

the late sixties, early seventies, but it died on the vine, unfortunatly. As cable companies consolidated they just quit the public service aspect that was part of the selling point to communities when they were first coming in.

[OilemFirchen]

11. Prolly deserves its own thread...

but this thread, so far high-minded and informative, seems a good spot to note that the FCC can, and has, revoked or refused to renew licenses at times. Always, BTW, for much more pedestrian reasons than outright sedition, including the disappearing "community standards" requirement.

A quick Google search reveals some instances: fcc license revoke

Moreso, critics (myself included) have argued that the FCC doesn't refuse enough licenses, but that's for yet another day...

[LynnTheDem]

12. But it's ok when we do it.

It's only not ok when it's done (legally) by nations we're told by the US government via the US "media" to hate.

[OilemFirchen]

14. Actually, as you point out,

it's also OK when it's done by a friend of the U.S.

Curiously, those who are howling the loudest about Chavez' action are the same right-wingers who are notorious for petitioning the FCC for license revocation. They're also responsible for both watering-down the important standards previously established by the FCC (local interest, local talent, children's programming, et al), while forcing newer, odious, regulations (obscenity).

I've been wondering through this curious brouhaha how the "progressives" on this site would respond to the FCC, should they actually exercise their mandate and break up our media monopolies. Would that be "censorship"? Would any here call them dictatorial?

[LynnTheDem]

15. But it's only ok for our "friends" to do it until they're backstabbed and

declared to be "evil-doers".

[glitch]

20. That's where I am coming from too - the FCC doesn't refuse enough licenses

I'd add revoke.

[Forkboy]

16. Thank you for a sensible post on the matter,instead of more bluster from the puffed up DUers

Who like to grab their dick and swagger even when typing.

[JNelson6563]

17. Faux viewing DUers won't like this

I've been surprised to learn how many right wingers we have on DU lately.

Julie

[LynnTheDem]

18. It's a bit unnerving, isn't it.

It was the same way before bush's illegal invasion when many DUers were posting that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 911 attacks & we'd not be greeted as liberators no way no how.

"Rightwing" isn't confined to Republics.

Unfortunately.

[TahitiNut]

25. Indeed! There must be a sale on Kool-Aid somewhere.

I never thought I'd see Washington Times two-faced rhetoric so extensively parroted on DU.

:scared:

[slackmaster]

32. Opposing authoritarian control does not make one right-wing

In the words of a former coworker who is Chinese:

"A left jack boot up your ass feels no better than a right jack boot up your ass."

Here is a like to a site that explains it in a way that makes sense to me. I think the test is flawed, but it gives a useful perspective:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[Akoto]

33. Woah, woah ...

You sound just as radical by implying that not supporting one of Chavez's decisions makes you a right winger. I'm surprised at how many people would support this guy to the bitter end, no matter what.

I support some of the things he's done, and I disagree with others. I will always be extremely wary of a leader with the authority to circumvent his legislative body and rule by decree. Once you have that kind of power, dictatorship and oppression are but a step away.

[slackmaster]

36. I think it's always important to question authority

Even if the authority was "democratically elected".

[Judi Lynn]

37. You might want to ask why the corporate media barely noticed Peru's Alan Garcia

also acquired the decree authority in April. We all read about it then, and forgot it as it simply was passed over very nonchalantly, like the day's weather report. No biggie.

He ALSO DENIED RENEWAL OF LICENSES TO TWO RADIO STATIONS, THREE TELEVISION STATIONS. Also, no biggie, apparently.

[Akoto]

38. Sorry, but ...

The world isn't that black and white. Two wrongs do not make a right. As I said, I would be extremely wary of any leader who rules by decree.

[eridani]

48. But you aren't "wary of any ruler that rules by decree"

--only the ones that the MSM tells you to slobber about.

[Akoto]

49. I see no point in continuing this.

Apparently, putting words into my mouth has become a valid debating tactic.

[eridani]

78. If you are as worried about Garcia's actions as you are about Chavez--

--why didn't you say something back in April? And if your answer was "I would have if I'd known," then why do you think it was that you didn't know?

[jkg4peace]

83. he didn't circumvent his legislative body

they voted to give him special powers (as defined by their constitution) to enact the platform that he was so democratically elected on. It is limited to an 11 point agenda, with avenues for the legislative body to override his decisions if they are unhappy with the way things are going. This is not being a dictator anymore than when our f***ed up congress gave Bush the right to declare war on Iraq. Democracies have mechanisms to give their Executive branch limited powers to enact specific things that they agree on. In this case, it is to enact the social programs - so basically, you are saying that you are extremely wary of a leader who sets up social programs to improve the welfare of the people. It's not like they gave him the power to go blow up another country (like our wonderful, democratic Congress did).

You have to remember, what is happening in Venezuela is absolutely incredible. This was a REVOLUTION by election -- not just a different party coming into power. This is a wholesale change in the governmental structure and fundamental ideology. It is NOT business as usual. And when you consider that the opposition to this are the billionaire corporate elites who have owned and ruled Venezuela for a VERY long time with friends in the White House and the CIA, it is pretty f***ing incredible that it has lasted this long. Think of how any revolution has gone down. The French cut their freakin' heads off! Cuba's revolutionary justice wasn't so pretty either. Chavez refused to renew a business license for a billionaire media magnate who was a key player in the orchestration of a coup whose goal was to execute Chavez and replace him with a business tycoon dictator. Chavez understands very well (probably by looking at what has happened to us) how powerful the media can be in determining the direction of a country. You have to realize that in Venezuela, the GOVERNMENT = THE PEOPLE. So now they have a truly public station, a venue for the creativity of the people instead of the agenda of the corporate elite. There is nothing stopping RCTV from publishing a newspaper, or broadcasting on cable or satellite. But they definitely screwed up when it comes to qualifying for a 20 year renewal on the PUBLIC airwaves!

