Venezuela Cancels Chavez Critic's Concert

[Rage for Order]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071012/ap_en_mu/people_alejandro_sanz_1

CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuela's government has blocked a popular Spanish singer from using a stadium because he criticized President Hugo Chavez three years ago. Higher Education Minister Luis Acuna said Alejandro Sanz would not be allowed to hold his scheduled Nov. 1 concert at the Poliedro — a state-controlled stadium — because of his past criticism of the Chavez and his "Bolivarian Revolution," a political movement named after independence hero Simon Bolivar.

Acuna said during a radio interview: "If an artist comes to Venezuela to rail against Chavez, against the Bolivarian project, how do you think the people of this country would respond if he were to be allowed to use" the stadium.

Responding to questions about Chavez before a 2004 referendum on the president's rule, Sanz said: "I don't like your president. I don't like those from other places either."

Sanz, a Latin Grammy winner who's immensely popular in Venezuela, could offer the concert in a privately owned venue, Acuna said. He did not explain why the government had initially agreed to the concert, which 15,000 fans were expected to attend.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071010/people_nm/venezuela_concert_sanz_dc_1

Sanz, who is widely popular in Latin America, in 2004 accused Chavez of trying to stymie a nationwide campaign for a recall referendum against him and jokingly said if as many people demanded he quit singing, he would do so.

Chavez, a self-described socialist revolutionary, has won the support of the poor majority, but his shutdown this year of a TV station and push to scrap presidential term limits have sparked opposition accusations he is increasingly autocratic.

This year, after high-profile visitors gave speeches criticizing his government, he said foreigners who show a lack of respect for Venezuelans should be deported.

(Higher Education Minister Luis) Acuna over the weekend said that from now on, the government will ensure concerts held at the state stadium do not promote "anti-educational values."


Seems a bit petty on the part of Chavez. Then again, at least Sanz hasn't been banned from the country entirely - he can still perform at privately owned venues...for now.

[dipsydoodle]

1. You might like to check up

on what the current situation on lesser known current bands even being allowed into the USA at all to perform.

[Rage for Order]

5. Huh?

Sure, lesser known bands have a hard time playing in US venues that hold 15,000 people, but this performer has sold over 21 million albums and won more than a dozen Latin Grammys.

[Monk06]

54. edwardlindy was referring to groups barred from the US for politcal reasons.

And don't try to claim it hasn't happened.

http://www.econoculture.com/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=307&Itemid=45

Nice try at a substitution fallacy Carmona but no soup for you.

[Rage for Order]

74. I read the link...

The band lied to the border guards about their reasons for entering the country. George Bush didn't say "This band has insulted me. Do not let them into the country." They admit that they initially lied about their reasons for coming into the country. They then changed their story to the truth, but at that point they'd already established the fact that they were willing to lie to gain entry into the country. Do I think they should be banned from traveling into the US for 5 years because of this? Absolutely not. Similarly, I don't think Sanz should be barred from performing in Venezuela's state-owned auditorium.

[Monk06]

82. I'll give you Grey on a technicallity and raise you a Cat Stevens.

[Rage for Order]

84. I don't agree with that either

The fact that "so and so does it too!" does not make it any better. Both are examples of pettiness unbecoming of nations that purport to call themselves free societies.

[John Kerry VonErich]

155. Exactly

What the hell is he talking about? Examples?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. The performer was seen leaving on a Peace Train.

Baby, I'm grieving.

But if he wants to leave, take good care.

There's lots of good venues out there.

[GreenTea]

3. Sounds like a right-wing spanish version of Toby Keith...finding ways to trash Dems.

[LittleClarkie]

23. Toby Keith IS a Democrat

People assume because he wrote a song right after 9/11 that he's Republican. But no. Professed Dem.

[bbinacan]

4. Quite simply

Chavez wants to be a dictator.

[ProudDad]

21. Do you have any substantiation for that opinion

or is it being yanked out from the usual nether region...

[bbinacan]

159. Yes I do

All progamming of radio and TV is controlled by the government. Deporting anyone who dares to criticize him. Here's some reading for you.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez

[Judi Lynn]

161. Magnificent idea! Wikipedia!

You may enjoy this wonderful look at a real hero, George W. Bush!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

Proud to link it. You're welcome.

[bbinacan]

162. What does this have to

do with a discussion of Chavez?

[bbinacan]

163. I got to thinking about your reply. Are

you implying that anyone who dares disagree with your narrow minded view of the world must therefore be a bush supporter? How open minded of you. Now I know why you seem to love Chavez so much. Hugo could use you on his staff. You would be great at dictating what programming the media outlets can air.:tv: :radio:

[Judi Lynn]

166. You stopped thinking too quickly. I posted it thinking you just might

look at the material long enough to grasp that it can be slanted, depending upon who decides to get in there and do some rearranging. If people who don't like _Bush decided to take some time out of their day, they could cast an entirely different light on the subject of the U.S. pResident from the picture already in place at Wikipedia.

Haven't you ever noticed this about Wikipedia? Time to wake up. It is always in flux on disputed subjects and the last one to get control of the editing prevails until someone else gets there. Very similar to the last guy to get to the top of the bat trick.



In your haste to take a kick at me, you forgot to actually engage your brain.

[LittleClarkie]

167. But the links on that Wiki page re: Chavez are NOT open to editing

And they don't paint the rosiest pictured of their police force at the very least. Amnesty International, for instance.

[bbinacan]

180. I'm sorry if I misunderstood

your intent. If you review your previous reply, you may see why I took it the way I did. You make a valid point about Wikipedia but you must admit that the criticism of Chavez is very well documented.

[Judi Lynn]

182. This article, formerly published in the Miami Herald may be helpful, maybe not!

What's a neutral point of view? The Cuba entry in the online reference site Wikipedia shows just how difficult it is for the volunteer-run website to tackle politically charged subjects.

By Pablo Bachelet, [e-mail] . Posted on Wed, May. 03, 2006.

WASHINGTON - One editor complained that Havana sympathizers were transforming a scholarly enterprise into ''their own private Fidel Castro fan page.'' A user was tossed out after threatening to sue another for libel.

The fuss is over the Cuba entry in Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia created, edited and administered entirely by volunteers with the altruistic purpose of becoming a Web-based knowledge repository for humanity.

But the Cuba entry, like those on President Bush and abortion, has been snared in intense political divisions over everything from the impact of U.S. sanctions on the communist-ruled island to whether it should have a separate section on its human rights record. Russia and North Korea do not.

There have been so many dueling edits -- 30 entries on April 27 alone -- that the article has been placed off-limits to first-time or unregistered users. The article has notices alerting readers that the neutrality of four sections is under dispute.

A central tenet of Wikipedia is that articles must be written in a neutral point of view. But, as the debate on the talk page attached to the Cuba article demonstrates, neutrality is often in the eye of the beholder.
(snip/...)

http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y06/may06/10e4.htm

[Marr]

6. The fact that the report pushes that "shut down a TV station" lie suggests

that it's yet more bullshit. I'll wait for the debunking.

[Rage for Order]

7. A lie? I suppose that depends...

The station's operations were ceased at the order of the government and all of their equipment was seized. The government did say that the station could move to cable and/or satellite, but how many people can afford cable/satellite in a country with a per capita income of about $4,000? That would be the equivalent of the US gov't forcing Air America to broadcast on a HAM radio broadcast spectrum. They wouldn't have been "shut down" or "forced off the air", but they would be deliberately relegated to obscurity.

[Forkboy]

8. Don't worry, the rich Venuzuelans who supported the coup attempt can afford cable.

;)

[Rage for Order]

9. You mean the coup attempt in February of 1992?

Oh, wait...I'm sorry, wrong coup attempt. Silly me ;)

[Forkboy]

10. LOL...who can keep track of these things?

:D

[Monk06]

57. You seem to be fond of logical fallacies. Here is a link that may help you with your problem.

http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/Overview.html

You should pay special attention to the ones below since you
appear to be susceptible to all of them.

Ad Hominem

Ad Ignorantiam

Red Herring

Questionable Analogy

Slippery Slope (a favorite of American NeoCons)

Fallacy of Division (I like to call this one the Fallacy of Patriotism)

Suppressed Evidence

Begging the Question

[Rage for Order]

70. The coup attempt in 1992 was a fallacy?

Guess I'll need to update my history texts.

[Monk06]

83. No but your claim that I said it was is a fallacy. Keep pitchin RFO. BTW

You're week in history and philosophy

[Rage for Order]

85. on edit: nevermind

lol

[leftchick]

11. the government did not shut it down

their contract expired and was not renewed. All very legal. Try again with the RW talking points. :eyes:

[cali]

39. "All very legal"?

I don't have a beef with Chavez. Seems from the little I know, that the majority of people in that country are better off and support him.

I do have a problem with that argument though. The Nuremberg laws were "legal". The Patriot Act is "legal". Lots and lots of very bad things, have been, and are, "legal".

Legal does not automatically equal good.

