|
our suspension of the Constitution, the courts, the national assembly and all civil rights, and our kidnapping of the elected president, and our LIE that Chavistas are shooting people in the streets," then, yes, I support DENIAL of their "access" to the public airwaves to broadcast that "message." The trouble with the rightwing in Venezuela is that the dominant faction among them is TREASONOUS. They want power no matter what it costs. And the rightful and legitimate and elected government has a right and an OBLIGATION to protect itself, and the country, from use of the public airwaves to violently overthrow the government.
Jeez.
The denial of a license renewal to RCTV is VERY "real" to me. The public airwaves belong to the PUBLIC--in Venezuela, here and in most democracies. And the government has a right and duty to regulate their use in the public interest. In fact, I'd like to see far more regulation of the PUBLIC airwaves in the public interest. As with all our resources--the public airwaves and everything else (oil, water, electricity, forests, roads, university research labs--you name it)--corporations have TOO MUCH POWER, and one of their tactics is to appropriate a public resource--through lobbying, bribery and use of their ungodly wealth--to CLAIM IT AS THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY. We need to restore the rightful order of things, which begins with our sovereignty as a people--and, in Venezuela, the sovereignty of the Venezuelan people. WE say who does business here, and how. WE charter and license businesses--financial consortiums--and PERMIT them to profit, IF what they are doing is for the public good, and IF they obey OUR laws and regulations, and pay their taxes, and don't harm the public interest. We the People. Not "We the Corporations." We the People have rights. The corporations have NO RIGHTS. They have no right to do business. They have no right to profit. They operate with our PERMISSION. This is true in every instance, not just with regard to the PUBLIC airwaves. We need to reassert this principle, which has become so eroded, and rid ourselves of these monstrous global corporate predators, that U.S. businesses have become, which are destroying our country, other peoples' countries and the very planet we live on.
Yes, the monstrosity of corporate wealth and power is very "real." And I applaud any country that challenges it--whether it's denying renewal of a broadcast license to a global corporation (RCTV's "owners"), or insisting that Exxon-Mobil pay its fair share from Venezuelan oil profits to the Venezuelan people, to lift the vast poor majority out of poverty.
-----
"I sincerely doubt you want to be proved wrong..." --Duke
I'm waiting to be proved wrong. I asked you to prove me wrong. Now you're "doubting" that I meant it? I meant it. I welcome it.
ANYBODY can become a "tyrant." Anybody! I have no objection to leaders being held accountable, closely scrutinized, and tossed out of power if they become tyrannical--or for whatever reason the people decide to do that, in a transparent political context. I would love to see George Bush and Dick Cheney impeached. Talk about tyrants! I think the corporate-friendly, and pro-war, leaders of the Democratic Party have too much power, and need to be replaced. And I am well aware of the precedents in communist countries, of "strong men" taking power, in the name of the people, and becoming bloody dictators.
But I have studied the Chavez matter very closely, and I see NO EVIDENCE that he is, or even wants to be, a "tyrant"--and a whole lot of evidence that those who are calling him a "tyrant" are themselves tyrants--the rightwing cabal in Venezuela that has repeatedly tried to undermine, destabilize and topple his legitimate and elected government, including with an outright violent military coup attempt, and the Bushites and their lapdog corporate press, who, a) SUPPORTED that coup attempt, b) have poured our tax money into rightwing groups in Venezuela through USAID-NED and other budgets, and c) continually slander the Chavez government with no cause.
At some point, you have to look at the "preponderance of the evidence." You can't sit on the sidelines, in a fight like the one that is developing between Exxon-Mobil, Donald Rumsfeld, the Bush Junta and the forces of evil, on the one hand, and the people of Venezuela, on the other, and remain neutral. I am not neutral. I also firmly believe that democracy in general, in South America, is at great risk from Rumsfeld & co. They are not just targeting Venezuela, they are targeting Bolivia, which elected its first indigenous president, Evo Morales, a strong Chavez ally. And they are targeting the region--the core group of Bolivarian countries which sit on so much oil (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina), and all now have leftist (majorityist) governments, and who have each other's backs. They are strongly allied. The bad guys want to break up this core group of LEFTIST democracies, and regain global corporate predator control of the Andes oil fields. And they are specifically targeting Hugo Chavez--and have been for some time--because he is such a strong, visionary leader of this group of countries, and, indeed, of the continent-wide South American democracy movement.