[Peace Patriot]

144. Jkg4peace, thank you for this post! A revolution by election! Wish we could have one

here. I hadn't thought of putting it this way. You sum it up perfectly. This is the way Thomas Jefferson MEANT elections to be! They were supposed to enable a country to CHANGE COURSE, radically, if necessary. This. Is. What. Democracy. Looks. Like!

Not the deadly dull, money-saturated, switches from one oligarchy to another--pretty much all the same oligarchy (fascism-lite vs. fascism brutal)--that we have here, and that electronic voting with "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, and endorsed by both both parties--has now rigidified into place. But a TRUE democracy, where the people see the errors of their rulers and HAVE THE SOVEREIGN POWER, by means of voting, to correct them. Revolution by election.

Jefferson said that we would need a revolution every twenty years or so. And he and the other founders invested THE PEOPLE with that power, and created the structures so that it could be PEACEFUL. This IS democracy. And Venezuela has it. And we do not. This is what astonishes me about DU posters who call Chavez a "dictator" in the teeth of the facts--echoing Bush's State Dept. and OUR corporate news monopolies. They don't understand that Venezuela has what WE desperately want and need--the ability to change course. Revolution by election. They HAVE it! We don't. How can people be so blind!

The lessons I've gleaned from the Bolivarian revolution (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and to some extent Brazil, with leftist governments--and the new thinking--also elected in Chile, Uruguay and Nicaragua, and big movements in Peru, Paraguay and Mexico):

1. Transparent elections (!)
2. Grass roots organization.
3. Think big.

Thomas Jefferson in a nutshell.

[eridani]

47. Not right wingers--just not paying attention, I think.

It's all too easy to get caught up in the MSM 5 minute hate and slobber on demand when you are constantly told that Venezuela is bad for not renewing one TV station license. There isn't any slobbering on demand about Peru not renewing 5 licenses because the MSM doesn't report it. Even the most progressive news mnkie can't keep up with everything, and it's very easy to slip back into official "reality".

[glitch]

19. What circumstances would justify not renewing a license to air media on the public airwaves?

I think promoting and helping stage a coup against a democratically elected government does qualify as an abuse of the privilege to broadcast on the public airwaves.

We have gone so far beyond any idea of "fairness doctrine" or even the "public" in public air waves that we actually think once someone has a license to broadcast they should be able to keep it forever, regardless of how they may abuse that privilege, or even simply satisfy minimal requirements of public service.

We all have the right to speak, the right to broadcast is a privilege granted by the community. Abuse that privilege, lose that privilege. They are our airwaves, I think people forget that.

[Judi Lynn]

21. Kick.

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

26. Thank you for that info...

It's amazing just how deeply the "south american socialism bad" meme is imbedded in Americans' thinking. I have no doubt RCTV will be seen again, it's just that people will have to pay for the pleasure, much like Faux News here.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. Any Way Ya Slice It, He's A Scumbag For Doing So And A Power Hungry Manipulator.

He's as much a piece of shit as any of the others and the day will come when those on DU still disillusioned by him and under his spell will wake up and see that he was and is in fact a piece of garbage.

[LynnTheDem]

40. Yes, how dare he follow Venezuela's laws!

:eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. What A Crock.

You want to be under his spell that's fine. I and others don't have to be. We see him for what he is, which is your every day power hungry piece of crap leader. I know the day will come when you'll see that as well and have to admit we were right.

[John Q. Citizen]

76. But then you are always 100% right, at least according to you....you should stand for election.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

77. Nah, Not 100%. But Probably 99.5%. I Can Live With That.

I strive for the additional .5%, but I'm fully aware I may not attain it. But I'm comfortable with where I'm at, thank you. :hi:

[LynnTheDem]

98. Whatever.

I'm not "under his spell". I just prefer facts to black-white demonization.

Have a nice day! :hi:

[High Plains]

46. Thanks for that astute analysis.

Come back when you come up with some new names to call people.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

51. I'll Do As I Please Bub. We Don't Have To All Worship This Piece Of Crap Ya Know.

Not everyone is going to walk lockstep with ya in your praise of this scumbag. Deal with it. I'm allowed to have my completely negative opinion of him as much as you're allowed to have your idolizing view of him. Don't get so huffy puffy cause not everyone worships the scumbag.

[High Plains]

54. Why do you accuse me of "idolizing" Chavez?

You don't really have a clue, do you? Just a nasty mouth.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

56. Because Of Your Overhyped Nasty Reactions To Those Who Don't.

If ya don't idolize him, then you should be able to bear other people's criticisms of him. If you didn't idolize him, then my right to call him a piece of shit scumbag, since that's my honest opinion of him, shouldn't be so emotionally damaging to you.

Since you react with such vitriol each time, I see no problem in assuming you idolize him or you wouldn't have to be so angered by my bluntly negative opinion of him.

I honestly feel he's a piece of shit power hungry scumbag. There is nothing wrong with me being aware enough to consider him that way or to speak my opinion that way. If you don't like it, tough. Not everyone is going to worship this bastard.

[High Plains]

57. Care to explain why you feel that way?

At least you came up with a new name to call him.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

58. Well This Whole Shutting Down The Stations Thing For One,

His heavy socialist want to take over the region attitude, his completely childish and provocative taunting at the u.n., his giving himself unlimited power of decree, his friendships with the other pieces of shit from cuba and iran, and the fact that I just see through his bullshit and recognize exactly where this will lead. He is a dictator at heart, power hungry, and a manipulator. He engages in propaganda as much as any other leader I've ever seen and I don't trust him for a second. Like I said, you can worship him all you want. I see through his bullshit and ain't gonna walk lockstep with ya in support. Many of us here don't trust him and know his ruse, and are aware to what he really is which is a power hungry controlling bastard. I have every right to hold that opinion and if you don't like it you'll have to get over it. But I'm also under no obligation to have to explain my dislike for him every single goddamn fucking time I criticize him. I've already done so in the past when the last chavez wars came up and I'll be damned if I have to retype shit every goddamn time.

