Citation? The links provided above demonstrate that there is severe, severe media bias against Chavez, to the point where outlets will make stuff up about him to make him look bad.
Yeah my thesis is that he isn’t doing good things, but his intentions aren’t necessarily bad.
2. Chavez really is an evil dictator who is ruining his country. He has his own propaganda campaign to make everyone think he is “fighting for the people.”
Both 1 and 2 are true.
Chavez may be evil or ruining his country, but he keeps winning elections and referendums to do it. “Dictators” rule by “dictate,” not by legally ammending the Constitution and then putting it up for referenudm. Their voting machines are actually more auditable than ours in the U.S. (by a good margin).
Citation? The links provided above demonstrate that there is severe, severe media bias against Chavez, to the point where outlets will make stuff up about him to make him look bad.
Spanish diplomats were expelled from Venezuela some time after the last election, because they acused Chavez of rigging the elections. I can only find things concerning the 2004 election being rigged. I could prob. search Spanish newspapers online, but I’m going to be lazy instead.
I don’t even know what I would accept as a valid source. There’s so many people who have monetary and political reasons to hate chavez…
About the original post:
I think the U.S. government would like a war with Iran in the abstract, but Iran is simply too dangerous for them to attack, and they know it. Yes, the U.S. and Israel have nukes, but even if they used them, the fallout would blow over all kinds of allies and enemies in the region and be very unpopular, to say the least. How would China like having a major source of their oil destroyed and radioactive clouds blowing over their territory to boot? I’d imagine they’d stop loaning money to the U.S. for starters…
Also, if we’re just talking a conventional war, Iran can do huge damage - they could keep oil from leaving the Persian Gulf, sabotage and destroy a good deal of Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure, and attack U.S. ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan while arming the insurgents there quite nicely. It’s a non-starter; the Feds could win the battles but only at the cost of losing their Empire.
As for North Korea, the U.S wants tension, not a war. If a war happened, and the North lost, there would be no more justification for the U.S. military bases in the South. America loves its military bases in South Korea and Japan, and it needs tension with North Korea to provide a pretext for them. I’m highly suspicious of the German torpedo attack on the South Korean ship; the U.S. military complex is the biggest beneficiary of the tension.
By the way, here is that piece on Venezuela: The Fine Print of Central Banking.
(My understanding is that they automatically check the electronic records against a percentage of the physical ballots, that this process can be observed by representatives of all parties involved, at that the election is invalidated if there are discrepancies- in all, several layers more secure than U.S. voting processses.)
How Venezuelan Voting Machines Work:
Step 1: The voter arrives at the table and presents his ID card to the president of the table.
Step 2: The president searches the notebook for the voter, and if he is in the registry, the voter is permitted to sign and stamp his fingerprint in the notebook, indicating that he exercised his right to vote. The president holds the card while the person votes. Up to this point, the procedure is the same as for traditional voting.
| Step 2 - Voter registers |
Step 3: At this point, the president pushes a button connected to the voting machine, which unlocks it, and authorizes the voter to cast his ballot. When the button is pushed, the machine emits an audible tone that allows everyone, members of the voting table and witnesses, to know that the machine has been activated for a person to vote.
Step 4: The voter proceeds to the machine to register his vote. The machine must be located in an area that allows the vote to be cast secretly, as the Constitution ordains. The machine can be on the other side of a partition, or in a security booth.
Step 5: The voter presses the part of the screen that corresponds to the option that he supports in the referendum. The screen will have the referendum question, two squares with the options “Yes” and “No” (if that’s how the referendum question is set up), and a square at the bottom of the screen labeled “Vote” to register the vote. The voter must press one of the two voting options, and the square selected will be highlighted. At this moment, the voter could still change his vote by pressing the other option, and can change as many times as he likes.
| Step 5 - Voter casts electronic ballot |
Step 6: Once the voter has settled on an option, he must push the square labeled “Vote” to register his decision. Upon pressing “Vote,” a sound will be emitted, telling the people at the voting table that the voter has finished the process. At this point, a physical record of the vote is printed out.
Mujica explains, “The physical vote is a paper that records all of the data of the event: CNE, 2004 Referendum. It also has a code for the voting center location, the table, and the volume (electoral notebook). It has a security code, which is very important to avoid falsification. This is all printed on security paper along with the question, and the voter’s response.”
Step 7: The voter takes the paper and- confirms that the question and the vote registered are correct. He folds the paper in half to guarantee privacy, returns to the voting table, and puts the paper ballot in the ballot box in front of the table members and witnesses.
| Step 7 - Voter casts paper ballot |
Step 8: The table president returns the voter’s ID card. The card is marked with indelible ink, and the voter is allowed to leave.
