The Information-Disinformation Wars on DU -- The Chavez example

[ConsAreLiars]

Of course, DU is just one small locale where this sort of conflict is taking place, but it is the larger context that helps us understand what is happening here.

I'm sure most DUers understand that the large multinational corporations have long used the power of the US State apparatus and their own resources to promote their interests around the world. The methods are varied, overt and covert, and range from direct military action to economic arm-twisting to propaganda and disinformation operations. (If any are unaware of this history or feel they need more information, just ask. I'm sure the helpful members of this forum can provide some good references for further study.)

And I'm sure that most are aware that these forces have been operating in Latin America, as well as elsewhere, for a very long time, and that the Chavez government has been a particularly prominent target for several years.

The component that most impacts the discussions on DU is, of course, the PR (propaganda) aspect. There are 192 nations in the UN, 20 in Latin America, yet a disproportionate number of posts on DU and stories in the corporate media focus on Chavez and Venezuela. To some extent, this is understandable, since there a very intriguing social revolution taking place there. But the stories that hit the media and DU are, to be charitable, hit pieces on the level of the Swift-Boat Liars, total fictions, or artificially hyped faux outrage like the Edwards haircut or Dean scream crap.

Whatever the criticism, there are obviously far more extreme examples of whatever failing or offense is being alleged against Chavez that deserve people's attention, if those particular "issues" were what motivated people. Obviously, it is the fact that such accusations, whatever their merit, are being used against Chavez that prompts people to join in the campaign against him.

The echo chamber then, wittingly or not, feigns or feels outrage and joins in. Before long, the critics are labeled as Chavez-lovers and the others as Chavez-haters. Not very useful. A lot of clutter and noise. Not much light. Maybe that is the intent of some, or maybe it is just a game. But the noise drowns out the facts.

What gets lost in the noise, is of course, is the usual question in all investigations. Cui bono? Who benefits? That is usually not such a hard question to answer.

But there is one more. One even more significant. This is the core question in all politics. Which side are you on?

[yurbud]

1. the Chavez-bashing is pretty transparently PR work

[alittlelark]

2. It seems that way to me as well

Same posters same stories..... funny how that happens....

[bvar22]

4. Looks the same to me too.

"Chavez is a dictator who shut down the Opposition Media"!!!!

The above statement is demonstrably and categorically untrue, and yet it is repeated endlessly by the same handful of posters in every Chavez thread.

The Democratic Party leadership is also onboard with the Corporate demonizing of Chavez.
I expected better from Kerry, Clinton, and Obama.

[ConsAreLiars]

5. In most cases (my view) their participation is the result of effective propaganda,

rather than because they are acting as conscious collaborators. (Some exceptions, of course.) The US has a long history in which the corporate media has demonized the people, movements, and ideals which threaten their rule, and a lot of people have never questioned that ideology. Like the fundies, in a lot of ways. Acting (or speaking at least) against their own best interests because they have never questioned whether they were the players or the played.

[EFerrari]

30. The US also has a long history of portraying Latin America

as a slow child. As a consequence, it's possible that most Americans are a little more ready to buy into propaganda because they expect "those people" not to manage governance well.

[Richard Steele]

17. Transparent is a word for it. nm

[malaise]

20. Ditto n/t

[LoZoccolo]

107. I'd like to know where I can pick up these checks, then.

[EFerrari]

Me, too. I'm looking for work. n/t

[info being]

3. American Progressives, as a whole...are every bit as influenced...

...by the corporate media as other groups. Most of us are as addicted to junk information as we are addicted to junk food.

[ConsAreLiars]

7. All too true.

It's shown in what we don't talk about. But things are actually getting better again, in my view. In "the old days" we created underground papers, bookstores, printing presses, music, coffee houses and some radio outlets and publishing houses to counter corporate media and put out our agenda and priorities. Many still exist but the domination of the corporate voice has overwhelmed those outlets. Now, again, we are finding new ways to be heard and speak against corporate power and for the people. The net is a key component, but it extends beyond that.

[1932]

12. This is true. I read Larry Tye's biography of Ed Bernays who helped corportations with anti-Arbenz

propaganda.

He got The Nation to print articles in support of a coup in Guatemala.

[yurbud]

26. wow. What's the title of the book?