Imagine if every time you criticized bush you had to respond with all the reasons why. Do you feel the need to? No, cause a "fuck bush, that criminal constitution destroying piece of shit" is more than enough to express your opinion. Well that applies to chavey whavey to. Saying fuck chavez, that deceitful power hungry manipulative propagandic free speech squelching dictatorous piece of utter garbage is more than enough as well to express my sentiments.

In closing; Fuck Chavez.

[High Plains]

59. Thank you for taking the time to explain.

We disagree on this issue.

I can't see into Chavez's heart like you can. You'll have to excuse me if I don't take your word on his inner nature.

I support his attempt to build a socialist alternative in Venezuela, as do a majority of his fellow citizens.

I also support his bid to build a counter-balance to overweening US power in the region.

I don't bother to get offended by Chavez's taunting of Bush, although I sometimes think it's counterproductive.

I don't think Chavez gave himself decree power. Wasn't it granted by parliament--you know, the elected representatives of the people?

Yeah, he engages in propaganda. What politician doesn't?

You accused me of being vitriolic. Compare my vocabulary to yours:

"scumbag"
"piece of shit"
"piece of garbage"
"bastard"
"a power hungry controlling bastard"
"every single goddamn fucking time"
"chavez, that deceitful power hungry manipulative propagandic free speech squelching dictatorous piece of utter garbage"

Thanks again for your contributions to this board. They really raise the level of discussion.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

72. Next Time Hopefully Saying That Chavey Whavey Is A Power Hungry Scumbag Piece Of Shit Will Suffice.

"We disagree on this issue."

No shit.


"I can't see into Chavez's heart like you can. You'll have to excuse me if I don't take your word on his inner nature."

That's the problem. Some of you can't. Those of us that can recognize his nature and that he shouldn't be worshiped.


"I support his attempt to build a socialist alternative in Venezuela, as do a majority of his fellow citizens."

Well yay for you. But I find heavy handed socialism to be stupid and he isn't limiting it to venezuela. He's trying to amass the power necessary to strong arm the entire region. He's a dictator in the making and one that will be dangerous someday. You'll see.


"I also support his bid to build a counter-balance to overweening US power in the region."

If that's what you think it is, then fine. But it's his own self power he's concerned with.


"I don't bother to get offended by Chavez's taunting of Bush, although I sometimes think it's counterproductive."

Has nothing to do with being offended by them. If you were trying to insinuate that somehow I'm defending bush or support him somehow, that's pretty pathetic of you. Nothing sillier then when posters here try to twist the argument into something so blatantly stupid. It's the fact that a world leader is being childish and provocative in a professional setting such as the U.N., that irks me. It shows he is not a true leader but instead a taunting idiot. Counterproductive is right. That's why I don't respect him. He's a jackass.


"I don't think Chavez gave himself decree power. Wasn't it granted by parliament--you know, the elected representatives of the people?"

This is the absolute silliest of them all. It's why I laugh at those that so whole heartedly support this scumbag because their hypocrisy knows no bounds. Granted by parliament, the elected representatives of the people? I mean HOLY COW! Do you not see the problem of hypocrisy inherent within such a simple minded statement? Hey, guess what? Our congress has passed how many bullshit bills? They're elected by the people right? Wait, so we shouldn't restore habeus corpus, cause like, our congress was elected by the people right? The patriot act is just A O.K. with you I guess then right? I mean, it was done by congress, elected by the people right? Same with all the other things we fight here against because we know they were blatantly wrong. But I guess we're just wasting our time! Bush is great cause he was elected by a majority of our people and all of the power he's given to himself is PERFECTLY FINE because our congress, also elected by the people, gave it all to him right? Might as well shut down DU now, EVERYTHING's GREAT cause High Plains says that if the government does it, who is elected by the people, then there's NOTHING wrong with it! I hope you see how absolutely ridiculous your argument was now.


"Yeah, he engages in propaganda. What politician doesn't?"

Exactly. And he's a piece of shit just like the rest of em.


"You accused me of being vitriolic. Compare my vocabulary to yours:

"scumbag"
"piece of shit"
"piece of garbage"
"bastard"
"a power hungry controlling bastard"
"every single goddamn fucking time"
"chavez, that deceitful power hungry manipulative propagandic free speech squelching dictatorous piece of utter garbage""

Oh god what a ridiculous argument that is. I'm talking about your vitriol towards ME or anyone else anti-chavez. I'm talking about your oversensitive and passive agressive tone along with your snide personal attacks because we disagree. All you did is paste my opinion towards chavez. Those are perfectly appropriate adjectives in describing him in my opinion and there's not a damn thing wrong with my saying such. That's what you fail to understand. What, I'm supposed to just say "I'm sorry, I think Chavez is someone I don't like very much". Oh give me a fucking break. If I want to think him a piece of fucking shit and say so, I have every right to. But it is the manner in which you respond, by making this all personal as if I hurt your feelings somehow, that I'm referencing. That can even be seen by your childish comment below that ended the post. It was completely unnecessary and a personal attack, even after I took the time to explain my position to you. That's what I'm talking about. You can't handle the fact that I think chavez is an utter piece of garbage because you can't handle dissent, so you then have to turn it into some personal battle. Well too bad so sad. I think he's a power hungry controlling bastard and you have no right to attack me personally for saying so. Get over it pal.