Nonsense. The private venezuala media does nothing but rip on chavez for everything under the sun. The wiki article on media representation of chavez is particularly damning, especially to American media.
I don’t even know why you take this pot shot at him in your article. You’re intelligent. Please don’t jump on the bandwagon of bashing Chavez every chance you get, especially when your essay is economic and not civil rights based.
You make it sound like he’s a power hungry monster. There’s no evidence of this…
Needs citations. Otherwise its just he says she says…
I would challenge this analysis. On its face, it seems to imply that Chavez somehow benefitted from getting in bed with big business, but this is never mentioned. Supposed evidence of his overpaying could easily be due to logistical factors, or to compensate the companies for the risk they take by dealing with such an unstable country.
Anyway, I could go on, but the general problem with your piece is that it seems to want to take cheap shots at chavez with no regard for whats really going on. Your citations are mostly from reputable media outlets, but as I said before, these have a history of grossly and massively distorting the reality of whats going on in venezuala.
You’re a smart guy, so surprises me that you would join in on the Chavez bashing. There are a lot of lame countries in that part of the world, many of them much worse than Chavez. There’s no idealogical battle to be won here. Practically no one supports him except for some trolls at the huffington post. But if you absolutely must write an article condemning Venezualan socialism, please be as fair and kind as humanly possible.
Snowflake,
There should be a lot of links you can follow throughout the article. Also, it’s worth Googling some of this stuff.
Nonsense. The private venezuala media does nothing but rip on chavez for everything under the sun. The wiki article on media representation of chavez is particularly damning, especially to American media.
Chavez does receive a lot of criticism through the Venezuelan media, but you should follow the link provided in that sentence. From the article,
When Judge María Lourdes Afiuni issued a ruling in December that irked President Hugo Chávez, he did little to contain his outrage. The president, contending on national television that she would have been put before a firing squad in earlier times, sent his secret intelligence police to arrest her.
The article continues,
Since Judge Afiuni’s imprisonment, a dizzying sequence of other high-profile arrests has taken place, pointing to Mr. Chávez’s recent use of his security and intelligence apparatus to quash challenges to his grip on the country’s political institutions. The arrests come at a time of spreading public ire over an economy hobbled by electricity shortages and soaring inflation.
Let’s not be overprotective of Chavez. It is noteworthy that most of these arrests have occured relatively recently, and seem to be a product of growing unrest in Venezuela due to widespread economic problems resulting from Chavez’ nationalization programs.
You make it sound like he’s a power hungry monster. There’s no evidence of this…
There is actually a lot of evidence of this, beginning with his coup, and continuing with his attempt to become president for life of Venezuela. Furthermore, only a person who is power-hungry would continue to fight off political and economic reforms, instead continuing to pay off big military officers to instill loyalty to him. Furthermore, he has a long history of imprisoning political enemies and classifing them as “traitors”. He also purges his military.
Needs citations. Otherwise its just he says she says…
The Bank of Venenezuela publishes money aggregate data. The graph I provide in the article is based on their data.
On its face, it seems to imply that Chavez somehow benefitted from getting in bed with big business, but this is never mentioned. Supposed evidence of his overpaying could easily be due to logistical factors, or to compensate the companies for the risk they take by dealing with such an unstable country.
That doesn’t make a lot of sense. Why would Chavez compensate a company for uncertainty, if he’s the one providing the uncertainty? There’s not much available on corruption in regards to this specific deal, although the main reference to corruption I can find is that the deal included “madre patria enablers”. I’m not exactly sure what that means, other than it’s some political deal between Chavez and Spanish politicians, who prob. have a stake in Iberdrola. It is known that to one degree or another there is a lot of corruption between Chavez and certain Spanish politicians, to the point of covering up ETA’s involvement with FARC in Colombia.
Anyway, I could go on, but the general problem with your piece is that it seems to want to take cheap shots at chavez with no regard for whats really going on.
This seems more of an assumption than anything (the assumption that “there is something else” going on), but I’m not sure how it could be addressed. The only thing I can think of is agreeing to disagree, because it seems that you are more willing to assume the criticism against Chavez is malintentioned and dishonest, instead of seeing Chavez as the tyrant that he is (like you, I am not willing to believe that he does everything with evil intentions [honestly, it would be better for him to have a healthy economy, he is just unwilling to liberalize the economy sufficiently because it would be a political setback in other ways], but it’s clear that to one degree or another he in it for the power).