[1932]

41. The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays and The Birth of Public Relations

http://www.amazon.com/Father-Spin-Edward-Bernays-Relations/dp/0805067892

Here's the reference (p. 168 of the paperback edition):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0805067892/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop/002-6569959-9862463?v=search-inside&keywords=The+Nation+Guatemala&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=Go%21

[Judi Lynn]

42. Thanks for mentioning his name and work. I saw your reference once before,

and failed to make note. Just tore off a moment ago, and bought it before I forgot again. This looks very worth reading. You are driving us all to educate ourselves!

The Guatemala coup in 1954 was when things REALLY started getting nasty.

[1932]

47. It's a good book -- not a great book -- and the chapter on Guatemala is the most interesting.

I would have liked to have read an entire book by Tye on Guatemala.

Hey, if anyone is picking books based on my posts, here's the one I really recommend:

John Kenneth Galbraith: His Life, His Politics, His Economics (Hardcover)
by Richard Parker
http://www.amazon.com/John-Kenneth-Galbraith-Politics-Economics/dp/0374281688

I learned more about 20th century american political history reading this book than any other book I've read in the last two years -- and it's all very relevant to what is happening today. This is the book that lays out the trajectory that we are off of that this country really needs to get back on before it's too late.

[redqueen]

116. Thank you!

Love Galbraith...

[yurbud]

50. I'll probably get that, thanks.

[RainDog]

111. Bernays

He is also featured in the first part of the documentary, The Century of the Self, from Adam Curtis. This doc is available for free online via google and other sources.

[yurbud]

22. No, it just seems like it because even the fairly progressive pols act as if the junk is true

because it fits the business agenda.

Even when the majority don't buy it, as in the Iraq War or not impeaching Bush & Cheney, the pols ignore us because we are not the real constituency they serve.

[Mnemosyne]

6. What kind of fascist pig offers humanitarian aid?

To Americans?

That nasty Hugo!

[Riktor]

9. The kind of fascist pig that...

... brutally suppresses critics of his government.

... removes political impartiality from the judicial process.

... attempts to undermine the legitimacy of human rights workers by accusing them of inciting political turmoil.

... hijacks the media to broadcast propaganda.

Chavez is just another authoritarian asshole. Just because he sticks it to W doesn't make him a saint.

[1932]

13. If you want to go into depth on any of those claims, I'd like to see your facts.

[Riktor]

44. Why Not

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/ven-summary-eng

Amnesty International has a litany of complaints against Hugo.

http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2006/cpi_2006__1/cpi_table

Venezuela's corruption has greatly increased since 2005, with cronies siphoning billions off funding for social programs.

http://www.freemedia.at/cms/ipi/freedom_detail.html?country=/KW0001/KW0002/KW0032/&year=2005

http://www.sipiapa.org/pulications/report_venezuela2005.cfm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/venezu10368.htm

The aforementioned sights detail Chavez's clampdown on free press.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/venezuela0604/

On the destruction of judicial impartiality.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/venezuela/

On the destruction of free speech.

[1932]

48. Posting a link is nice. But it's not an argument and I'm not sure which facts you're citing.

So, if you want to develop this argument, please go ahead.

[Riktor]

53. You asked for facts, did you not?

Alright, I'll have at it.

My argument: Hugo Chavez is far from idyllic, and should not be invulnerable from criticism just because of his stance against Washington.

The aforementioned links are used to support the following criticisms:

1. Chavez has cracked down on freedom of the press, particularly after the 2002 coup attempt. He has consistently utilized a law which allows for the president to halt regular programming and seize the airwaves, "in case of emergency". Chavez does this routinely, for no other purpose than broadcasting his speeches.

2. Chavez's reaction to criticisms from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International was to publicly imply they were plants, sent to Venezuela to foster political unrest, placing these workers in mortal danger.

3. Despite having run on a "no-corruption" platform, the level of corruption in Venezuela exploded between 2005 and 2006. Ironically, all of Chavez's immediate family members are enjoying comfortable administrative positions within his government.

4. Violent crime has likewise exploded. Homicide rates in Caracas have tripled since Chavez took power, and a recent UN report found Venezuela host to the most number of firearm deaths per year.