"Thanks again for your contributions to this board. They really raise the level of discussion."

No fuckin problem. Thank god some of us here don't walk in lockstep and have minds of our own. If I see a viva chavez you can be damn sure I'm gonna post a fuck chavez. It's called counter balance. And do you really think you've raised any level of discussion? Do you really? With your snide personal attacks? You are too funny.

Fuck chavez pal. Fuck chavez.

[BeHereNow]

86. Forgive OMC- perhaps the "generic" isn't working very well after all.

BHN

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[BeHereNow]

97. Ambien is a sleep aid- why don't you get some sleep?

I think it would do you some good, given the demons
that seem to possess you tonight.

I am not stalking you- that is a very paranoid thing for you to assume.
I simply could not help but notice your diabolical ranting on this thread-
Not unlike another I encountered you on tonight.

Glad to know your attacks are not limited to me-
Otherwise I might feel just as paranoid as you seem to.

BHN

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

102. Listen, I Know You're In Love With Me And All,

but I'm married. Sorry. :shrug:

[BeHereNow]

105. Okay, that is REALLY "out there." Why would you say such a thing?

I am trying to have some patience and compassion here.
And I am serious when I suggest you might want to get some sleep.
Especially after your last post to me.
You make no sense.

I have suffered insomnia for years, so I can empathize-
however I will not condone a "lack of sleep induced" vitriolic
attack or ridicule- you say you have opted for pharma help
for your insomnia- all I am saying is,
based on the inceasingly non sensical and angry things
you are posting, perhaps it is time for you to go to bed.

Wishing you Peace of Mind, Operation Mind Crime
BHN

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

109. I'm Sorry If I Hurt Your Feelings. But You'll Have To Move On.

There are other fish in the sea, ok? It'll be ok, I promise.

(oh, and spare me. You ain't foolin anybody)

[BeHereNow]

111. Like I said... you clearly need to sleep.

Why are you so angry?
Every time you post, you insult me-
why is that?
And what exactly do you mean by
"You aint foolin nobody"
Please elaborate.

BHN

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

114. Again,

You ain't foolin anybody.

Nitey nite! :hi:

[BeHereNow]

115. Again- please elaborate as to what you mean by that.

What, exactly, are you insinuating by that statement?
I think at this point, you clearly make no sense and don't intend to.
Rather you simply want to sling nebulous accusations without
any substance or explanation.
Get some sleep.

BHN

[WilliamPitt]

149. You should be so lucky.

[BeHereNow]

159. You are too sweet William Pitt.

When are you coming to the Left Coast again?
Seem to me that it is long overdue.
Sharing some Glenfiddich
between NSMA, you and I, that is.
That was a fun night.
Let's do it again.
Soon.
Speaking of NSMA, have you heard from her?
I say we call her and plan a weekend in San Diego together.
Just the three of us.
Uh-huh.

BHN

[WilliamPitt]

160. Not sure.

But I will be absolutely sure to let you know when I do. :hug:

[BeHereNow]

161. You should come and do a talk with Scott Ritter- my friend Frank Dorrell is booking him here.

Frank is a swell guy- he runs the "Addicted to War" group and web site.
Surely we must book you on a bill soon?
If not to promote a new book, to familiarize new folks with your work thus far.

PM me- I'll hook you up with Frank and we should contact the
local Pacifica station to schedule an interview while you are
out here.

All of this, of course, just to get you, NSMA and a bottle of Glenfiddich together.
It's all about the motive.

Going to bed now-

BHN

[Rex]

103. Paranoia self-destroya!

I know that is not spelled write. :)

[BeHereNow]

113. Got one for "Making no sense at all?"

Standing back in wonder... WHO ARE these people?
BHN

[Rex]

116. Very little makes sense on GD.

[BeHereNow]

119. Ah...memories. Remember when?

I MISS so many of the folks who used to post sensible things in GD.
Thinking of Andy S. at this very moment.
bhn

[Rex]

125. I hear ya.

[Usrename]

132. I hate to be the one to tell you, but someone should..

NO ONE FOLLOWS YOU AROUND!

[jkg4peace]

87. just before I put you on IGNORE,

First off, he did NOT GIVE HIMSELF unlimited power of decree. The National Assembly voted to give him the authority to move forward on a 10 item agenda for the next 18 months in order to establish the new form of government, 21st Century Socialism, which is the platform he was elected on. Note that most of the changes involve giving the people MORE authority and MORE rights, not less.

The ten areas in which Chavez will be allowed to legislate are:


1) Transformation of the institutions of the state. Chavez would be allowed to change state institutions so that these become more efficient, include greater citizen participation, and are more transparent.

2) Popular participation. Here the President would be allowed to develop norms that enable citizen participation in public oversight. Also part of this is the “enabling of the direct exercise of popular sovereignty.” Exactly what is meant by this has so far not been explained.

3) Establishing norms for the eradication of corruption. This would also involve changing the civil service system.

4)The creation of norms for adopting existing legislation to the construction of a new social and economic model, in order to achieve equality and equitable distribution of wealth, under “the ideals of social justice and economic independence.”

5) Finances and tax collection. The development of norms to modernize monetary, banking, insurance, and tax sectors.

6) Citizen and judiciary security. The development of norms for updating the systems of public health, citizen security, prisons, identification, migration, and judiciary.

7) Science and technology. Norms for the development of science and technology to satisfy the needs of education, health, environment, biodiversity, industrialization, quality of life, and defense.

8)Territorial order. Norms that establish a new territorial organization on the sub-national level, so as to optimize state action.

9) Security and defense. Norms for enabling the co-responsibility of state and organized communities by establishing a new functioning of the institutions of security and defense of the nation.