[Marr]

136. How about 'mild compared to what would've happened to them here'?

If CNN advocated for a coup or assassination of the President, they'd be off the air in minutes. If that station were funded by a foreign government, and if that coup were in fact attempted.... well, I have to think we'd be seeing jail time for the participants, if not executions.

This episode in Venezuela is framed as some kind of authoritarian stifling of dissent, but it actually makes their government look tolerant in comparison to our own.

[EFerrari]

12. Their equipment was not seized. They were made to return

State property. And if CNN had done what they did, they'd be dark in an hour. Bush wouldn't wait five years to refuse to renew their license.

No, it doesn't depend.

[Rage for Order]

16. Our Democratic leadership disagrees with you

http://caracas.usembassy.gov/news_en.asp?news=114

Pelosi Statement on Suppression of Media in Venezuela

Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today on the closure of Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) after the Venezuelan government refused to renew its broadcasting license:

The decision by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez not to renew the license of Radio Caracas Television in order to silence criticism is exactly the kind of action that raises concern about his leadership. President Chavez should know that efforts to suppress the media will not only ultimately fail, but are also a detriment to one of the pillars democracy: freedom of expression. He should reconsider this ill-advised decision.

The United States Senate has already called upon the Organization of American States to respond appropriately, and the House may consider similar action soon.

http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/05/25/en_pol_art_us-senate-in-full-pa_25A874389.shtml

Both Democrats and Republicans at the Senate endorsed early Friday a resolution related to channel 2 that had been okayed Thursday by the Committee on Foreign Relations, Efe reported.

The instruments brands the license rescission "an assault against freedom of thought and expression and cannot be accepted by democratic countries." Also, it "strongly encourages" the OAS to respond appropriately.

The resolution does not provide for any sanctions or action against the Venezuelan government for such decision.

"The efforts of President (Hugo) Chávez to curb freedom of thought and expression run counter to the rights and values that every democratic nation should embrace and protect," said Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd, who submitted the resolution along with his Republican counterpart and party leader with the Committee on Foreign Relations Richard Lugar.


Pelosi, Dodd...fascist corporatists, apparently.

[stimbox]

18. Our Democratic Leadership has it's collective head up it's ass on a lot of things.

[leftchick]

48. thank you!

well said!

[EFerrari]

20. FAIR disagrees with them.

Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs
Distorting the Venezuelan media story

5/25/07

The story is framed in U.S. news media as a simple matter of censorship: Prominent Venezuelan TV station RCTV is being silenced by the authoritarian government of President Hugo Chávez, who is punishing the station for its political criticism of his government.

According to CNN reporter T.J. Holmes (5/21/07), the issues are easy to understand: RCTV "is going to be shut down, is going to get off the air, because of President Hugo Chávez, not a big fan of it." Dubbing RCTV "a voice of free speech," Holmes explained, "Chávez, in a move that's angered a lot of free-speech groups, is refusing now to renew the license of this television station that has been critical of his government."

Though straighter, a news story by the Associated Press (5/20/07) still maintained the theme that the license denial was based simply on political differences, with reporter Elizabeth Munoz describing RCTV as "a network that has been critical of Chávez."

In a May 14 column, Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl called the action an attempt to silence opponents and more "proof" that Chávez is a "dictator." Wrote Diehl, "Chávez has made clear that his problem with Granier and RCTV is political."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107

And, you said it, not me.

[ProudDad]

24. Ah, Pelosi

you mean that rich capitalist who's busy protecting her millions and telling us to fuck off about our Civil Rights and eat shit when it comes to ending the war?

That Pelosi?.

[Monk06]

58. Another fallacy ; Argument from Authority. I am beginning to see a pattern. n/t

[Rage for Order]

77. LOL

I'm not "Arguing from Authority", I'm providing the views of some of our own Democratic leadership for those individuals who assume that only far-right fascist enablers condemned Chavez's actions as they relate to RCTV. There is a difference, and if you study some of the information at this link http://www.drury.edu/ it may help you to discern the difference. :)

[Monk06]

86. Sorry you're using an Ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority) argument. Look it up

http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/AdVerecundiam.html

[Rage for Order]

89. Sorry. You're trying too hard...

...to see things that aren't there. My position is that there is a large number of people who are not conservative who do not approve of RCTV being taken off the air. It doesn't make that opinion any more or any less valid; rather, it demonstrates that right wingers were not the only people who disagreed with Chavez about RCTV.

[Monk06]

91. Not flamin' RFO I'm just extremely sceptically on these Anti Chavez threads.

He has become heavy handed of late and some
of his actions have been eccentric to put it
mildly.

However he was democratically elected, enjoys
wide popularity among the majority of Venezuelans
and he has so far exercised his legitimate constitutional
authority within the laws passed by the elected assembly.

On the subject of fallacy, I earned my BA in Philosophy
specializing in philosophical logic and philosophy of language.
So I tend to be a bit sensitive to fallacious reasoning.

[Tech 9]

171. Pelosi, Dodd...fascist corporatists, apparently.

QFT

[EFerrari]

13. Yeah and what was the opposition's excuse for "criticism"

in 2002?

[Mutineer]

14. Oh Look, Chavez's fan club has come out to support him.

What a shock. :hi:

Just because someone says Bush is an asshole doesn't mean he's a great guy himself. And make no mistake, Chavez is a dictator.

[EFerrari]

15. Have you any idea what a dictator is?

Your vote has a better chance of being counted in Venezuela than it has here.

[Mutineer]

31. Do you? Because obviously you don't know one when you see it

Chavez is one. But I've stopped counting the number of threads you've either started here praising him or quickly popped up to defend him. I get it-you think he's perfect and can do no wrong and all these other people are just "lying" about him. And when confronted with evidence to the contrary, you either accuse the person of lying or being ignorant even when presented with facts that clearly represent an opinion contrary to your own. Well fine, love Chavez. Too bad that so many of his own countrymen don't get the opportunity to voice their opinions about him, too bad that so many of his own countrymen don't feel the way about him that you obviously do. A lot of people felt the same way about Hitler in the 30's too. But hey if you support suppression and repression, whatever.

[EFerrari]

33. What utter crap.

And, DUer, you are one terrible mind reader.

[LittleClarkie]

168. Frankly she lost me when I realized how far she'd go to justify the actions of someone she likes

like Barry Bonds, for instance. I lost alittle bit of respect for her judgement in a thread right after Bonds broke the record. Steroid use was never proven, doncha know. It reminded me of how she also defends Chavez. Every alligation has a justification.

You know, it's not Chavez so much that bothers me. I am not a hater. It's his supporters reaction to ANY criticism that freaks me out. Apparently the man is perfect. They label critics "haters" and get all sarcastic. It reminds me entirely too much of what criticizing the war or Bush used to get you. Why do you hate America. Why do you hate the president?

As if people just hated him to hate him and that was it, without reason or thought. Most who have a critical word for the man is assumed to be right wing, as if the fact that Chavez is to the left is the problem. I've even seen some of the human rights sites called right wing. I'm waiting to see if that happens re: Amnesty International as well.

We wouldn't accept some of the things this man does if the name Bush were substituted for the name Chavez. He gets SOOO much of the benefit of the doubt.

[EFerrari]

175. Have you even read this thread?

lol

[Wilber_Stool]

174. I've posted this befor in Chavez threads.

I don't know if anyone has ever read it, I always get in at the very end of the discussion. It's the most passionate post I have ever read.

Thu Sep-21-06 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #30
80. and most that ran Venezuela before Chavez were Updated at 11:40 PM

Edited on Thu Sep-21-06 12:30 AM by flyarm
US OIL puppets..i know..i lived there and i can assure you the way the government was in Venezuela before Chavez..only gave a damn about one thing..and that wa s the richest of the rich played ball with the US oil companies..and they didn't give one rats ass about the people..they ruled with an iron fist..

there were 18 yr old military boys on the streets with machine guns..every quarter of a mile..to keep the poor in control..

Americans were god and ruled Venezuela..to the bitter destruction of the Venezuelan poor!

Like i said..i lived there..and it was horrible..before Chavez for the majority of Venezuelans..

i saw little poor children who had people put their cigarettes out on their arms and chests for a boulivar..


there was no middle class..there was the oil boys and the companies that catered to the oil boys..and nothing else..

i saw children with their teeth rotted out with only points in their mouths..and blood on their gums..

there were no doctors for the poor..

there were only the very very rich..and the very very poor..

nothing in between..

i lived their 2 times with my husbands business..and each time we returned home i got down on the ground and kissed it!

the crimes against humanity before Chavez was disgusting..but it was run by our oil corps..and the Kuwaiti's had their hands in the oil as well.. so you heard little of it! there was no possibility of decent by the poor..they had no voice. NONE!

the pres of Venezuela and the VP were owned by US corporations..and don't you even attempt to tell me other wise..i knew the VP of Venezuela..and i danced with him 2 times on Christmas and New years and told him off..of what they did to their people..and he laughed at me..and said i was an American idealist!

fly]
\
Reply #95
111. i just get sick of people talking about what they know nothing of.. Updated at 11:40 PM

Edited on Thu Sep-21-06 02:07 AM by flyarm
when we lived there under previous governments ..one time machine gun fire went off in the caracas hilton where we lived..for 6 months..not once but twice!!..yes machine gun fire went through the lobby by young military ..

there was no freedom under previous presidents..

we were there 2 times through xmas..

my husbands boss sent xmas gifts to my son and myself..and for my husband in a duffel bag..a motorized car for my son..and the military was at the door of the hotel and took it all way from my husband and would not let him go into the hotel with gifts..xmas gifts!

my husband took a bus for some road trips..and several times had their bus stopped by military that got on the bus with machine guns..and put them in their faces ..and took their watches and money..and any other jewelry they had..

this was under the presidents that the * cabal liked, the ones that stole every thing they could from the people of Venezuela.