5. Chavez's economic plans show little forethought, relying heavily on the oil industry. Economic growth rates have risen and fallen proportionately to the price of crude oil. Chavez's programs may be unsustainable should the price of crude oil drop. Furthermore, he has plunged Venezuela into deficit spending, as taxes have only been able to cover 65% of the cost of his programs.


What I see in Chavez-worship is a failure to recognize Chavez for what he is: a politician. Why should he be afforded the credibility most of our own politicians are denied?

I won't deny he has done some good in Venezuela, and, as a democratic socialist, I don't subscribe to the nutty-tendency to automatically assume nefarious intent behind socialist policies. However, the Chavez "Cult of Personality" is hard to overlook, as are his crack downs on freedom of the press, his inability to crack down on violent crime and corruption, and what appears to be a truly half-assed approach to economic reform.

The man's a politician, not a saint, and it is just as disingenuous to jump people for finding fault with his policies as it is to assume his intentions to be purely altruistic.

[1932]

60. Now the claims don't have links to them, but we'll work with that

1. I don't believe Chavez has consistently used the law you think he has used. One station didn't have its license renewed, and I believe the facts supported a pretty good argument for that station losing its license to broadcast on public airwaves, and the programming that now uses those airwaves is providing a real public service. Furthermore, that one station that lost its license is free to broadcast on sat and cable.

2. If you google the HRW rep who does write those pieces about Chavez, I think there's a great argument that can be made that he does have a bias. And if you wonder why anyone from a NGO which gets 90% of its funding from corporate sponsors would be motivated to do that, there's a great book called The Twilight of Equality by Lisa Duggan which makes a good argument for why that we would be the case.

3. Chavez's father is a politican, right? And he's a member of an opposition party, no? And if you think Adan doesn't deserve his job, you haven't seen his resume. I have read about three biographies about Chavez and Adan's background and achievements are almost as impressive as Hugo's. If you want to make an argument about nepotism, you'd at least of to meat the burden of proof that Adan's not competent. And if there was corruption, Chavez's would be preventing his father from getting elected. Also, what do Hugo's kids do? Isn't one a state at home mom who lives out in the country, and another is a high school teacher or something like that?

4. I saw a story that the murder rate has exploded IN THE COUNTRY because landowners are murdering peasants rights activists. Show me the links to your stories and will check the methodology and we'll see what other people are saying about them.

5. That's just a lot of crap. Of course there's no way to prove that anything Hugo is doing now (revitalizing the agriculture industry, which has been ignored since oil was discovered, or starting value-adding industries to build on the country's natural resources, like aluminum) is going to help the economy over the next 100 years, but there's a better argument for that happening then the argument you just made. And you really need to read Richard Gott's book on Venezuela. It's a book length argument against your paragraph.

What I see in your post is a lot of misinformation and a lot of uninformed comment. I'm happy to get into more detail on any of this. So, if you want to match up links and facts to any or all of your numbered paragraphs, let's go.

[Riktor]

65. Look, this really isn't that complicated....

Here, I'll make a flow chart:

I made a statement---> you asked me for facts---> I provided links---> you demanded an argument---> I provided an argument---> you ask for links... again.

The links have already been provided. They are located in the post with the subject line "Why Not". I am sorry I could not compile everything into a nice thesis, it's just I'm a little short on time, with a thesis to write and all.

[1932]

72. You: "I am sorry I could not compile everything into the nice thesis."

That's fine.

But since you're writing a thesis, you probably understand yow to make a compelling argument and how to support it with facts. And you probably understand how that's not the same thing as giving someone a bibliography and then giving them a series of paragraphs that aren't even footnoted.

Which one of those links talks about nepotism, by the way?

And speaking of bibliographies, where else do you get your information about Venezuela besides those couple of websites?

Incidentally, I found the following link, which I think has some interesting things to say about some of the organizations whose websites you are using to support your argument. http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2624. And, hey, it's written by a grad student! And it's footnoted!!

[Judi Lynn]

79. Thanks for posting this article. Looking forward to reading it later this evening.

I think the author has done his homework! Loved this passage spotted in scanning it:

~snip~
.....it is vitally important that progressive NGOs encourage their less progressive counterparts “to get out of the foundation/government networks and go back to organizing and educating their own people in Europe and North America to form socio-political movements that can challenge the dominant regimes and parties that serve the banks and the .”
(snip)

:applause:

[Riktor]

80. Yeah, but...

... I typically don't add footnotes to casual conversations. Besides, I do my posting from a home computer, and I haven't set up my proxy account to my universty's databases yet, so I don't have access to all my resources at present. Believe me, I do find this decidedly inconvenient given how in-depth this conversation is getting. I'll work on it, once I get over this goddamned cold that's keeping me home.