10)Infrastructure, transport, and services. Norms that support the use of the human and industrial potential and the existing infrastructure to improve transport systems, public services, home construction, and telecommunications, among others.

Since you believe he is a dictator (which he's not - he is a progressive with the same values and agenda as most of us here), this probably sounds really scary to you. But this is totally new territory (despite the MSM's paranoid insistence in framing it as something else). It is a new form of government unlike we've ever seen. Maybe you could reserve your judgment and see how it turns out...

[BeHereNow]

89. Welcome to DU and let me give you a little advice.

Don't waste your breath on ___________ (fill in the blank.)
Great post, btw.
BHN

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

91. Awwwwww, Too Bad So Sad.

Opposing opinion hurts you that much?

Put me on ignore then. Obviously I won't be missing much from you. :hi:

[Judi Lynn]

110. Thanks for listing the agenda he will be addressing for the duration of this special authority.

It's a far cry from the raving we've seen posted here from people who won't take the time to become familiar with the facts. A recurrent lament is he has "given himself unlimited power," which you probably have encountered.

Have really appreciated your comments.

[spoony]

120. But did you read that list?

They cover sweeping areas of rule and are horribly ill-defined.

Like, "Citizen and judiciary security. The development of norms for updating the systems of public health, citizen security, prisons, identification, migration, and judiciary."

Sounds pretty damn unlimited to me.

[Joe Chi Minh]

148. Please change your username. It makes you sound like a Republican.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

153. Well That's Gotta Be One Of The Silliest Things I've Ever Heard.

Don't like my screenname? Tough. Didn't make it for you pal.

For the record, I don't like yours either. But who cares? :shrug:

[Peace Patriot]

81. Such talk, no facts. Can you think in anything but expletives?

Scumbag.
Power hungry manipulator.
Piece of shit.
Piece of garbage.

The only thought in there is "power hungry manipulator." Okay. But what politician isn't, to some degree, a power hungry manipulator? Can you explain how Chavez is substantially MORE of a power hungry manipulator than some other elected head of state? What laws has he broken? What powers does he possess that are not already in Venezuelan law, or granted to him by the elected National Assembly (such as the economic decree powers used by PREVIOUS presidents, also granted to them by the legislature)? And two other things occur to me, with regard to this charge ("power hungry manipulator"):

1) that Chavez and his government appear TO ME to be scrupulously following Venezuelan law, and I know quite a bit about their legal and political systems, and

2) the Chavez government has done more to open the political process and the government to wide popular participation than any government in South American history--by their immense and successful effort to wipe out illiteracy, by their formation of all kinds of community councils to direct funding to real community needs (schools, medical clinics, low cost housing), and by Chavez's own efforts, and the efforts of his cabinet and others to communicate with people, especially the poor. Would a "dictator" want to have a literate, involved population--as Chavez clearly does? Would a "dictator" in particular want his people to READ their Constitution--as Chavez has frequently urged them to, and as government policy has encouraged? He may be a big honcho, but he seems to remember his own roots in poverty, and he seems to have gone out of his way to foster a well-informed and politically active population. Power hungry manipulator? It doesn't hold up very well. It is the people who grossly NEGLECTED the education of the poor--the rich rightwing elite--who are the power hungry manipulators, who want a craven, ill-informed, desperately poor, illiterate population, whom they can intimidate, bully and steal from, by illegitimate means, such as their power grab in their violent military coup attempt. They have lost every election for six years, fair and square. So they throw temper tantrums over their beloved RCTV, who was so WITH them in overthrowing the legitimate, elected government.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Chavez more than anyone resembles our own FDR, whom the Congress ALSO gave near-dictatorial powers to, to stave off the Great Depression, and whom the rightwing fascist rags of that era ALSO called a "dictator." As Chavez himself has said, there is a difference between strength and authoritarianism. A government MUST have strength, especially in dealing with forces like the rabid, irresponsible rich and global corporate predators, not to mention the Bush Junta. Venezuela's economy, although all indicators are now up, is still ravaged by decades of foreign oil company looting, and looting by the rich at the expense of Venezuela's vast poor population. Their economy in many ways resembles our own in the mid-1930s. And if Venezuela's elected National Assembly feels that powers already existing in Venezuelan law, and used by previous presidents, should be exercised by their president to remedy some of these problems, they are in a much better position to make that decision than you and me.

It seems to me that in using these other phrases--scumbag, piece of shit, piece of garbage--your are expressing a fear, not reflecting a reality. Yes, any politician with a lot of power--and a powerful personality, and massive support--CAN become authoritarian, and even a dictator. But where is the evidence that Chavez has misused his power? I don't see it--not on any of the issues that have been used to besmirch him. What I see is restraint, respect for the law and the Constitution, and a genuine desire to be responsive to the peoples' mandate of social justice, clean government, self-determination and regional cooperation. I also think that it is something of insult to Venezuelans to presume that they would put up with a dictator--they have fought so long and so hard for Constitutional government. They--the people of Venezuela--put Chavez back in power, by filling the streets with tens of thousands of supporters during the coup attempt. He owes his power to THEM. And I hope things stay that way. And I think they will. I don't fear Chavez or the Boliviarian revolution. What I fear is the Bush Junta, and what they might do to Venezuela--and also to Bolivia and Ecuador--to get their oil, gas and other resources.

You want to call somebody a scumbag and a piece of shit? We have some candidates for those honors right here in the U.S. of A., who genuinely deserve it. I don't think Chavez does. And I'm finding it very hard to understand your opinion of him.

[Greyhound]

108. A quick search of his posts will answer your question.

No.

"It's my opinion and I am entitled to it", the sum philosophy of this so-called mind.