You’re a smart guy, so surprises me that you would join in on the Chavez bashing. There are a lot of lame countries in that part of the world, many of them much worse than Chavez.
So? Does that mean that Venezuela does not deserve attention?
Practically no one supports him except for some trolls at the huffington post. But if you absolutely must write an article condemning Venezualan socialism, please be as fair and kind as humanly possible.
I feel that I was fair. Why should I paint Chavez’ regime in a fairer light if I feel that there is absolutely no evidence to support that (other than assumptions that all the evidence against him is false)? Most of Chavez’ support in Venezuela comes from the lower social castes, which had nothing to lose to begin with. Chavez’ economic policies, before rampant inflation, hurt mostly the middle class, which made up most of the opposition to him (and probably still does). But with very high inflation, and the likelyhood of hyperinflation, it looks like even the poor are going to get disgruntled.
I would suggest continuing to research Venezuela’s problems, and talking to Venezuelans who either live in the country or have fled the country. The situation economically has been bad for some time, but politically its turning to worse. It’s important to note that while Chavez has stepped up arrests in the past few months, he didn’t just start them. People were arrested and expelled many years prior. Chavez is known for his purges of industrial and military leadership, always looking to secure loyalty and secure necessary funds to carry on his socialist dream (he is known for purging the heads of nationalized oil companies and replacing them with those willing to pay Chavez’ extortions).
I don’t want to be too blunt, but I think the problem here is a lack of research. To one degree or another I’ve been aware of Venezuela’s political problems for many, many years. I used to live in Spain, which was very close to Chavez until Chavez threatened to nationalize Spanish banks because the King of Spain told him to “shut up” (after Chavez called Aznar a fascist) - and, to some degree, the current PSOE (socialist) government in Spain continues to pander to Venezuela (probably because of corporate interests, given that Spain has a large stake in a lot of Venezuela industries, including energy and telecommunications… Venezuela kicked out Spanish oil companies a long time ago…). As a result, Chavez used to have a lot of coverage in Spanish media (and it was not all negative). I also studied Chavez a lot when I would have political science classes in college.
I think there is sufficient evidence to categorize Chavez as a totalitarian dictator. Note, this is different from saying that he is doing everything maliciously. Franco was a totalitarian dictator, but I’m sure that his intentions were not to starve Spain during the decade of autarky. Nevertheless, like Franco, Chavez has a clear addiction to power, and this blinds his intentions.
I did follow the link to the spanish page. I don’t speak spanish, but I’m contending that the Venezuala media lies just as much as the american media does.
Oh sheesh. Extending term limits is not necessarily a power grab to become president forever. Especially since the people voted it down when he probably could have just passed it through. Remember, he’s judge in his own case.
Yes. I don’t want to apologise for the mistakes he’s made. I merely claim that everyone just seems to make up stuff about him.
I bet if I asked you for a citation, the only place you could find one would be from a media outlet who has an axe to grind. This is really unfair though, since there may not actually be any truthful coverage of Chavez.
Because the companies don’t know in advance that Chavez is going to play nice? Its the same reason you would charge a higher interest rate to a mentally unstable person.
I don’t like him or anything he’s done, but that doesn’t mean all the allegations flying around about him are correct.
So you didn’t write this essay for no reason. You didn’t skip over every other crappy country for no reason. Please answer the question.
No. Will you also write articles about every country that is worse than Venezuela?
Enough pieces condemning Chavez have been written anyway. Your’s is unique in that it contains economic analysis, but you could just as easily replace ‘venezuela’ with ‘america’ and it would still be true. This suggests that you could just get a big ol’ list of countries with these kinds of economic policies, and cover them all in one swoop.
Because you shouldn’t go out of your way to bash his character if you’re trying to talk about economics. Currency policy is what it is… whether he has a power fetish is beside the point.
This is all very good and acceptable. More of this please.
But it seems like the people he hurts can’t articulate their positions properly. Instead of accusing Chavez of being a populist and implementing bad economic policy, they just sensationalize his minor actions and make up stuff. Anyway, I totally and completely agree that he has to go, but this doesn’t mean I feel good telling lies about him.
Moreover, its better if we don’t focus on his personality. If we critisize him for inflation/central banking, maybe people will catch on that these are actual bad things and apply it to their own countries. The US Media pretends like there’s nothing we can learn from Venezuela, when we’re just as backwards in a lot of ways.