First things first, article on nepotism featured in Le Monde which, naturally, est en français. Je ne me rappelle pas l'hyperlien. Je suis désolé.

As for the link, I found it rather intriguing. However, it aims most of its criticism at the NED and IPYS, which are hardly the only organizations lodging complaints against Chavez's media practices. Furthermore, while the site as a whole seems to support Chavez as president, many of the articles echo the concerns of human rights organizations.

For example,

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2678">Chavez's dealings in Iran.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/551">On Human Rights Watch. While the author seems to believe HRW's criticisms are valid, though he clearly disagrees with their anti-Chavez rhetoric.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2666">On the authoritarianism of the PSUV.

[1932]

90. Thanks for the link to the Le Monde article.

The Chavez relatives (none of them his kids) mentioned were all elected to their offices, except for two of them. As I said, I don't even think his father is liberal. I think he's a member of a conservative party. In a country with the highest satisfiction with their democracy in the western hemisphere, I'm not sure the conclusion you can draw from this evidence is that they got elected due to nepotism.

Of the two who were not elected, one is his brother, who was a university lecturer and has a fascinating story. I'm sure he's qualifed to be Minister of Education. The other is his cousin, who is director of PDVSA, the company he's worked for since graduating from college in '79. The Chavez government didn't clear house at Citgo until after the management-led shut down in '03-'04 (if I remember the year correctly). It looks like Asdrubal Chavez enjoyed a very successful career there even when the management was more 'conservative'. Here's his bio from Citgo's SEC filings:


Asdrúbal Chávez
Director of PDVSA

Asdrúbal Chávez graduated as a Chemical Engineer from Universidad de Los Andes in 1979. He joined the venezuelan oil industry in 1979 at PDVSA’s El Palito refinery, as Startup Engineer for PAEX, the refinery’s major expansion project. He held various positions in areas such as Industrial Services, Distillation and Specialties, Conversion and Treatment, Crude and Products Movement, Programming and Economics, and Process Engineering. In 1989 he was assigned to UOP, in the USA. In 1990 he was named Leader of the Project to expand El Palito’s Crude and Vacuum Distillation units. From 1995 to 1999 he held various supervisory and managerial positions, and in 2000 PDVSA´s Presidency seconded him on a temporary basis to the Ministry of Production and Commerce to assist it, first in the restructuring of the Ministry, and then in the Economic Constituent Process. In 2001 he was assigned to PDVSA’s Bitúmenes del Orinoco (BITOR) subsidiary as Human Resources Manager, and led the team that worked on the restructuring part of the company’s expansion project. In 2002 he was named Assistant to the BITOR Board of Directors, and in January 2003 he was appointed Manager of the El Palito Refinery. In August 2003 he was named Executive Director for Human Resources at PDVSA, and in March of 2004, he was appointed Executive Director for Trading and Supply, having also been leader of the team which negotiated the 2004-2006 Collective Labor Contract. In January 2005 he was appointed Director of PDVSA, responsible for Commerce and Supply and President of PDV Marina and BITOR, PDVSA´s subsidiaries and Director of CITGO Petroleum Corporation, PDVSA affiliate based in Houston, USA.

[Riktor]

93. One minor detail

In a country with the highest satisfiction with their democracy in the western hemisphere, I'm not sure the conclusion you can draw from this evidence is that they got elected due to nepotism.

Could you provide a link to back that up? I'm not saying I disbelieve you, but the last figures I saw (from a 2005 CQ research compendium) suggested at least two thirds of Venezuelans, from multiple sectors, opposed Chavez's leadership.

[ConsAreLiars]

94. When you are unable or unwilling to provide links to your own claims,

it makes you demand for links look petty at best. And when you the go on to make your own (bogus) assertions with no documentation, well, enough said. Good luck with your thesis, maybe if you can you include a few footnotes and references your odds will improve. And maybe a little life experience will get you beyond such childish pre-programmed preconceptions.