[Tatiana]

142. I wish I could recommend this post.

I'm just floored by the responses to the OP.

Lest we forget here, our OWN Congress abdicated its Constitutional authority to declare war and voted to give that important authority to pResident Bush. And right here at home, our very own pResident decides to make and enforce whatever laws he "decides" through his numerous presidential signing statements.

But Chavez is an evil dictator and that's all we seem to know. Yeah, like anyone would believe us, given we have our own little dictator in the WH doing the VERY SAME THINGS people are accusing Chavez of wanting to do.

The Venezuelan people know more about their Constitution than Americans know about theirs. Nearly 400 articles, and a vendor in a street mercado could name the articles on the inalienable rights of indigenous people and tell me the process for a presidential referendum. I've never seen a populace more invested in their government than I have in Venezuela.

This is due to Chavez. And make no mistake, a large majority of the hatred directed towards him has to do with his control of PDVSA and empowering and educating the poor and indigenous people so that they cannot be taken advantage of, as they have traditionally been.

[bobthedrummer]

30. Here is a relevant thread that is about how sucessful coups (like US 2000)

make use of propaganda using the full spectrum dominance model.

"Reality vs. perception management: the tinfoil controversy" started 1-6-06

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x71919

[Judi Lynn]

35. Thanks for posting this thread. Will have to put aside time to study it.

Looks like a conversation which shouldn't be missed. Really appreciate it.

[bobthedrummer]

39. Pass whatever parts of it are useful around, Judi Lynn.

:hi:

[slackmaster]

31. It seems "Refused to renew the license" has become Venezuela's "Free medical care for all"

Oh, and I forgot to mention "Democratically elected".

:hide:

[EFerrari]

45. I hope you have a two week emergency kit in there.

lol

:)

[slackmaster]

141. My actual emergency kit at home is good for 3-4 weeks

:hi:

[EFerrari]

150. Mine, too. Except I keep filching the cigs.

:)

[slipslidingaway]

34. K&R thanks! n/t

[LynnTheDem]

41. Washington's hostility to Chávez began when Venezuela's president sought to take control

of his country's oil industry..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329481171-111259,00.html

[Joe Chi Minh]

80. It's like Nasser and those rotten Egyptians kicking us Brits out, and taking

over our canal! What was America's position on that...? Ah fergit now.

[Dave From Canada]

44. Yeah, we don't want any media criticism of Dear Leader.

[EFerrari]

62. Read something. Anything. It doesn't hurt. n/t

[Codeine]

64. He's obviously never read anything

or else he'd have exactly the same opinion you do about everything, wouldn't he?

Sanctimonious much?

[EFerrari]

65. I don't need people to agree with me. Do you?

I enjoy debating people who know more than I do because I usually learn something.

Do you?

[Codeine]

66. Implying that he needs to read "something, anything, it won't hurt"

isn't debate, it's just an insult, and it assumes he's an idiot who's made up his mind without any knowledge. Did you consider that maybe, just maybe, he has done some reading and has simply come to a different conclusion than you? That armed with the facts his opinion can diverge from your own and still be valid?

[EFerrari]

67. Read that post and show me one fact.

And you didn't answer my questions.

If personal attacks are your thing, fine. But please, can't we get this discussion on a fact based footing? Wouldn't that be more productive? Are we really interested in Venezuela or not? If not, that's cool but, why the pretense?

[Codeine]

69. We know the facts.

Chavez attempted a failed coup many years ago, but later was popularly elected into office. There was a coup attempt against him (presumably incited with the assistance of, perhaps at the behest of our own gov't) and this station engaged in a news blackout of the incident. Now, five years later he has declined to renew their license and has ordered the gov't to seize their broadcast equipment. That's not the argument.

The argument is whether this is a positive or negative step for Chavez, and whether it bodes ill or well for the future of a free media in Venezuela. Some DUers trust Chavez and are fine with what he's done. Some of us aren't. Both views are supportable, and neither should be cause for the insults and general nastiness we're slinging.

I just don't like that you can say something like "read something, anything" as if this poster couldn't possibly know anything if he disagrees with Chavez. Do you really, honestly believe that?

[EFerrari]

70. No. And if that's how it sounded, that was wrong of me.

I'd just really like to get to the bottom of what is going on in Venezuela and the 9 of 10 posts on the subject that simply abuse Chavez aren't useful and don't advance the discussion.

[LynnTheDem]

104. RCTV didn't just "engage in a news blackout".

They incited violence and the overthrow of a democratically elected government.

In America, the station license would have been revoked, and the owners jailed.

[Dave From Canada]

145. Yeah, well, now King Hugo is going after another station. Probably being accused

of the same sort of stuff. This sounds like a type of mccarthyism. He accuses people who don't support him of supporting the coup, and in turn, he's allowed to silence them. It all works well in conjunction with his rule by degree operation.

[LynnTheDem]

154. Here's a suggestion; go research what % of the media in Venezuela

-public TV, cable & sat TV, radio, newspapers- are owned by rightwing corporations that are loudly and vehemently anti-Chavez.

There is no lack of dissent & opposition in Venezuela.

You violate the laws in regards to your public broadcast license, then your license won't get renewed.

Fact of life, even here in the US of A.

"The F.C.C. already has powerful leverage to hold broadcasters to their end of the bargain. Every eight years, broadcasters must prove that they have served the public interest in order to get license renewal. If they can’t, the license goes to someone else who will."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/02/opinion/02copps.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[Judi Lynn]

156. If your source, MICHAEL J. COPPS, isn't an authority, NO ONE IS. Thank you. n/t

[LynnTheDem]

101. lol!

You crack me up! :hug:

[Cleita]

52. Thanks for the info.

It helps to get the facts out in between all the hyperbole.