I am not, and cannot in conscience, be neutral in this fight. Has Chavez made some mistakes? He has. Is he a "tyrant"? He is not. Is there any evidence that he wants to become a "tyrant"? No, there is no evidence for this. He has harmed no one. He has been scrupulously lawful. He ENCOURAGES citizen participation. He is progressive--supported a gay rights amendment, for godssakes! (How many "dictators" can you name that have done that?) His programs and policies have been immensely beneficial to the poor majority, and have done no harm to the wealthy elite except to deny them their egotistical, "born to rule," unfair power over the majority. And the Chavez government has, in fact, put the country back on its feet--after decades of misrule by the rich elite--to the benefit of EVERYONE, including the rich elite.
I welcome FACT-BASED criticism of any leader, even of a leftist leader like Chavez who is engaged in a fight with brutal global corporate predators and the Bush Junta, because ANYBODY can become a "tyrant." And I'm waiting for evidence that Chavez is. People keep making this accusation--echoing the Bushites--and whatever thin evidence for it they cite evaporates upon inspection.
I'm still waiting. He's a "tyrant" because his government denied a license renewal to RCTV? How many other broadcast licenses have they pulled? How many did Peru pull, recently? Did his government have a right to do it, and good cause to do it? I've gone and searched out the facts, and have concluded, to my satisfaction, that this was not a "tyrannical" act. What else?
He denies the rightwing "access" to get their "message" out? Good god! Have you any familiarity with Venezuelan media at all? It's 24/7 anti-Chavez vitriol! The rightwing still controls most of the TV/radio, and more than half of the print media. It is the poor majority and the left who have a dearth of "access."
"Nationalization" of "projects"? That is so vague that I don't know what it means. But if you mean nationalization of oil, that occurred BEFORE Chavez took office. And what he is doing now is renegotiating Venezuela's share of the oil profits with France's Total, British BP, Norways's Statoil, Conoco, Chevron and Exxon-Mobil. He wants Venezuela to get a 60% share of the profits--a deal that everyone except Exxon-Mobil has agreed to (Total, BP, Statoil, Chevron), or considers a reasonable proposal and is still negotiating (Conoco). Exxon-Mobil walked out, and went running to the U.S.-run World Bank for "arbitration," and then--yet more bad faith--went into "first world" courts trying to freeze $12 billion in Venezuela's assets--to kneecap Venezuela into giving more of profits to Exxon-Mobil.
How is this evidence of "tyranny" in Chavez, and not evidence of "tyranny" in Exxon-Mobil? And, indeed, the concept of a third world country--or even a second world country--tyrannizing Exxon-Mobil is laughable. I am FOR that kind of "tyranny." I wish WE had president who was such a "tyrant."
Please name me any Venezuelans who have been denied access to their property. I have not read of a single case of it, in all my research. I am waiting. Where is the evidence?
What the evidence shows is the Chavez government PROTECTING private property! For instance, the leftist mayor of Caracas wanted to expropriate two privately-owned country clubs for low cost housing. The Chavez government came down on him like a ton of bricks, and nixed his project because, as they stated, it violated the Constitutional protection of PRIVATE property! They have been equally scrupulous in land reform proposals, providing fair compensation for land needed for food production (desperately needed in Venezuela, which is not food self-sufficient), and carefully researching land titles so that no one's rights are violated.
In my opinion, a sovereign people has the right to do whatever is necessary to secure the country's basic needs--whether it's food self-sufficiency, energy, medical care or low cost housing, or any similar basic need. These are national security issues, and basic human rights. Private property is secondary in importance to the security of the nation and the well-being of its citizens. The Chavez government has nevertheless been extremely careful on this matter, in balancing business/property interests with the basic needs of society--far more careful than the Bush Junta, which attempted to sell our port facilities to the United Arab Emirates, one of the most undemocratic governments on earth, and has, indeed, sold out our whole country to Saudi Arabia and China!