Well, I could go through point by point in your essay like I started to, but it would be too time consuming and you don’t seem to have rebutted what I did highlight. Just take your allegations that he surpresses freedom of speech. Not only is this blatantly contradicted by the fact that a large part of the private media in the country says terrible things about him, but its not even relevant to an economic anaylsis of the country.
Snowflake,
I did follow the link to the spanish page. I don’t speak spanish, but I’m contending that the Venezuala media lies just as much as the american media does.
The article is actually in English. So, pretty much your argument boils down to the media lies and you rather give Chavez the benefit of the doubt? How can someone rebuttal this?
So, attempting to extend the time he can remain in power is not a power grab?
No, this is your assumption. You assume that everyone lies about him.
Again, your argument is that all sources against Chavez have some kind of bias which makes them unreliable. I’m not sure how I can argue against this. It’s not that the logic is impeccable, it’s that you refuse to accept the evidence.
Those companies don’t control Chavez. They can’t increase their rates and expect Chavez to pay them, especially with so many other companies willing to do it for a cheaper price.
You’ve decided to disbelieve all the allegations against him, and then proceed to call sources unreliable and liars.
I wrote this essay because I have an interest in Venezuela, and because I had just happened to read Mark Weisbrot’s article. It was a rebuttal to Weisbrot, I thought that was clear when I mentioned Weisbrot in the introduction. Or, do you suggest I make a map with all the totalitarian governments on it and write my articles by spinning the globe and doing it on the country my finger lands on? By the way, I am writing one on North Korea, as well.
No, but what does this have to do with anything? I can’t write about Venezuela, because then I also have to write about every other bad government? How does his even make sense? Is this argument a serious argument, or are you just trolling me?
But, it wouldn’t be true of the United States, and my subject is not the United States, it’s Venezuelas (as was the subject of Mark Weisbrot’s article, which I wrote this as a response to).
It’s not besides the point. It was a passing commen on his intentions for nationalizing different industries. Economic interventionism has to do with the government as much as it has to do with the economy. As an Austrian, I thought you would have understood that. But, your criticism now goes from defending Chavez against “unfair media” to critisizing me for badmouthing Chavez - which one is it? What is your axe to grind?
I’m sorry, but I’m not here to cater to you. You are the one going against the evidence, or going against the media. You are the one carrying the burden of proof. I suggest you do your own research. If you are interested in a particular point which is brought up, it’s your responsibility to investigate that further. With that said, there is a good documentary on the Chavez regime published maybe two or three years ago, but I forgot what it was called. If I can find my professor’s email maybe I can ask him.
You have yet to substantiate your accusation of his critics of being liars.
I agree, although I still don’t understand why we can’t talk about Chavez.
Well of course I didn’t rebutt anything. You refuse to accept the evidence because you think it’s false.
Yes, let’s just ignore all the evidence. Oh right, that’s just biased media lying about the arrests. Those arrests never took place, or maybe his intentions were nobler. Maybe those people were only interested in doing harm to the people of Venezuela. Please…
It’s completely relevant. How can there be a widespread movement against Chavez if the media that matters isn’t allowed to speak against him. Like I wrote in my previous response, Chavez’ crack down on freedom of speech has intensified only recently, largely because of the increase in criticism of his regime.
Yes. I thought you meant me to follow the link inside the article to the spanish page.
Well the media does lie about Chavez. It seems like everyone reporting on him has a huge axe to grind. Either the local private stations who are pissed off at him politically, or the Americans who seem to really just want his oil but can’t admit it. Frankly I’m not going to take it too seriously if either of these groups publish material flaming him, especially when they’ve been shown to have made up stories in the past.
Listen if I went and got a whole bunch of media saying that Chavez isn’t such a bad guy you’d probably just look at the sources, figure out they have a bias, and dismiss them.
You still don’t answer why you chose to single out Chavez for analysis when there are many many other countries that will do. He’s socialist, doesn’t make a lot of good decisions, might be interfering with the democratic process, got it. You have to admit that it looks kind of wierd for one to be disproportionately concerned with Chavez when he’s got all that oil…
A little. I don’t find it near as alarming as Americans do. If he were really super power hungry he’d just use his state privilege to get what he wants.
This is not enough?
Even if your source is 100% correct, there’s a whole bunch of evidence that there’s a large amount of free speech in Venezuela aimed negatively and maliciously against the president.
Not to the interest rate, money supply, government works, etc. You can write an essay about the American economy without referencing the patriot act. Why can’t you do the same for Chavez?