[me b zola]

53. k&r

:thumbsup:

[Robbien]

60. The students we used to riot in the Ukraine we also sent now to riot in Venezuela

Our taxpayer dollars used to violently riot in other countries. Here in the US those taxpayer dollars are used to cage and jail protesters.

[NNN0LHI]

82. We had people applauding the goons Bush hired in Ukraine too

It appears the Ukrainian people didn't fall for it though.

Don

[spoony]

121. I keep seeing this

and it's obnoxious. It's the same kind of mindset that tells us all that Rove is behind every event on the planet. The CIA and the entire government is incompetent, they aren't orchestrating shit. Not everyone who disagrees with you or Chavez is a plant for crying out loud.

[Robbien]

138. You disagree so you paint everything as a crazy conspiracy

You don't bother reading any of the articles, you just close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears and make loud humming noises to yourself. Can't have any facts getting in.

Fauxnews says Chavez is a dictator and you believe it. You are not going to let any stinking reality get in the way of your belief.

[spoony]

139. Some things ARE crazy conspiracy

And no one has posted anything that shows that these protestors are plants. Perhaps you could link me to those "facts" eh?

And there's no way to reply to the rest of the wild swings in your post since not a word of it applies to me.

[Cha]

68. Thank you, Lynn!~

Reminds me of the genocide in Rwanda when they were inciting violence on hate radio.

Fuck 'em if they want to incite violence.

[Nunyabiz]

71. If only WE could do that to Faux Noise n/t

[Balbus]

75. Censorship roxxx!!!

:headbang:

[EFerrari]

85. Violence roxx more?

:eyes:

[Vidar]

84. K&R.

[me b zola]

88. kicking for reason over fear

[BeHereNow]

90. Ditto

BHN

[Lydia Leftcoast]

93. Yes, it is really disappointing to see how many DUers

can't see that whatever you think of Chavez, the opposition is no improvement.

[Flatulo]

95. The issue is not whether the opposition is an improvement,

it's whether or not there is an opposition.

And the larger issue is whether or not US leaders, like Chavez, who has been reproached by such RW groups as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, would be as vigorously defended here by virtue of their adherence to socialist dogma.

It seems that with Chavez-istas, the means justify the end.

[EFerrari]

117. What utter crap.

[Flatulo]

136. Well, that was not a very thoughtful response...

You do know that HRW and AI have condemned Chavez, don't you?

http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/05/22/en_pol_art_hrw:-chavez-uses-imp_22A872739.shtml

http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/05/23/en_pol_art_amnesty-internationa_23A873383.shtml

[HowHasItComeToThis]

96. FOX NEEDS TO BE KICKED OFF THE AIR,

MURDOCK IS JUST ANOTHER YELLOW RAG OWNER.

[Flatulo]

100. They're not on the air - cable/satellite only. Does that still bother you?

[Celeborn Skywalker]

99. Fuck Chavez.

EOM

[LynnTheDem]

106. Excellent fact-based reasoning. "Fuck the people of Venezuela"

as well. After all, the majority elected and strongly support Chavez.

And who needs facts and reason when a nice simple black-white "fuck (enter whatever name is the current US government's evil-doer of the week)" is so simple and easy to remember.

[ConsAreLiars]

107. Brilliant summation of the total content of the anti-Chavez ideologues.

Most use a lot more words, but you got to the essence of their factual analysis and the fullness of their insight in only two. Good work. Rove would be proud of you.

[Dave From Canada]

151. No, Rove would be proud of Chavez. Actually, not proud, envious.

[EFerrari]

162. Yes because you can't fake democracy.

[Dave From Canada]

165. Yep, but someone needs to tell that to King Hugo.

[EFerrari]

166. Hyperbole may not be the best avenue to better insight

into what is happening in Venezuela.

[EFerrari]

112. George, is that you?

[BeHereNow]

118. ROTFLMAO!!!!

Thanks...
I needed that!
BHN

[murloc]

122. One of the weakess distinctions I've ever seen here

""Hugo Chavez is not "closing down" RCTV, but only refusing to renew the broadcaster's public license""

Come on.

If you support this media outlet being shuttered, then OWN IT. SHOUT IT OUT. "MY BELOVED CHAVEZ SHUTDOWN THIS FACIST TELEVISION STATION BECAUSE THEY DESERVED IT"!

Don't play half way "Well they didnt shut it down, BUT they deserved it anyway".

This "non renewal" straddle is very weak. Anyone who uses this excuse defend Dictator Chavez actions betrays themself as they well know it was shutdown, but are choosing to ignore this fact because they support Chavez, despite his dictatorial tendencys.

[LynnTheDem]

124. 1. There is a large distinction against "shutting down" a station,

and refusing to renew a license.

If you don't/won't/can't grasp that difference, I'm sorry for that.

2. Chavez is not "my beloved". Unlike rightwingnuts, who are so very much into that whole "for or against" crap where you must either love someone or hate someone, most progressives are well able to look at fact & reality, have an opinion on someone's actions, and not "my beloved" or "the devil worse than Hitler" them.

3. RCTV did in fact "deserve" to have their license not renewed. Normally I'd say only people as dumb as rightwingnuts would want a station on public airwaves who was responsible for inciting violence and the overthrowing of a democratically elected government to be allowed to continue to broadcast over public airwaves.

RCTV broke several laws, some very serious. That Chavez's government only refused to renew their public license -RCTV is still free to broadcast on cable & satellite- is amazing.

Had RCTV done in the USA what they did in Venezuela, they'd be lucky to get away with just a lengthy jail sentence.

RCTV was not shut down; their public license was not renewed due to RCTV's own illegal actions.

That's fact; get over it.