There were days my son and i sat at the hotel pool and we had helicopters flying over head and the pool,.. so close you felt like you could reach up and touch them..with guys hanging out of the helicopters with machine guns pointed at us..i would run my son and I up to our room and hide..as best we could..

it was terrifying...

there was no hope at all for the poor..none at all..the young men had only the choice of military unless they were from the very rich families..

or working in the american oil fields for pennies...

so bullshit is bullshit.,.

i saw it..and i lived it..and i can tell you..Chavez may not be perfect..and i am sure he is not..but he could be no worse than what those poor people lived under for so many years with our oil puppet presidents and governments down there!! and they were ours!..they were owned by our oil companies!

I lived with the oil people at the rich hotels i lived in..and the pilots for our oil companies..and the pilots for the Kwaiti's...they used to show me the Krugerrand they got as tips..big ones!!

my husbands boss had a Renior in his freaking bathroom!

yes a real one!!

like i said..bullshit is bullshit..the previous governments were American oil company owned..and our government ran them ...

fly

[Dave From Canada]

42. LOL, that's a good one. Quite mad, but still funny. I do know what a dictator is, his name is Hugo

and he lives in Venezuela.

[EFerrari]

43. Hmm, let's see. It's generally acknowledged here that

in our last two Federal elections, the winner was not seated.

The same is not true in Venezuela.

And, you bet I'm mad.

[Dave From Canada]

88. Anyone who thinks that King Hugo's elections are valid must be more then just mad. Come'on, he hand

picked the chief of Venezuela's electoral council as his new VP!!! Just a bit of a conflict of interest eh? Not for a dictator and his crony though.

[ConsAreLiars]

90. So you are claiming that Jimmy Carter is insane?

Maybe take a look in a mirror, since a reality check is apparently not available to you.

[Dave From Canada]

139. Maybe Jimmy Carter isn't informed enough. We've had Canadian election monitors in Venezuela who

tell a different story.

[Judi Lynn]

154. Good luck trying to tell Democrats how ####ed up Jimmy Carter is.

Why don't you go ahead and provide some excellent links to all this information you've got on how corrupted Jimmy Carterr is as an election observer? You can imagine we're all ears.

[EFerrari]

157. Do you have a link ? Because I come up with this when I search

"venezuela election canada monitors"

US Works to Delegitimize Venezuela's December Presidential Election
October 25th 2006, by Chuck Kaufman

I participated in a delegation of US citizens and residents who met with Venezuelans from across the political spectrum from September 30-October 8, 2006 in Caracas, Venezuela. The delegation, sponsored by the Venezuela Solidarity Network and Marin (CA) Interfaith Task Force on the Americas looked at factors influencing the December 3, 2006 presidential election with a particular emphasis on the US government role in that election. The official delegation report will be posted to www.vensolidarity.org.

The delegation was met with courtesy by every Venezuelan organization we interviewed ranging from Sumate, the best known opposition group, to the Vice Foreign Minister for North American Relations on the government side. Only at the US embassy were we met with barely minimum courtesy. The US ambassador refused to meet with us. His Political Officer had us shown to empty room with a two way mirror and folding chairs set in a circle. Across the hall was a well appointed unused conference room. We were not even offered water in sharp contrast with our meetings with Venezuelans who always offered us coffee and water.

Venezuela is politically polarized. We witnessed the extremes of this during a dinner with lawyer and author Eva Golinger. Some very drunk opposition supporters recognized Golinger as author of The Chavez Code and a strong Chavez partisan. Some of them surrounded our table and began screaming at Golinger and the delegation, calling us "assassins" "Cubans," and "Argentines." The verbal abuse went on for long minutes until waiters ejected the most out-of-control anti-Chavez woman. We were later told that she worked in the Ministry of Justice, highlighting one of the many contradictions arising from the fact that Chavez' Bolivarian revolution came into power democratically through the ballot box rather than by force of arms. Armed revolutions generally sweep opponents out of government jobs and places of influence such as the media, but in Venezuela many in the opposition are still in the civil service and most of the media is virulently anti-Chavez.

The one issue that unifies both the opposition and the supporters of the government is rejection of the Bush government's foreign policy. Nearly everyone we met with criticized President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The opposition uniformly volunteered that statements from the White House or State Department strengthened Chavez and, of course, supporters of President Chavez remember the attempted coup of April 2002 and the ongoing US hostility to the democratic advances they feel they have made.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2028

I know this site isn't all that objective. So, if you could scare up a link to a report from your monitors, I'd appreciate it and would like to read it.

[Judi Lynn]

158. Woderful information. This article addresses several areas I've wondered about.

Very interesting to learn how the National Electoral Commission is constructed, how the rectors are determined. The opposition really shot itself in the foot when it decided it would abstain from voting, and show the world that Chavez had somehow taken the election unfairly. What????? They really screwed up there. Ha ha ha. Glad to see it.

Thanks for posting this: saving it for future reference.

[EFerrari]

97. I can't do that, Dave.

lol

[Colobo]

17. Alejandro Sanz is not a right winger- he's a very liberal and succesful

Spanish pop artists and it's sad to see this happening to him.

[stimbox]

22. He can still enter Venezuela and play at a private venue.

jeez, get a grip people.

[Colobo]

26. The "Poliedro" is Venezuela's most important venue. All important artists

that have visited Venezuela have played there. Sanz is a huge international star and the only venue appropiate for a guy of his stature is "El Poliedro".

And, let me tell you, I hate the guy's music.

[EFerrari]

27. My ex got banned from venues for saying stupid things into a mic.

Nice venues. Big, unforgiving venues. The job is to avoid that.

/ack

[cali]

124. Your ex got banned from large, nice venues by the owners of said venues, not

by the gov't.

[ProudDad]

19. Better than how the USAmerikan govt. treats Cuban Musicians...

The Venezuelan govt. is denying a rather obvious anti-Bolivarian (or a naif with a big mouth) a state owned venue not denying entry into the country...

At best, Sanz could be viewed as a rather naive political idiot...

[Colobo]

25. Do you actually know who Sanz is?

Probably not.

[ProudDad]

59. Yep, looked him up...

He's another fluff-headed pop star...sort of a Spanish, white, Male, privileged Britney Spears...



LEAVE ALEJANDRO ALONE!!!!



I met a number of them when I was hanging out playing music in Madrid and traveling with my friend's blues band for a summer a few years ago...

Politically naive capitalist (check it out, he "attended management classes")...interested in making money and getting laid...

[ConsAreLiars]

28. He has set up secret prisons where torture and murders are common and monitors all communications

Oh, wait, that is someone else....

Yeah, the guy I was thinking of was appointed to office by the oligarchs, not elected. And the singer wasn't just kept from government venues, but banned from the country. That guy murdered a million people and drove down the living standard of the masses.

Sorry for the confusion - I'm not sure how I got such obviously different individuals mixed up.

(edit typo)

[EFerrari]

29. You must hate us for our hatred.

lol

I was wondering where the second weekly hit piece was. Someone is running late.

[Rage for Order]

32. He may have

That's the thing about "secret" prisons...they tend to be secrets.

But seriously, no, this is not the greatest affront to humanity. It does, however, reveal a certain pettiness that is unbecoming of a national leader. Much in the same way that our own dear leader's "that guy is a major-league asshole" statement revealed the same thing about him.

My only real point of concern with this story was this quote:

(Higher Education Minister Luis) Acuna over the weekend said that from now on, the government will ensure concerts held at the state stadium do not promote "anti-educational values."


What exactly are "anti-educational values", and who gets to determine what they are?

[EFerrari]

34. It may be a polite way to say, we won't give you a venue

to insult us.

And you know, they get to make that call. They were voted in and in a fair election.

[Rage for Order]

37. Undoubtedly it's their right to do so

I just find it to be petty. Well, that and the whole "anti-educational values" thing from the so-called "Higher Education Minister".

[EFerrari]

40. I bet there's more. There always seems to be.

My experience is simply that our media churns out at least two inflammatory pieces a week on Chavez. Everybody remembers them and the impression they're written to create. Nobody remembers the inevitable debunking.