Well the media does lie about Chavez. It seems like everyone reporting on him has a huge axe to grind. Either the local private stations who are pissed off at him politically, or the Americans who seem to really just want his oil but can’t admit it. Frankly I’m not going to take it too seriously if either of these groups publish material flaming him, especially when they’ve been shown to have made up stories in the past.
Listen if I went and got a whole bunch of media saying that Chavez isn’t such a bad guy you’d probably just look at the sources, figure out they have a bias, and dismiss them.
If the sources you provided gave major evidence in support of the idea that Chavez is not a dictator and is not tyrannical, and his opponents are looking to ruin Venezuela politically, then I would take them into consideration. Of course, if this information was provided by state-run media they would hold less water than they would otherwise. Any research should objective balance evidence from all sides, but the fact is that there is not a lot of strong evidence that goes against criticism of Hugo Chavez. There are those who are talking about moderacy when critisizing him and calling him a dictator, and they may have a minor point, but Chavez is quickly proving his critiques right.
Yes, there is a very strong anti-Chavista bias amongst private Venezuelan media outlets. There is a lot of anti-Chavista bias amongst American media outlets. Yes, there should be moderacy in criticism when all that criticism encompasses is the idea of Bolivarian socialism, et cetera. But, there is plenty of strong evidence, even if provided by these same media outlets, that Hugo Chavez’ regime has in fact infringed on basic rights that would otherwise be enjoyed by the Venezuelan people.
Like I have written before, the crackdown on criticism has accelerated in the past five months. In 2006, Chavez refused to renew RCTV’s media license on the grounds that they supported the 2002 coup against him (which is true, but he is still infringing on their right of free speech). RCTV relayed news by satellite transmission thereafter, but were forced out of transmission through cable companies in January 2010 by the Venezuelan government. Since then, there have been a series of arrests. This should be sufficient evidence to show that Chavez has really begun to crackdown on free speech, and that he did so subtly before 2010. Here is a report on human rights in Venezuela, published in 2009, that might interest you. Or, maybe we should discard the report, because the authors have an “axe to grind”?
The goal in objectively assessing evidence is not to “figure out the bias and discard it”, but given this bias weigh it against other evidence. If you research Venezuelan politics enough, I think your opinion of Chavez will quickly change.
On the other hand, it’s true that for being such a “brutal dictatorship” Venezuela has had a history of relatively free press. But, while Chavez may not have outright began cracking down on criticism until only very recently, there is a lot of evidence that he did so much more subtly beforehand (thereafter, much of his criticism probably comes from expatriates, who are much harder to reach) - including by using murder (see the report). With that said, I think Chavez tried walking a very fine line for a long while. He had a legitimate base of support amongst the poorer people of Venezuela, especially indigenous people. These people, for the most part, probably still support him to one degree or another. I think Chavez had to walk some type of thin line in order to keep this support. Looking like an outright dictator would have probably denied him much of the votes he received from lower social castes. But, with the crisis in Venezuela deepening he’s finding it harder and harder to keep this support, and so he has begun to crackdown on private media outlets. I think Chavez is currently between a sword and a rock, and the acceleration of misuse of powers is a product of this.
Would you have made the same criticism had I focused on North Korea, instead? The article was a rebuttal of Mark Weisbrot’s own article on Venezuela, so it would only make sense that I focused on Venezuela. I don’t think “it looks weird” at all. I am not being “disproportionally” concerned with Chavez. Or, is a book on capital theory “disporportionally” concerned with capital? Or, maybe The Road to Serfdom was “disproportionally” concerned with middle-of-the-road policy, when Hayek should have realized that there were already totalitarian governments he should have critisized instead.
What I find weird is this criticism of my article. Are articles which focus on money, instead of some other economic theory, thus disproportionally concerned, as well?
Like I said above, I think Chavez was walking a fine line between increasing power while not doing so in such a fashion in which it would jeoperdize his support base. But, with the growing crisis in Venezuela and growing disgruntlement towards his regime, I think he is beginning to discard a more subtle approach to tyranny in favor of a quicker powergrap in order to clamp down on his political opponents.
I don’t see a lot in this Wikipedia article which suggests that the media are liars. Only that they have been extremely anti-Chavista, and that they sometimes exaggerate the truth (which although bad, is not exactly lying). I think the fact that most private news networks in Venezuela are anti-Chavista say something about Chavez, more than it says something about the media in general.
I’m not sure what your point is. There was a lot of malicious news against George W. Bush. Would that have given room to Bush to shut these media outlets down? Or, would that have made these media outlets necessarily wrong in their assessment?