[murloc]

126. Sure. uh huh

Thats why thousands of citizens are protesting...over a minor technical difference between shutdown and not renewed.

When they turn on their television to watch the news, that static they receive is "non renewal static", not to be confused with "shutdown static" which is totally different. Sure. uh huh.

As I suggested, own it, or don't. This "distinction" is simply intellectual dishonesty fit more for sites not worth mentioning here.

RCTV has not been convicted of anything other than making Chavez very angry.

RCTV is off the air because Chaves didnt like it. At thats a BAD thing in a dictatorship. You DON'T OPPOSE THE DICTATOR. Its that simple. Violate that rule and you "don't get renewed".

[LynnTheDem]

127. And thousands are celebrating.

But you go ahead and ignore all the facts that you don't like.

The majority of people of Venezuela support Chavez, the man they elected. Twice.

[murloc]

128. Lets hope their celebration lasts for a long long time

We've all see the news clips of extremely bad people enjoying the thunderous applause of the very people being oppressed.

I've also seen people celebrating the "election" of Bush. Twice.

Fortunately, we don't have to worry about offending Chavez. We can offer up our opinions safe from "non renewals" thousands of miles away.

You might be right. Actually I hope you are, but all I can do at the moment is go with my own conscious. If I'm wrong then millions will enjoy prosperity. If I'm right, then millions will bear the weight of "president for life" as Chavez destroys his country. So therefore I truly hope I'm wrong and that you are 100% right.

FWIW, I supported Chavez at one time (as if that really means anything to him). I've turned a 180 on him though. I just don't trust dictators and I don't trust people who "non renewal" media.

[LynnTheDem]

129. Then you don't trust any US government, nor any Canadian govt, nor any UK govt,

nor in fact any govt anywhere.

Because nonrenewal is a fact of life. There is no "right" to have a public airwave license for life. When you violate the laws pertaining to that license, you don't get renewed.

In most countries, USA included, when you use those public airwaves to incite violence and support the overthrowing of your government, you get a lot more than merely non-renewal.

[murloc]

130. Please. Not this again

We just need to agree to disagree.

I already read Chavez's state propaganda excusing the shutdown. I don't believe it, or him.

Furthermore, your justifications, and differentiation of "shutdown" censorship and "non-renewal" censorship just don't sway me. I know you passionately believe there is a huge difference, but I just don't see it.

RCTV has not been convicted of ANY crime whatsoever, yet they have been forcibly removed from the airways. Censorship by any other name is just as dangerous.

Eventually, history will be the judge and I'm hoping that you are right.

Until then, I wish the people of Venezuela nothing but the best. But I do fear for them.

[LynnTheDem]

131. Read other sources.

Fact is, their public license was not renewed; they are still free to broadcast on cable & satellite.

Fact is, they did indeed incite violence, and that is a matter of public record, not just Chavez' word for it.

Fact is, they did indeed participate in a coup against the democratically elected government; again a matter of public record.

Fact is, RCTV did indeed violate Venezuelan laws and in fact boasted about it.

Fact is, "shut down" and "non-renewal of public license" are two very different things, (and fact is, the USA itself does both.)

I fear for the people of Venezuela, too; the US regime is very determined to see a rightwing govt installed and to keep the 80% downtrodden and the 20% rich, rich.

[murloc]

133. rinse and repeat

Rather than reply again, just re-read the subthread. We've already covered this ground. Do try to read the post where I suggested that we just agree to disagree. That might save you some time.

If you want to reply a few more times with the same statements, go ahead. Nobody will non-renewal you for it.

good night and have fun.

[LynnTheDem]

134. By the way, RCTV has indeed been fined and even shut down

for violating laws.

1976
Closed for 3 days
Tendentious news coverage

1980
Closed for 36 hours
Sensationalist programming


1981
Closed for 24 hours
Airing pornographic scenes

1989
Closed for 24 hours
Airing advertisements for cigarettes

1991
Programming suspended
Program "La Escuelita" suspended

But please, continue to disregard all facts.

If you believe it is fine for a public station to broadcast outright lies, participate in coups to overthrow governments, and violate licensing laws, yet have their license renewed regardless, you have the right to your beliefs. I am thankful your beliefs are not the law here in America.

Have a good night! :hi:

[Usrename]

135. The station is in material breach of their licensing agreement.

What action do you propose?

Should everyone ignore all the laws and contracts down there? Pretend that they are not in violation?

What actions are you proposing?

Lawlessness, anarchy, mob rule, everyone for themselves to do as they please?

Perhaps there is a way to fine them out of existance, but is that result any different than not granting them a new license?

What would you do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract

[slackmaster]

143. How about the way our FCC handles stations that breach their licenses?

Fine them, force them to fire some individuals.

The only broadcast stations the FCC shuts down are unlicensed ones.

[LynnTheDem]

155. That's factually incorrect.

FCC revokes license for San Francisco public TV station KQEC
http://www.current.org/ptv/ptv888kqed.shtml

"outside groups have persuaded the agency (FCC) to deny renewal to roughly a dozen TV licenses based on stations' failure to serve the public interest."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA454236.html?display=Top+of+the+Week&


And from the FCC itself:

"The F.C.C. already has powerful leverage to hold broadcasters to their end of the bargain. Every eight years, broadcasters must prove that they have served the public interest in order to get license renewal. If they can’t, the license goes to someone else who will."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/02/opinion/02copps.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[slackmaster]

157. Thanks for the correction

I believe that is a rare occurrence.

[Judi Lynn]

163. Thanks for posting that.It will be a rare ray of Reading Helper to those who can't bring themselves

to struggle with doing their own research.

[bobthedrummer]

158. kick

[EFerrari]

164. Kick