I didn't know squat about Chavez until I noticed this pattern and started to dig around on my own. He's not my hero. I don't think he's perfect. But it is interesting that he's leading a wave of democratizing measures in Latin America and that BushCo thought he was important enough to oust. fwiw.

[Rage for Order]

45. I thought there may be

But I searched the story and the BBC, CBC, Reuters, AP, and every other link I saw reported essentially the same information. Either it's a multi-national conspiracy or this particular story is accurate.

[EFerrari]

47. Or, the whole context isn't out yet as when it was reported

that the government "seized" RCTV's equipment -- and, probably on a Friday night, too, when nothing of the sort happened. The contract RCTV signed (long before Chavez) set the terms that resulted in improvements and equipment to resort to the State.

And, sure, this may be the whole story. That's entirely possible.

[Rage for Order]

51. Was the equipment ever returned?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/41B9681F-39CC-4F22-8329-CDC6F35B140A.htm

Venezuela's supreme court ruled that RCTV must temporarily leave its equipment and broadcast infrastructure in military hands to ensure that TVes can provide quality service.

Marcel Granier, the president of RCTV, called the decision "an unconstitutional seizure of our equipment".

RCTV owners "have a plan to sabotage the new channel's signal," Chavez said on Saturday.

Chavez and his ministers deflected criticism, saying other media could still carry the RCTV signal. However, Granier said, "The government is pressuring cable and satellite companies not to carry us."

I found this:

http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/14841/Shut_by_Chavez_Venezuela_s_RCTV_to_return_on_cable

CARACAS, Venezuela (AFP): RCTV, Venezuela's oldest and most popular television channel before it was shut down May 28 by President Hugo Chavez, will resurface this month on cable, RCTV director general Marcel Granier said Wednesday.

Granier said the privately-owned Radio Caracas Television will broadcast on subscription television from July 16, some six weeks after being shut down when Chavez refused to renew its broadcasting license on grounds the network was conspiring to overthrow him.

On cable RCTV will offer shows similar to those it used to broadcast, but it will not be investing in new programming, according to Granier, claiming that the government had "stolen" some 140 million dollars worth of equipment.


I haven't seen any further reports related to the return of RCTV's equipment, but if you can find some please post it, as I would be interested to learn how this has all played out.

[EFerrari]

53. It was state property according to the contract they signed

with a different Venezuelan government. It was a trade out for being able to put their facilities on state property in the first place.

Chavez had nada to do with the terms of that contract. But, I'm sure his government didn't mind enforcing those terms after RCTV tried to get him and them killed.

[Rage for Order]

80. That doesn't make sense

The news story said:

Venezuela's supreme court ruled that RCTV must temporarily leave its equipment and broadcast infrastructure in military hands to ensure that TVes can provide quality service.


If it was state property, why did the nation's supreme court rule that RCTV only had to leave the equipment temporarily? Shouldn't the ruling have been that the equipment had to be forfeited in keeping with the contract that was signed? And, given the supreme court's ruling, Venezuela is obligated to return the equipment to RCTV. The ruling said "temporarily".

[EFerrari]

95. Yes, it makes sense. That contract was decades old and

the Court had to interpret it.

Do you believe a dictatorship would allow this case to GO to court?

Like all property disputes, the parties needed a mediator.

[ProudDad]

60. One "virtue" of effective propoganda

is that it appear in a number of locations and contain "essentially the same information"...

There is no "multi-national" in communications anymore...

[EFerrari]

63. ProudDad, check out the Gucci protestors in #35.

How many people in Caracas can afford a distressed denim handbag, do you think? Or the 50 bucks worth of make up on that young woman's face? Check out the composition. It reminds me of the Brooks Brothers in FL during the theft of Al Gore's win.

Now, that's successful propaganda.

[ProudDad]

66. Yep, just your standard

Venezuelan campesina...

After a hard day working in the fields or at the day care center she still finds time to protest against the tyrant...

Pobrecita...

[EFerrari]

68. And we eat it with a spoon. n/t

[cali]

41. Wow. Just wow. "We won't give you a venue to to insult us"?

Listen to what you just said. Wow.

[stimbox]

44. Sounds like DU.

And the way lefties and progressives are treated around here.

"We won't give you a venue to to insult us"

[cali]

46. Yes, Of course. It's exactly the same thing.

Can you imagine your outrage and mine if bushco didn't want musicians playing large venues because they'd insult his admin? That's precisely what the poster suggested. Can you say double standard?

[ProudDad]

61. I guess you don't remember the "Dixie Chicks"

They didn't work for years...

The Corpo Police State made sure of that...

[stimbox]

69. Yep, they got blacklisted.

Country radio stations (clear channel) took them off of the playlists.

[Rage for Order]

78. Didn't work for years?

Where did you get that impression? Some country radio stations refused to play their songs, but they still managed to play numerous shows in the US and did quite well financially through both ticket and album sales.

[sufrommich]

120. Was that government enforced?

[cali]

133. It's hardly worth discussing anything with someone

who thinks the gov't persecuted the Dixie Chicks. They certainly did work, and made albums after there comments, and won awards, and were as lionized for their comments as they were villified.. And I've never seen word one that claims that the gov't interfered with any venue that booked them.

But that's beside the point. If you support Chavez in this, in order to be consistent you should support the admin keeping Cat Steven's out of the country. Just because this country does bad undemocratic shit, is no reason to support it when others do.

[stimbox]

135. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

The Dixie Chicks were persecuted economically and vilified in the mainstream media by the Bushco media conglomerate supporters.
Venezuela is letting Alejandro Sanz into the country.
They just aren't letting him use a state-owned venue.
He can still play at a private venue.
Cat Stevens was barred from entry completely so no shows anywhere.

[stimbox]

76. Looks like Alejandro Sanz got tombstoned.

[ProudDad]

92. I hereby nominate you for a DUZY!!! (n/t)

[stimbox]

138. LOL

:spray:

[puffymuffins]

164. self dele

wrong spot

[paulk]

50. that sounds a lot like a royal "we"

In most democratic states, being elected doesn't give the ruling party the right to do something like this...

Have you thought at all about the implications of what you're saying?

That the majority in a democracy gets to totally have it's way?

[EFerrari]

52. Oh, please. You nor I can even get into a townhall

unless we're in lockstep. In fact, we can be ejected for our bumperstickers.

And, do you know that the so called "opposition" aka, the oligarchy, owns more than 80% of the media outlets in Venezuela? It's hard for me to worry about their millionaire @sses at this point.

As far as the minority not being represented, I wouldn't know. I wasn't represented when we were in the minority and it looks like I am still not going to be represented now.

[paulk]

81. an absurd comparison

your arguments are increasingly ridiculous.

[EFerrari]

96. Personal attacks v. facts. Hmm. What a hard choice. n/t

[paulk]

98. if you think that's a personal attack perhaps you should alert it

in the meantime why don't you try to come up with a real argument detailing how elected officials somehow having the rights usually assigned a monarchy is a good thing.


ed for grammar

[EFerrari]

99. Elected officials who make lawful policy decisions don't need defending.

[paulk]

101. so an elected official has the right to stop people from criticizing

the government because, since he was elected, he represents the majority? That's your idea of a proper democracy?

That a "lawful policy decision" that shuts down criticism of the government is ok just because it's "lawful"?

Do you believe in the first amendment in this country?

I'm really curious to know...

[EFerrari]

103. Where do you get off putting words in my mouth

or believing you know better than the people of Venezuela what is best for them?

That's just amazing.

[paulk]

132. these are your words -

"It may be a polite way to say, we (the Venezuelan govt) won't give you a venue
to insult us.

And you know, they get to make that call. They were voted in and in a fair election."


------------------

I believe that people have a right to criticize their government. I would even extend that right to foreigners in my country. I believe that right is what keeps a democracy healthy. I believe that is the "liberal" position to take, whether it's the people in this country or anywhere else in the world.

[EFerrari]

141. There is a difference between free speech and handing someone

a mic. You are conflating those two things.

[cali]

148. That makes no sense whatsoever.

You are repeatedly endorsing the idea of shutting down what you term as "insulting speech".

Ideas like that, coming out of the left, don't make me any happier than when they come out of the right.

[cali]

134. You're a riot.

And you might do well to read this carefully:

"Only hypocrites can't forgive hypocrisy."

Oh nevermind, it was said by a dead white guy.

[ProudDad]

30. As you said

"at least Sanz hasn't been banned from the country entirely - he can still perform at privately owned venues"

It is a slippery slope to begin banning art though. Maybe put him on with a couple of local Venezuelan pro-revolutionary bands would have been a better idea...

Then if he spouted any naive, stupid shit -- he'd be exposed for the idiot he would sound like in that context...

[Rage for Order]

36. I haven't heard any info that states that his concerts are political in nature

You do realize that the "defamation" of Chavez occurred in an interview 3 years ago? Is that really a legitimate reason to cancel a show that 15,000 people planned to attend? This is the quote that did it:

Responding to questions about Chavez before a 2004 referendum on the president's rule, Sanz said: "I don't like your president. I don't like those from other places either."