At what point does Saudi Arabia's and China's ownership of the United States cease to be a "private property" issue, and start to be a national security issue? At what point does Exxon-Mobil's gas gouging cease to be a "private property" issue, and start to be a matter of the erosion of the fabric of our society that we cannot and should not tolerate? At what point does Exxon-Mobil's interference with our foreign policy, to wage a corporate resource war--using our treasury and our military for that purpose--cease to be a "private property" issue, and start to merit our pulling this corporation's business charter, dismantling it, and seizing its assets for the common good?
"Private property rights" is something that "We, the People" GRANT. It is our sovereign right to do so, and to regulate private property ownership and use in our own interest--the interest of our national security and welfare. If that is your objection to Chavez, that he his putting Exxon-Mobil in its proper place in the scheme of things, then I have to ask: What part of the sovereignty of a democratic people do you not understand?
----------------
If Chavistas were intellectually honest, they'd say flat out, "yes when it's our guy, we don't mind totalitarianism". --Duke
Well, that's a pretty specious argument--especially since you present zero evidence that it is true. Personally, I see quite a lot of intellectual dishonesty in the Venezuelan rightwing, and in Chavez bashers--not to mention in the Bushites who hate Chavez and are greedy for the Andes oil fields.
I think you mistake "strength" on behalf of the poor majority for "totalitarianism." The rich rightwing elite in this country also called FDR as a "dictator." Was he? No. Was he strong? Yes. A strong, visionary, democratic leader. The rich elite calls it "dictatorship" because they are used to privilege--they are used to getting all the profits, and exploiting the poor. The majority calls it democracy--the poor having a chance to even things out a bit, to gain upward mobility, and the right not to starve to death, and the right to have a viable, sovereign country, when all is said and done. The rich elite in Venezuela--like the rich elite in the U.S. in the 1920s--sold their country down the river for their personal profit. And we're seeing that again in the U.S.--as we stare into the maw of Great Depression II.
Is that what you want? The dictatorship of the rich elite? Or the democratic strength of strong leftist leadership which benefits all--which values the commons, which rescues the economy FROM the greedy rich, and which attends to the social fabric of the country by giving the poor a chance?
Did FDR make mistakes? He surely did--far worse mistakes than Chavez has made. He imprisoned all Japanese citizens during the war (and NOT Germans)! He was generally good on race issues--good for his time--but not on that one. Blatant racism.
Show me a Chavez mistake like that! Hm-m? Chavez's mistakes have been confined to POLITICAL mistakes--and he hasn't made many of them. He remains immensely popular in Venezuela (70% approval rating), and in the region, and among regional leaders--NONE of whom agree that he is a "dictator," or even close to being one, and many of whom have come to his defense against Bushite attacks, including the presidents of Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay and Nicaragua. Hell, even the rightwing president of Mexico defended the Venezuelan government's legitimate power, to Bush's face, publicly, in 2006, when Bush visited Mexico.
And if all these leaders know what's really going on in South America, and the people of South America know, why don't you? The information is out there. It is easily available on the internet. Venezuela is a DEMOCRACY, with a fine, strong leader in the FDR tradition, who acts in the interest of the majority, and the Bush Junta and corporations like Exxon-Mobil, and murderous, traitorous criminals like Donald Rumsfeld, hate and slander him, and have tried everything in their power to topple him, because THEY are the tyrants.
Show me the evidence that this is not the case. Prove me wrong. I mean it. I know the Stalin story. I know the Hitler story. I know how dictators can disguise themselves as populists. And I have not seen a single piece of evidence that this is true of Chavez. But, let me tell you, there is one helluva lot of evidence that his opponents are the Stalin's and the Hitler's of our era--who steal elections to make their wars and their torture of prisoners, and their massive theft of our treasury, and their shredding of our Constitution, appear to have the consent of the majority.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