It is relevant in the fact that it is obvious that Chavez is willing to do everything possible to make sure that his Bolivarian revolution can occur to fruitition, including nationalizing as many industries as necessary, and arresting as many political opponents as possible.
If both sides are biased, i don’t see why we get to default to the anti chavez side.
I don’t want to deny or rule out anything about Chavez. Its possible that he really is a terrible selfish person, but no one should be convinced by the american media.
Probably. Its another one of those bad countries the USA likes to really attack every chance they get. I’m sure the government and economic policy is worse in many many other countries than the one’s in our media’s crossfire.
No. You could have easily responded to an article on any other country. There are a lot of people saying stupid crap about the world, so you can basically pick and choose. The question remains why you chose venezuela?
My interpretation is that their audience is upper and middle class, and is pissed off with chavez for extorting them for his own ends. Though a lot of them seemed to have been politically connected/favored in the government before Chavez’ coup. I would wager they really want to see the old days of government privilege come back, but can’t come out and say they favor a government every bit as oppressive and dictatorial as the current one.
I don’t think linking to one instance of political imprisonment is close to sufficient evidence of this. Its pretty inflammatory.
If both sides are biased, i don’t see why we get to default to the anti chavez side.
Like I said, it has more to do with objectively assessing both against each other.
I don’t want to deny or rule out anything about Chavez. Its possible that he really is a terrible selfish person, but no one should be convinced by the american media.
I didn’t say anything about being convinced by the American media.
In May 2007, international media coverage of the events surrounding the RCTV’s licence revocation almost universally reported it as a “shut down” or “closure” of an “independent” voice, when, in fact, RCTV was only revoked of its licence and equipment to broadcast on national airwaves but continues to broadcast by cable and satellite.
RCTV was working through what can be considered a black market. Chavez finally shut RCTV’s alternative route to broadcasting by forcing Venezuela cable companies to not broadcast RCTV’s signals. Nevertheless, not renewing RCTV’s license to broadcast over “national airways” is a closure of an independent voice. That RCTV was able to get around it is completely irrelevant.
Nonetheless, I agree that the Fox News thing is exaggerating the truth. But, Fox News makes up a very small percentage of the total media coverage of Venezuela (and is not a media outlet I’ve referenced).
Probably. Its another one of those bad countries the USA likes to really attack every chance they get. I’m sure the government and economic policy is worse in many many other countries than the one’s in our media’s crossfire.
So, how would you choose topics to write on? Toss of the die? Please, be real.
No. You could have easily responded to an article on any other country. There are a lot of people saying stupid crap about the world, so you can basically pick and choose. The question remains why you chose venezuela?
I could have, except that I came accross Weisbrot’s article first and I know more about Venezuela than I do about other countries (and it was a much easier topic to research; information on North Korea, for example, is much more difficult to come by). I’m not sure what your fixation with this is. This is not even good criticism of my article.
"Oh, boo hoo, you are picking on Venezuela. 
"
I still don’t see how this is part of a serious debate.
My interpretation is that their audience is upper and middle class, and is pissed off with chavez for extorting them for his own ends.
This is probably true, but I don’t see how this makes what they say any less true.
Though a lot of them seemed to have been politically connected/favored in the government before Chavez’ coup. I would wager they really want to see the old days of government privilege come back, but can’t come out and say they favor a government every bit as oppressive and dictatorial as the current one.
Again, perhaps true, but that doesn’t really reflect on the accuracy of their criticism of Chavez. Left-wing media in the United States attacked Bush, and their aim was to put Obama in power (who is really the same). It didn’t make their criticism of Bush less accurate.
I don’t think linking to one instance of political imprisonment is close to sufficient evidence of this. Its pretty inflammatory.
How is it “inflammatory”. The particular article I link to actually talks about multiple imprisonments. I linked to a 300+ page report in my last post on even more cases of arrests, and even political murders. You could just do a simple Google search, and research for yourself, instead of basying your argument on pure assertion.
You cite them a whole lot.
Nonsense. The fact that Chavez allows them to keep operating should be proof that he doesn’t just crush free speech against him.
Toss of the die would be more fair than continuing in the tradition of bashing chavez. I already said there’s nothing to be gained by putting down venezuela because practically everyone already knows its a lame regime. If I had to write an article on Latin America, I would on Guatemala, since there is a large human suffering component there and directly something we can do about it (forgive debt incurred by leaders).
This is fair.
Will you feel bad if we go to war with venezuela and its really easy because the media has been flaming him continuously? You think the American interests who oppose him give a damn about humanitarian crises? You think the people who oppose him would really institute something better? I don’t see this article as fighting the good fight. It just plays to the advantage of all the malicious interests aligned against him.