Hardly a scathing indictment. It seems pretty innocuous to me, but perhaps the artist is much more outspoken politically than I'm aware?

[ProudDad]

65. This sounds pretty political

and inflammatory and ignorant to me:

Alejandro Sanz afirma que "le desagrada el presidente venezolano, Hugo Chavez" y que dejarra de cantar si se lo piden tres millones de firmas, en alusion al referendum revocatorio

El pasado 15 de febrero, en la prensa comercial, el cantante Alejandro Sanz, afirmó que "le desagrada el presidente venezolano, Hugo Chávez, y que dejaría de cantar si se lo piden tres millones de personas con firmas", en alusión a las rúbricas que dice tener recolectadas la oposición para lograr un referendo revocatorio del mandato de nuestro Presidente, electo por millones de venezolanos.

"A mí, si me dieran tres millones de firmas para que dejara de cantar, dejaría de cantar", confesó el artista, aunque aclaró que a Venezuela "no vengo a hacer revolución, he venido a cantar y ya está". Alejandro Sanz se ha destacado en los últimos meses por sus agresiones al gobierno cubano y sus gestos de cooperación con la disidencia cubana en Miami. Quien denunciaba, según él, la falta de elecciones en Cuba, no parece que las de Venezuela sean tampoco de su gusto.

Múltiples organizaciones venezolanas han respondido al cantante español con la creación de la denominada Alianza por un mundo sin Alejandro Sanz y, tomándole la palabra han iniciado una campaña para que deje de cantar, tal y como el propio artistas ha sugerido que haría si se lo piden.

[EFerrari]

67. It's all more nothing but, look out! Chavez is a diktator!

I wonder who the "multiples organizaciones venezolanas" are if they aren't named.

Cr@p and more cr@p.

[Rage for Order]

79. Doesn't sound political to me

But then, I don't know Spanish, so I may change my mind if you'd be so kind as to provide a translation :)

[ProudDad]

93. ...

Que? :)

[Solar_Power]

35. Live Free or Die

[EFerrari]

38. LOL! The Gucci protestors!

Press Freedoms in Venezuela:

The Case of RCTV

Overview

In late 2006, the Venezuelan government announced its decision not to renew the 20-year broadcasting license of Radio Caracas Television (RCTV). Though the television station will no longer operate on the open-access airwaves, cable and satellite broadcasts will still be permitted. Though the decision has faced criticism by those who claim it is a move to restrict press freedoms, most governments worldwide enjoy the constitutional right to regulate media licensing, including that of the U.S. RCTV’s non-renewal does not violate legal norms in Venezuela, nor does it significantly alter the balance of power in Venezuela's vociferous, opposition-affiliated and privately-owned media. The decision forms part of a larger policy program for democratizing Venezuela's airwaves.

The Grounds for Non-Renewal

Historically, RCTV has demonstrated extremely poor business conduct and its frequent legal infringements comprise the most important reasons for the non-renewal decision. An op-ed by Bart Jones of Newsday appearing in the Houston Chronicle asserts that "it's doubtful actions would last more than a few minutes with the FCC ." In fact, RCTV has often faced legal sanctions for its poor practices, and indeed has been closed or fined numerous times by various administrations, including President Chavez's most recent predecessors. The television station is also in default for tax payments spanning a three year period. This most recent decision is not an isolated case, but is the first opportunity the government has had to reconsider its licensing since the 20-year contract began.

http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/RCTV.htm

[cali]

49. They may be "Gucci demonstrators" but

I'm still shocked that you think it's OK to for the Chavez gov't to ban musicians because they might insult the gov't.

[ConsAreLiars]

55. Not like your leader, the almighty chimp.

Do you think the US is a democracy or a dictatorship? Name one comparison that suggests that the US is any more democratic than Venezuela. If you agree that the US is less democratic than Venezuela, then the difference is simply a question of who benefits from the "dictatorship" in those two countries. If you believe that the US is more "democratic" and your leader is one who represents the will and interests of the people, as you seem to believe, give some evidence.

As for me, I find the idea that your leader is the product of a democratic process either an absurd lie or a the belief of someone who regards the people of the US as monsters.

(edit typo)

[EFerrari]

56. Go back and look at the pic.

Those are rich college kids that the oligarchy trots out, not everyday people. Check it out. Judi Lynn even dug up an account of these kids being coached and given scripts although I'd have to raise her for the link. But, if my millions were being threatened by democracy, maybe I'd put my kid on the street with a sign, too.

[Judi Lynn]

105. Gotta hand it to you, sfexpat2000, you've got one fine memory!Here's an article on this very subject

Weekend Edition
June 9 / 10, 2007

Who's Pulling the Strings?
Behind Venezuela's "Student Rebellion"
By GEORGE CICCARIELLO-MAHER

~snip~
Step One: Don't Be Seen

Firstly, opposition parties made a clear decision to stay out of the spotlight, emphasizing the "independent" and "spontaneous" nature of the student protests. Beyond anything else, this gesture proves the degree to which the opposition has been discredited, garnering a reverse Midas touch through years of poor decisionmaking and supporting coups. From the beginning, the government was arguing that opposition politicians were behind the student mobilizations, and so when government-run channel 8 covered one of the early student demonstrations in Plaza Brion in Chacaito, the headline read "opposition demonstration disguised as a student demonstration."

This claim was perhaps justified by the appearance at the demonstration of Leopoldo López, mayor of opposition stronghold Chacao, formerly of far-right party Primero Justicia, which he more recently abandoned in favor of Manuel Rosales' nominally social democratic Un Nuevo Tiempo. Opposition news channel Globovisión countered with the thoroughly unconvincing claim that López, 36 years old and an established politician, was a "youth leader." López himself wouldn't help the situation when at a press conference he "accidentally" called for the students to employ "non-peaceful" tactics (he later claimed that he had meant to call for "non-violent" forms of protest).

That the "student leaders" are tied to the opposition is far from controversial: for example, spokesperson Yon Goicochea is a member of Primero Justicia and the aptly-named Stalin González belonged until recently to the strangest of opposition organizations, Bandera Roja. BR is a nominally Marxist-Leninist group which made the unlikely transition from a respectable guerrilla organization to the attack dogs of the far right, claiming to use the opposition as a vehicle to topple the fake communism of Chávez and institute a true dictatorship of the proletariat. But González recently revealed the extent of his opportunism by joining Rosales and Un Nuevo Tiempo.

But the contours of the opposition's hands-off strategy wouldn't be fully clear until the revelation of a taped phone conversation in which Un Nuevo Tiempo leader Alfonso Marquina spoke of the need to remain in the background, but to pull the strings regardless: "Let's mobilize all the kids We have a strategy as an organization Let's mobilize all the kids, because you know Stalin is our vice president here in Caracas Let's mobilize the kids from the Catholic We've decided that the politicians won't intervene, that we'll leave it to the kids in their natural environment. We'll give them support, stick them in trucks If I go out there, they'll say it's the politicians that are calling the kids out"
(snip)

Speeches by the scheduled Chavista students continued, with each laying out substantive arguments about the nature the Bolivarian Revolution and its relationship to traditional notions of press freedom. When it came to be his turn to speak, Chavista student leader Héctor Rodríguez of the UCV stepped up to the podium with a sheet of paper that he promptly held up in front of the gathered deputies. It was the last page of the opposition's scripted performance in the Assembly, which laid-out the text of the speech and the exact moment at which Barrios was to remove his red shirt. And the script was signed by ARS Publicity, a company owned by none other than the Globovisión media empire. Together with Globovisión (as well as all other private media outlets), ARS was directly implicated in the planning and execution of the 2002 media coup against the constitutional order.

Let's go over this again, slowly: the students' withdrawal from the National Assembly was scripted. This isn't all that surprising. But that it was scripted by an organization owned by the opposition press is quite revealing. It makes transparent not merely the political nature of the opposition students and the fact that they don't represent the totality of Venezuelan students, but more importantly it reveals the fact that the opposition media has played an active role in planning and structuring this wave of student protests that they themselves have painted as a "spontaneous" rebellion.
(snip/...)

http://www.counterpunch.org/maher06092007.html

:hi:

[EFerrari]

109. Thank you, Judi Lynn.

I wish my memory was as good as yours. I wish! :)

[Judi Lynn]

113. Really crooked, underhanded, mendacious business wasn't it,when they attempted to use those students

to perpetrate yet another gross lie upon what used to be a completely unsuspecting public! Too bad _Bush sends our hard-earned taxes to them to pull the wool over our eyes year after year after year, through NED, USAID!

It's an easy accomplishment for the right-wing, racist Venezuelan opposition to pull off these obnoxious stunts when so many who read about it all in the corporate press are already determined to swallow it, hook, line, sinker. The easiest job in the world HAS to be a propaganda schemer cranking it out for right-wing American idiots.

[EFerrari]

115. Their worst mistake was threatening to bomb the seat of government

when there were filmmakers in residence.

Oops!

Their staged "grassroots" protests are on par with the Swiftboaters and their close cousins, the latest being Freedom's Watch, headed up by Ari Fleisher.

But, it's a really bad idea to try to stage a coup when there are filmmakers in the house.

And I'm pretty sure that due to those Irish filmmakers, the CIA didn't feel comfortable enough to kill Mr. Chavez

Edit: Background. When the CIA backed coup went forward, the plotters didn't know that a team of Irish journalists were on site. And this team filmed a first hand account of that event. It was released as "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised".

[Judi Lynn]

119. That would explain the abnormal hostility toward the Irish filmmakers:

they thwarted a plan to bump him off by showing up where international witnesses, with film rolling, were least expected! If anything had happened to these guys, the whole world would have known about it instantly, and things would have gotten really wild, so they couldn't really do anything to them, other than to try to keep people from seeing their documentary.

Here's one site which sells the film, for anyone who'd like to grab one:


DVD: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
$30.00 $25.00 On Sale!
DVD-RWNBT
• Only available from us in the U.S. • 70 minutes, documentary by Kim Bartley & Donnacha O'Briain (2003) • Winner of 12 international film awards and nominated for four more. (see www.imdb.com to search for specifics and reviews) This is an extraordinary documentary by Irish filmmakers, who were in the right place at the right time to document the events surrounding the April 11, 2002 coup d'etat against democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. The filmmakers were able to remain in the presidental palace wih Chavez administration members and supporters, while opposition forces violently overtook the government and dismantled Venezuela's democratic institutions, including the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, the Constitution and the offices of Ombudsman and Attorney General, and the kidnapping and detention of the President. The film exposes the human rights violations committed during the coup. This included the extrajudicial killing of more than fifty people; the arbitrary arrest, persecution and torture of pro-government supporters and government officials.

This documentary has rarely been shown in the U.S. and is not distributed by any other source in the U.S. You won't find it at Netflix or Blockbuster. There is a well-coordinated disinformation campaign to prevent the film from ever being broadcast or shown theatrically in the U.S. and elsewhere.

The opposition to Chavez is led by people such as Venezuelan billionaire and media magnate Gustavo Cisneros who isone of the Latin American owners of AOL, Coca-Cola, DirecTV and Pizza Hut corporations, as well as Univision in the U.S. and Venezuela's largest TV network Venevision. Cisneros is one of the main leaders and financiers of the anti-Chavez movement inside that country. He is also a personal friend of George Bush, senior. For evidence of U.S. involvemnet in the coup, see a compilation of articles "The U.S. and the Coup in Venezuela" at www.thirdworldtraveler.com

http://www.donnellycolt.com/catalog/video.html

This site also sells "The Panama Deception," which was mentioned by a DU'er recently, and a link posted to view the video online. For anyone who doesn't know about _{George Bush's} father's invasion of Panama, you'd be well advised to take an hour and a half to look at this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-446387292666223710&q=%22The+Panama+Deception%22&total=27&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

This is a subject about which we've been COMPLETELY uninformed at every level by the corporate media. Anyone owes it to him/herself to start finding out about these things. Time's a'wasting, and most of us have been wildly clueless.

[EFerrari]

145. Remember that really scary moment when the generals threaten

to bomb the presidential palace? And everyone looks around because it's even money that everyone in that room will be killed? And the film kept rolling.

[Judi Lynn]

150. How could they not have been thinking directly of what had happened on 9-11-73, in Chile?

A vivid image of that bombed out Presidential Palace would be in the minds of so many, many Latin Americans.



Second photo:
Toppled government: La Moneda, the Presidential Palace, in flames, after bombings and tank fire on September 11, 1973

© Bettman/CORBIS
They would have been so aware of how that one happened, and how it was all set in motion, and by whom. Jesus.

In a lighter vein, but also creepy is their discovery the coup meisters cleaned out the safe on the way out of Miraflores, in Caracas. How completely predictable of these scums.

Those Chavez administration people were so completely devoted, so decent. They understood how bad it was going to get without some kind of intervention.

It was BEAUTIFUL to behold when the tables turned, wasn't it? The coup plotters were treated so much more politely than they deserved.

[EFerrari]

151. That's right. I've said this before but, I was impressed by the leadership

in that room. Chavez had already been abducted, and his administration didn't know where he was or even, if he was alive. And they kept working as a team ANYWAY. A roomful of very smart, self possessed leaders. It's enough to make you cry when you compare them to the lying syncophants we endure here.

And, to my mind, that's also evidence that Chavez is not an authoritarian. Because no authoritarian would surround himself with people who might challenge him, his ideas or policies.

[Judi Lynn]

183. It was apparent, too, that throughout the documentary, it was easy to note that they ALL respect

the work they are doing, and each other. It really comes through. Very deeply impressive.

[sufrommich]

121. So protesters have to meet certain

requirements now? You have no idea who they are or what their backrounds are. Should we ridicule "rich college kids" protesting here,too?

[EFerrari]

146. Actually, we do know who they are and what their backgrounds are.

In the same way that we know about the Brooks Brothers Riot that was faked in Florida. They've been busted on more than one occasion.

So, no, it's not that these kids have any less right to protest than anyone else. It's that they are plants, organized by the oligarchy and choreographed to look like a real protest. That's the difference.

Edit: Check out Judi Lynn's #105.

/tyop :silly:

[stimbox]

173. Rich Repuke kids protesting...

Looks the same in either country.

[cali]

114. LOL

The chimperater is a petty dictator wannabe. I wasn't addressing that. I was addressing the poster's statement that strongly indicated that she had no problem with Chavez denying a venue to an artist to prevent being insulted.

Take your strawman his little dog too, elsewhere. I ain't dancing.

[LittleClarkie]

172. I love it when we start playing comparative dictators here

he's not as bad as Bush, so therefore he's okay. That's an awfully low criteria to have to meet.

[EFerrari]

176. Please show me where anyone on this thread or any thread

has posited such a ridiculous notion, aside from the people who parrot right wing talking points without even knowing what they're doing.

Comparative dictators, my granny.

[ProudDad]

71. Unlike Police State USAmerika

The Venezuelan government did NOT ban him...as Police State USAmerika bans Cuban performers and musicians...

The Government of Venezuela denied him use of the People of Venezuela's venue just as the coup plotters and abettors at RCTV weren't allowed to use the People of Venezuela's airwaves any more...

Both quite reasonable actions for a budding revolution...

I'm sure that in USAmerica in 1789 there would have been little patience with (or any venue for) a British "entertainer" who showed up in Boston after calling George Washington a "disgraceful President" who should immediately resign because a few thousand Tories signed a petition to remove him...

[EFerrari]

72. George Washington was a dictator.

:rofl:

[ProudDad]

73. Don't know about Washington but Adams

was another matter:

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


:)

[cali]

122. You have to go back to 1789 to make your argument.

And sorry, that musician was banned from that venue. I don't particularly give a shit, and as I've said REPEATEDLY on this thread and others, it strike me that Chavez has done more good than not, and he was elected faily.

But I'm still marvelling at this statement:


"It may be a polite way to say, we won't give you a venue
to insult us."

Oh, and in case you weren't aware of it, there are *gasp* foreign musicians playing large venues in America, telling bushco to fuck himself, virtually every day of the week.

Yes, the U.S. has some horendous policies regarding Cuban musicians and the wretched bullshit that kept Cat Stevens out of the country. Does that make what Chavez is doing here admiriable?

And what do you think of someone justifying it by saying it's OK to yank a venue to keep someone from insulting Chavez' gov't?

[ShaneGR]

62. The bottom line is.... support free speach or dont

Either you support free speech in all its form or you don't.

Chavez's government doesn't. Period.

It saddens me to see my fellow American's defend Chavez because "Bush is worse." Do we need to lower ourselves to the Bush doctrine to find a hero now? Gees, the Chavez government is no saint.

[EFerrari]

64. If the Venezuelan government didn't support free speech

they'd have to shut down most of the country's media outlets.

[Solar_Power]

87. Not "if"

[EFerrari]

94. Yes, if. And the evidence is, this hasn't happened

not matter how many people have a knee jerk response to BushCo propaganda.

[ProudDad]

75. If the Venezuelan Government didn't support free speech

they wouldn't let him into their country...

Like, for instance, the way Cuban musicians and performers are treated by the USAmerikan "government"...they aren't allowed here 'cause they're "Commies"...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

131. It Seems Both Bush* And Chavez Are The Beneficiaries Of Lowered Expectations

DSB

[EFerrari]

144. This comparison is made frequently but it doesn't hold water.

When was the last time Junior did anything for poor people or sick people or illiterate people -- for anyone, for that matter, besides his vampire cronies?

I think that Chavez comes off as bombastic to Americans who don't look further than that to what he's actually doing. He comes off very differently to his own people. He reminds me of one of my uncles who liked to kid a lot and who was smart as hell and always had 24 projects going.

[losthills]

100. Chavez supporters

are as self-deluded as Bush supporters.