I doubt they are gunning for the abolition of the central bank.
So one of my fears is that the outlets critising him, who you rely upon for information, really don’t want there to be structural change. In this way they have a vested interest to oust chavez, but no incentive to say things like ‘get rid of the central bank’ because they’d want that tool for themselves.
This is one redeeming aspect of your article; you actually hit on some of the systemic problems with Venezuela’s economy.
Fine. My laziness stopped me from really looking too deeply into this. My sceptisism about the accuracy of the report is unfounded enough.
You cite them a whole lot.
I used them as reference. Furthermore, I used a mixture of different sources, including The New York Times, and the Washington Post, which are usually ideologically opposed to Fox News (which I used as a reference once, to link to a story about the nationalization of an American rice company). I also used a wide array of British sources, and a few “Hispanic” sources (in English). But, I never suggested you should be convinced by them. In fact, I have continuously suggested that you should weigh sources against each other.
Nonsense. The fact that Chavez allows them to keep operating should be proof that he doesn’t just crush free speech against him.
No, Chavez refused to renew RCTV’s license to broadcast on “national” airwaves (or radio wave signals). He couldn’t regulate their use of sattelite signals. He finally got around this by prohibiting Venezuelan cable companies from broadcasting these signals. It’s clear that Chavez’ refusal to renew RCTV’s license was an attempt to silence critics.
Toss of the die would be more fair than continuing in the tradition of bashing chavez.
I’m not sure why an article on Venezuela is “unfair”.
I already said there’s nothing to be gained by putting down venezuela because practically everyone already knows its a lame regime.
Apparently, judging by this thread, not everyone is very clear on the details.
If I had to write an article on Latin America, I would on Guatemala, since there is a large human suffering component there and directly something we can do about it (forgive debt incurred by leaders).
Good for you. Since you have the incentive to do so, why don’t you?
Will you feel bad if we go to war with venezuela and its really easy because the media has been flaming him continuously?
Err, what? I’m not sure what your argument is here.
You think the American interests who oppose him give a damn about humanitarian crises? You think the people who oppose him would really institute something better? I don’t see this article as fighting the good fight. It just plays to the advantage of all the malicious interests aligned against him.
What are you trying to argue? That we are better off judging on what would be the lesser of two evils, instead of addressing the evil of the current regime? That’s like arguing that addressing the shortcomings of the Soviet Union is unfair, because Tsarist Russia may have been just as bad. All in all, I think this boils down to a false dichotomy - Venezuela does not have only Chavez and a right-wing dictatorship to choose from, just like libertarians should agree that the U.S. doesn’t have only Republicans and Democrats to choose from over the long-run.
I doubt they are gunning for the abolition of the central bank.
What does it matter what those articles’ intentions are, as long as the fact (and not the interpretation) is true? Obviously, that was not the message of my article, nor did I use a right-wing interpretation of those sources in my article.
So one of my fears is that the outlets critising him, who you rely upon for information, really don’t want there to be structural change. In this way they have a vested interest to oust chavez, but no incentive to say things like ‘get rid of the central bank’ because they’d want that tool for themselves.
I agree that none of the sources I use are looking to replace Chavez’ regime with one friendlier to libertarian ideology, or want to get rid of the Venezuelan central bank, et cetera, but when assessing fact I’m not sure why this matters. All articles are bound to be biased, because the author always has an agenda. My article is biased against central banks and against socialization. Someone reading it can disagree with my biases, but can accept the facts I present as facts. They can, however, have different interpretations of these facts.
You should have scepticism. You should always weigh one report against the other. But you should not dismiss facts because the interpretation could be biased.
Hi Snowflake,
I haven’t read all of your debate with Jonathan, but I thought I would just respond to your last post directed at me:
No doubt he gains a great deal of satisfaction from being leader, but this doesn’t mean he’s doing it at the expense of the common man. He probably thinks its good for the people if he has a lot of power.
Whether or not he thinks it’s good for people that he has a lot of power (this is probably true, I think), everything he does is at the expense of the common man. This is the nature of every form of collectivism: socialism, communism, fascism, democracy, etc.
Actually, the Venezualan media is worse on him than the American media.
If you are basing this assertion from the Wikipedia article, bear in mind that the bibliography for that article is single book called The Media War Against the People by Eva Golinger. According to Golinger’s Wikipedia article, she is an “outspoken supporter” of Chavez. The best source for this matter would probably be someone who lives in Venezuela or follows the Venezuelan media in a neutral fashion.