[ConsAreLiars]

102. Chavez haters

are as deluded as corporate ass-lickers and Bush-lovers.

[cali]

116. bwahaha.

I don't hate Chavez. Hell, I don't even go beyond mild criticism of him, but those ferociously supporting him or tearing him down and comparing him to the third coming of Stalin, are ripe for the picking. You belong in the latter category.

[EFerrari]

104. Boring smear. Next.

[upi402]

106. Not one Chavez hater has seen "Revolution Will Not Be Televised"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144

I've never debated a Chavez hater that had seen it. One agreed to view it and get back to me....:popcorn:


They buy the spurious and misdirected Amnesty charges against Chavez as a stone cold guilty verdict too.

[EFerrari]

107. I know. And that's so weird.

People keep regurgitating the BushCo talking points with no facts in hand and worse, with no curiosity in hand. It's just not like DU.

It's discouraging. Tar the guy for who he is, not for the bs that the noise machine tries to seed twice a week.

[Judi Lynn]

110. Did you know the Venezuelan opposition threatened Amnesty into dropping a screening of this film?

Here's an article from the Guardian:

Chavez film puts staff at risk, says Amnesty

Recriminations after documentary on Venezuelan coup attempt is dropped from a Vancouver festival

Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Saturday November 22, 2003
The Guardian

An award-winnning documentary about the coup last year that briefly ousted the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, has become the subject of a bitter dispute. Last week, it was withdrawn from an Amnesty International (AI) film festival because Amnesty staff in Caracas said they feared for their safety if it were shown.
The film, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, was made by two Irish film makers, Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain. They were preparing a documentary about Mr Chavez, with his cooperation, before the coup and were inside the presidential palace in April 2002 when the events unfolded.

The film has since been shown on television by the BBC, by RTE in Ireland, and elsewhere in Europe. This week it won two prizes at the Grierson documentary awards in Britain.
Mr Chavez was briefly removed from office by a military coup but returned to power after 48 hours. The political situation was then, and remains, highly polarised. The president as portrayed by his opponents is a dangerous, anti-US communist, while Chavez supporters see the opposition as the privileged seeking to preserve their powers from the underprivileged.

The film portrays Mr Chavez in a sympathetic light. It was shown on the public television channel in Venezuela earlier this year. The private television channels are all opposed to Mr Chavez.

Last week, the film was due to be shown at the AI film festival in Vancouver. The organising committee came under pressure from Chavez opponents in Venezuela and eventually decided not to show it.

John Tackaberry of AI said yesterday that the decision had been taken only after Amnesty staff in Venezuela had said that, if it were shown, it would present "some degree of threat to their physical safety".
(snip/...)

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:V-xmNhATyvEJ:www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,12716,1090788,00.html+Chavez+Film+Puts+Staff+at+Risk,+Says+Amnesty&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This stunned many people when it was revealed. Very bad form on the part of the Venezuelan opposition. Makes you completely aware there is something in the film they just don't want people to see, as in EVERYTHING.

[Judi Lynn]

111. You might want to look at the body of this petition people signed protesting Amnesty's

decision to scuttle the screening of the documentary after they were threatened by Venezuelan opposition forces. They deliberately smothered the information contained in the film:

The film is presently being screened at film festivals and theaters around
>the world. It has provided insight into a historical event with exclusive
>footage that reveals details of this unconstitutional and undemocratic
>overthrow of an elected-leader that were previously omitted by the
>international mass media. As protectors and defenders of international
>human rights, we strongly believe this film is poignant evidence of human
>rights violations carried out by the coup leaders. By allowing the
>international public to view this documentary account of the events of
>April 2002, the audience is able to bear witness to these inexcusable acts
>and arrive at their own conclusions.
>
>We find it unacceptable that Amnesty International, a worldwide
>organization campaigning for internationally recognized human rights,
>would bow down to pressure from groups opposing the film’s subject matter
>and therefore remove it from its upcoming festival in British Columbia.
>Amnesty International has decided to eliminate the film from their
>upcoming festival based on two reasons: 1) Amnesty International claims
>the film’s subject matter does not address human rights issues; and 2)
>Amnesty International believes that screening the film would further
>polarize the Venezuelan people and potentially create more violence within
>Venezuela.
>
>These reasons are without justification. Firs t of all, the film
>specifically documents the above-mentioned human rights abuses as a result
>of opposition forces carrying out an illegal coup d’etat, dismantling
>democratic institutions and imposing a blackout on information so facts
>would not be revealed to either the Venezuelan people or the international
>community. Additionally, Amnesty International independently selected the
>film as a part of its festival in Canada. Therefore, the organization must
>have believed the film’s subject matter was in line with the festival
>theme. It was only upon receipt of a petition from opposition forces in
>Venezuela and their international counterparts that Amnesty decided to
>remove the film from the festival schedule. Finally, since the film is
>currently showing in theaters around the world, its viewing at a festival
>in Vancouver, Canada would no more affect internal Venezuelan politics
>than any other screening.
>
>Amnesty International claims to work in pursuit of universal protection
>and recognition of human rights and to maintain an independence of any
>government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. Yet, by
>choosing to remove the film from its festival, it is siding with those
>groups opposing its factual content and documentary perspective.
>Furthermore, we view this as an outright case of censorship of this
>important portrayal of historical events central to the theme of human
>rights and believe it is deplorable that an international defender of
>human rights would choose to censor in the face of pressure, rather than
>vehemently protect the paramount right of public access to information. By
>taking this action, Amnesty International is perpetuating the blackout on
>information imposed by the coup leaders in Venezuela during April 2002.
>
>If Amnesty International is truly concerned with the impartial protection
>of human rights, it would follow that screening a film that exposes
>horrific human rights violations would be in line with its mission. We
>therefore urge Amnesty International to reconsider its decision to revoke
>the film, “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised”, from the upcoming
>festival in Vancouver, British Columbia. We also reiterate our profound
>support for this important chronicle of the unjustifiable coup d’etat of
>April 2002 in Venezuela that resulted in innocent lives lost and harmed
>and the deprivation of basic human rights.
>(snip/)

https://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/project-x/2003-November/004825.html

[EFerrari]

112. I bought five copies of this film.

One to keep and four to circulate. Because like most Americans, I hate being LIED to. I detest being fed propaganda. And my loyalty isn't to Chavez but to reality, although I admire Chavez for all he has managed to do for the people while the United States government has actively tried to take him out, just as it has always privileged business over the well being of the people.

Our dirty laundry list in Latin America is really long. We get upset over undocumented workers that come here but ignore the fact that it is our own government that forced them from their homes and north.

I have a huge surprise for the anti "illegal" crowd and the related anti Chavez crowd: Mr. Chavez is solving your problem. He's helping create an economy free of US interference that will allow people to stay home and not come up north, to this hostile, dangerous and exploitative environment.

Unless the CIA takes him out first for defying US corporate interests.

[Judi Lynn]

117. FIVE, you say! Money well spent, of course. Can't think of a more intense, amazing film.

So much is revealed that only a complete idiot could fail to grasp the reality.

It could truly be watched again and again and again, etc., couldn't it? What comes through so beautifully is the unmistakable spirit of the good people in it. That can't be imitated successfully.

It would have been amazing to see it in a theater when it came out originally.

Do you think this country will ever reach the point of maturity from which they finally acknowledge it's fine for people in other countries to have their own governments, political systems, economic systems, religions, cultures, conventions, and that we DON'T have to invade them and slaughter everyone who won't convert to our way of living?

Right now, it doesn't look good, does it? Everyone different is the "enemy," to the fools among us.

As for the "illegal" haters, it's such a shame they know NOTHING about the conditions which set things in motion, and our country's part in any of it. They are abolutely ignorant of why any of this has happened, yet they are convinced they know it all. Doesn't it drive you wild? Such pompous stupidity.

[EFerrari]

118. The thing that's strange to me is this irrational hatred of Chavez

when he's the moving force to halt the migration north. The Mexican government (a gatekeeper) won't -- BushCo helps the right wing there steal elections from the progressives.)

Chavez is fostering democracy in Latin America and he's taking steps to build an economy that will help people stay home.

He's a natural target for BushCO.

[cali]

125. You don't seem to be able to distinguish between

justifiable criticism, not rooted in hate, and hate itself. Yes, I've seen posters here who the latter would describe, but Chavez HAS done some things that are open to question and criticism. And I generally support him. You seem to think he's the second coming and infallible.

[dipsydoodle]

127. Never a truer word spoken

I'd encourage everyone to watch that film.

[LittleClarkie]

169. I bet they hate America and freedom too.

Labeling someone who disagrees with you a hater reminds me entirely too much of what the Republicans do.

[EFerrari]

177. Then you might want to go back and edit your own comments

on this thread.

[Marr]

137. I've yet to see one of his hysterical haters offer anything to back up

their positions. They'll toss out the occasional piece of propaganda, and then just disappear when it's debunked. It's why I rarely bother addressing them anymore. Much like Bush supporters, they have their opinion and they're determined to promote it, no matter what the facts are.

Criticism is fine, and there's plenty to criticize in Venezuela as in any other place. But the vitriolic cries of "dictator" are more than a little pathetic.

[EFerrari]

143. It is, considering especially the state of our own democracy.

I don't know why I allow myself to get so annoyed (and, annoying) over the same responses to the weekly hit pieces. That's just as pathetic. lol

[dailykoff]

108. Remember John Lennon getting barred from the country?

And then getting assassinated? (Oh yeah, Chapman was just another "lone nut"). The thing I like about Chavez is that at least he's honest, not a sneaky troll like certain US presidents and their GOP base.

[cali]

123. You actually believe the US gov't assassinated John Lennon??

The WOW factor in this thread just got raised exponentially.

[dailykoff]

126. Peace is bad for business.

And that's the generous explanation.

[cali]

128. That's not an explanation, and thinking that the gov't assassinated John Lennon

is a strange and ridiculous CT.

[dailykoff]

129. They don't need an explanation.

See Tillman, Pat.

[cali]

130. and neither do you

and nor or all comparison's valid.

[NoPasaran]

142. But Lennon wasn't barred from this country

The government tried to have him deported, but failed.

Ironically, if they had succeeded, he'd probably be alive today.

[EFerrari]

149. That is ironic. What a terrible loss that was. n/t

[dailykoff]

156. "After being denied entry to the U.S., Lennon went to Canada, "

From: "'The U.S. vs. John Lennon': John Lennon and the Politics of Deportation, From Nixon to Bush"
by Jon Wiener
September 12, 2006:

Lennon too was denied a visa when he applied to enter the U.S. in 1969 for his peace campaign--he wanted to hold a "bed-in for peace" in the U.S. along the lines of the bed-in in Amsterdam, where he and Yoko had declared their honeymoon a political protest and spent a week in bed at the Amsterdam Hilton giving interviews about their antiwar stance. After being denied entry to the U.S., Lennon went to Canada, where he hoped to reach the U.S. media across the border. At the second bed-in for peace, in Montreal, he recorded "Give Peace a Chance."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060912_john_lennon_politics_deportation/

Yes, he was eventually admitted, and yes he was eventually whacked.

[LoZoccolo]

140. DOWN WITH CHAVEZ! n/t

[EFerrari]

147. "If we are slaves to an oligarchy, they should be too!"

[Judi Lynn]

152. Their oligarchy is taking payoffs from our oligarchy, and we are footing the bill!

How great is that?





Maria Corina Machado, of Sumate
who was present in the Presidential
Palace during the formalities
of the opposition as it took control
immediately after kidnapping Hugo Chavez.

[EFerrari]

153. Watch out, Maria! You're shaking hands with Mr. Danger!

:rofl:

[Judi Lynn]

160. Poor, poor vulnerable Maria! So delicate, so sweet!

Here's an article you might want to scan when there's time. I was forced to focus on something I haven't noticed, but should have: It's not Hugo Chavez who chooses the Supreme Court, it's the National Assembly.
All the freeps who keep claiming he's packing his court are completely ignorant, but that doesn't slow them down in the slightest. They just make it up!

Good information on Maria Corina Machado here!

~snip~
“’ I’m scared, I’m very scared; I have three kids,’” a sobbing Machado tells Raub.

“These are the words of Maria Corina Machado, the leader of Venezuela’s fight to save its democracy, on the prospect of spending up to 28 years in prison if President Hugo Chavez silences her through a phony trial,” Raub explains.

What in the world is Raub talking about?

Machado isn’t a “leader of Venezuela’s fight to save its democracy?” … Machado was a member of the April 2002 conspiracy to overthrow democracy.

This conspiracy did, in fact, overthrow democracy for two days and the conspirators set up the brutal Pedro Carmona dictatorship which concentrated all powers within itself by the forced dispersal of the legislature and the forced dissolution of supreme court and by the cancellation and trashing of the Venezuelan Constitution.

All of this was done by the decree of one man, Carmona, just hours after he illegally took power from the elected Venezuelan government which he and Machado overthrew. The Carmona dictatorship arrested government ministers and legislators for being governments ministers and legislators.

On April 12, 2002, the dictator Petro Carmona asked 395 of his prominent and influential backers to celebrate the overthrow of democracy at the Miraflores Presidential Palace in Caracas, and to sign a Decree or Manifesto extolling his dictatorship and promising it their support.

Guess who showed up and signed?

None other our Maria Corina Machado, the so-called “leader of Venezuela’s fight to save its democracy,” the person whom the US election-thief and US dictator George W. Bush has appointed and anointed as his mouthpiece and gofer in his ongoing second attempt to overthrow democracy in Venezuela.
(snip/...)

http://www.williambowles.info/venezuela/2005/machado.html

[stimbox]

170. They both smell like sulfur, so it probably doesn't bother her!

[LoZoccolo]

179. Lame. n/t

[EFerrari]

181. I couldn't agree more. n/t

[puffymuffins]

165. Down with Chavez! Replace him with a true democratic leader!

[Tech 9]

178. It's telling, disappointing, sadly unsurprising that

before I can comment on the dialogue here -- and I mean to make a meta-comment -- a disclaimer needs to be made. On this site, a designated haven for Leftists, there is not a strong backbone of support for the anti-imperial, anti-colonial efforts of Venezuela and Iran, in particular.

Somehow, criticism for duly elected leaders within those countries -- leaders whom are very much opposed to and by the western imperialists personified by the United States -- somehow, such criticism is not considered to weaken the movements and struggle going on in those countries. Thus it is fair game to lambaste Chavez and Ahmadinejad and ignore the fact that such fiery rhetoric makes us little more than imperialist running dogs. Yet the perception is that our words cannot bolster imperialism or weaken the people's movements. Nothing could be more profoundly mistaken.

In fact this entire line of reasoning perfectly illustrates WHY the Left in the Western world has descended into the dank doldrums of inconsequentialness from the strategic viewpoint of imperialist powers. In fact, it has instead become a handy device, albeit minor, for the most agressive, reactionary types of muscle-flexing going on in the world today.

There are a pair of underlying beliefs that seem to typify this thinking:

First, that much of what is at issue is a matter of mere willpower. That is, merely by changing the discussion or framing it in a different way -- wanting it hard enough -- somehow the material nature of the struggle and also its very tangible, very immediate implications will be miraculously altered to our liking. This is accompanied by the fervent belief that we have to escape heavy-handed "black and white" thinking foisted on us (by the elite-controlled media for example). A perfect example of this would be "We can be against Chavez AND still be against imperialism!" vs the artificial paradigm of "Leftists are for Chavez/socialism, Conservatives for imperialist hegemony".

Secondly, there is the odd notion that what we do is disembodied from what really happens in these conflicts. For instance the oft-recited "We can't stop George Bush from invading Iran if he wants to".

Defeatism heaped on top of philosophical voluntarism.

How much more mistaken could we be?

The greater forces in play -- political, social, economic all at once -- the players and their vested interests, the disputes between powers, are not likely to bow to our collective desires based only on us voicing exactly what it is we want. Shouting our opinions to the rafters does not in anyway constitute taking a stand.

It is high time to accept that the movement of geo-political forces -- including the battlegrounds the Fight unfolds on -- those are the factors and confluences that establish the rules of engagement. Said factors change at a glacially slow speed but remain the undisputed, dominant consideration for the Left, dictating and distorting any operational response.

Specifically this means that we are not free to make any "choices" that we like. Every choice has serious ramifications, even if we are only dimly aware of what those ramifications are or might be. Perhaps it sounds to you like I am saying that we must pick sides. I am. In theory there may be many pointed distinctions to be drawn between righteous sniping at Venezuelan policies and imperialist polemics. But the end result is the same.

We can stand on our soapbox and do all of the moralizing we like, as is our wont. We do so from the lofty heights of the United States -- the Olympian imperial center. But the rules of engagement do not change. We do not have a choice.

It is for this reason that acknowledging the fundamental truths to be what they are, accepting the parameters of conflict as givens -- that is the first step toward proving that they are not immutable. It is a much larger playing field we hope to have an influence on than the limited scope of our current understanding. And it is a difference we CAN effect -- no matter how intransigent conditions around us may seem or how violently political reality may seem to insist otherwise.

From a tactical perspective, we have very little ability to apply pressure. But 'very little' isn't 'none'. The reason this matters is because things happen on the razor's edge. Small, calculated efforts on our part can balloon into momentous and meaningful events in the blink of an eye. But even excepting our ability to affect real, existing societal conditions what we say and what we do are very important; there are consequences. If things can be accomplished on the margin -- and they can -- over time we can accumulate those victories and use them as a foundation for something with more heft.

What it requires is continuous, ongoing, unremitting work on our part, efforts to adapt and conform to social realities must be examined constantly and zealously maintained. Only them will we have the perspective, and the luxury, to critically evaluate the conditions under which we interact with the rest of the world.

[iamthebandfanman]

184. i dont care what hes done for anyone

if he wont allow free speech.


call me old fashioned.