Though I don’t really understand how venezuala is ‘socialist’ while america is not
America IS socialist, I agree. Just in a different way. The USA and Venezuela represent different branches of collectivism. Griffin explains leninism and fabianism in this video. Basically, leninism is rooted in the work of Vladimir Lenin, a brilliant strategist who figured out how Communists could come to power in Russia and around the world. His strategy is bloody and direct - violent revolution. Fabianism is rooted in the Fabian society of England, which was founded in 1884. They agree with the leninists on the ultimate goal - control of the people through coercive government - but their strategy is gradual and secretive. Therefore, fabians have taken over in industrial Democracies like the USA and Western Europe.
Lenin is one of Chavez’s heroes. Apparently, he wanted to give Obama Lenin’s book What is to be Done? This is not surprising. Obama and Chavez both want the same thing, basically. But Obama is part of the fabian branch. He needs to be more subtle than Chavez. He couldn’t come to power through a military coup, like Chavez tried. In other words, both guys wanted power and got it, and have a lot of notes to share about how to achieve and maintain power. And they think all this is good for the people, apparently, which is what’s really sad.
I also don’t see why a totalitarian government would seek to educate its people. Chavez’s policies have successfuly increased adult literacy.
Education is perhaps the most powerful tool of totalitarian government. The American educational system was taken over in the early 1900s by big tax-exempt foundations controlled by the banking elite (Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, etc.) See part 2 of The Future is Calling for details. I think someone already noted the parallels with communist Russia.
So I think Chavez does a lot of damage, but its kind of like the people’s socialism. At least as far as I can see. And the people’s socialism is way better than the elite’s socialism, which is what they had before and we have now. Just imagine if all our leaders actually wanted to help us, and just didn’t do it very efficiently, how much better our lives would be.
Again, it’s just two wings of the same ugly bird. People’s socialism or elite’s socialism, leninism or fabianism, the end result is totalitarianism. I think many of leaders do actually want to help us. They don’t know they are the puppets of the elites. I wouldn’t be surprised is Chavez is someone’s puppet just like Obama is.
Only the ones on our payroll
Yeah, but it’s tough to figure out who is on who’s payroll. Maybe Chavez is his own man, maybe he is someone else’s man.
So why present them as evidence?
I don’t think the truth can be found somewhere in the middle of Chavez and his opponents. From what I can see, the IACHR is as close to an objective observer as we can probably get.
Yes. But they are still allowed to publish material against him. I’ve repeatedly stated that Chavez could simply use his state-privilege to get what he wants. But he does not silence the vast majority of dissenting opinions. Everything you say in your article may be true, but saying things like ‘Venezuelans been deprived of their right of free speech’ implies that no one is allowed to speak out against him.
You had the opportunity to write on dozens of dictators worse than Chavez, and chose not to. Your defense is that you’re responding to a piece put out by the huffington post, but there are many stupid opinions floating around on the internet.
You can’t have a better regime if you advance the interests of his opponents. Your economic advice about inflation/taxation etc is great, but all the peripheral stuff pushes the image of Chavez that his political opponents want you to have.
fanning the flame of hatred? Seriously. What’s your theory about why American media rips on him so often? You don’t think its to keep open the possibiltiy of war with Venezuela? I really am afraid that we will invade venezuela someday, and that it will be for oil, and many innocent people will die. It will be harder to generate opposition to the war if people have been hearing anti-chavez things (true or not) continuously on the media. Its the same way that people support the Iraq war no matter what because Saddam was so bad.
Clear enough right? I mean I oppose chavez and all his economic policies etc etc. I bet you would get 95% dissaproval rating of Chavez if you polled Americans, so I don’t know who you’re trying to write this essay for beyond some idealogues at the huffington post.
I don’t have the incentive. I would just be echoing what so many other articles on the internet already say.
Because they don’t have any incentive to report facts truthfully. They are not crusadors for liberty or the greater good.
There is a very high probability and frequent history of exaggeration/fabrication of facts. It seems like i dismiss all of your sources outright. This is not fair because I hadn’t gone and looked at every single one. So, I think the IACHR source is decent. But I don’t think any of the Anglo sources can be counted on.
Speak for yourself (I question whether this is relevant at all too), even if we assume that everyone is cognizant of the lameness of Chavez’s regime the fact that one writes an article on the topic does not mean that there is “nothing to be gained” from the article. I appreciated the analysis which was provided by Catalan in regards to the economy of Venezuela; if you don’t find it purposeful, perhaps you could find a better use of your time then reading purposeless things?