As for the recent (March, 2007) polls, from http://www.venezuelasolidarity.org/?q=node/200 :

A breakdown of the population’s perception of the country’s current situation shows that opinions about Venezuela are still sharply divided along class lines. In the country’s upper class—known as “A/B” among Venezuelan demographers—only 38.2% of this group views the country’s situation positively. The perception is progressively more positive, the lower people’s income, so that in the country’s largest and poorest class, known as “E,” 68.9% view the country’s situation positively.

However, when asked how Venezuelans view their personal situation, an overwhelming majority (over 60%) in all classes view it as positive.

While Chavez continues to enjoy high levels of support, opposition parties are the least respected institutions in the country, with only 26.8% of the population viewing them positively. Among the most favorably viewed institutions are the church, at 80%, and private enterprise, between 75 and 88%, depending on the sector.

With regard to the government’s performance in various areas, the most favorable areas were social programs, such as in education, food, and health, with approval ratings of 68.8%, 64.7%, and 64.2% respectively. The government received its lowest score in the area of providing personal security, with a mere 8.4% approval rating.

[Judi Lynn]

101. Excellent link. Thanks a lot. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

95. I've read that finding, as well, quite a while ago. I'll look around to see if I can locate it.

I've even seen it quoted by other posters than 1932, myself included. I posted that article here once.

In the meantime, here is an article from The Nation,which holds forth an only slightly different finding:

The countervailing power of left civil society organizations--many existed before Chávez's ascendance; some were founded afterward--has turned Venezuela into a vibrant democracy and is key to understanding not just the government's survival in the face of a series of formidable antidemocratic assaults but its evolving program, as many of its initiatives come not top-down but from the grassroots. Last December a respected Chilean polling firm found that in Latin America only Uruguayans held a more favorable view of their democracy than Venezuelans.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20071015&s=grandin

[Riktor]

102. Thanks (n/t)

[Judi Lynn]

100. Here's another article, so easily located:"what most people don't get about Venezuela"

Tuesday, May 08, 2007
what most people don't get about Venezuela
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-protest/deepening_revolution_4592.jsp#

The deepening of Venezuela's Bolivarian revolution: why most people don't get it
4 - 5 - 2007
by Julia Buxton

{Julia Buxton is visiting professor at the Centre for Latin American Studies in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. She is also senior research fellow in the department of peace studies, Bradford University. Her work includes The Failure of Political Reform in Venezuela (Ashgate, 2001)}

~snip~
According to Latinobarometro polling, the percentage of Venezuelans satisfied with their political system increased from 32% in 1998 to over 57% and Venezuelans are more politically active than the citizens of any other surveyed country - 47% discuss politics regularly (against a regional average of 26%) while 25% are active in a political party (the regional average is 9%). 56% believe that elections in the country are "clean", (regional average 41%) and along with Uruguayans, Venezuelans express the highest percentage of confidence in elections as the most effective means of promoting change in the country (both 71%, compared to 57% for all of Latin America).
(snip/...)

http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2007/05/what-most-people-dont-get-about.html

[Riktor]

103. Thanks again...

... I also appreciate the Brian Eno reference in the the last link.

Right now, I'm more in the market for primary sources and peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Too many people are throwing news articles to counter news articles, as if one trumps the other by default. Ultimately, neither party is swayed and both parties deride one another as "blind", or "biased", or some other ad hominem. So, I guess I'll have to go through the laborious nightmare of procuring a proxy pass to access scholarly databases from my home.

[1932]

91. Thanks for the link to the Le Monde article.

The Chavez relatives (none of them his kids) mentioned were all elected to their offices, except for two of them. As I said, I don't even think his father is liberal. I think he's a member of a conservative party. In a country with the highest satisfiction with their democracy in the western hemisphere, I'm not sure the conclusion you can draw from this evidence is that they got elected due to nepotism.

Of the two who were not elected, one is his brother, who was a university lecturer and has a fascinating story. I'm sure he's qualifed to be Minister of Education. The other is his cousin, who is director of PDVSA, the company he's worked for since graduating from college in '79. The Chavez government didn't clear house at Citgo until after the management-led shut down in '03-'04 (if I remember the year correctly). It looks like Asdrubal Chavez enjoyed a very successful career there even when the management was more 'conservative'. Here's his bio from Citgo's SEC filings:


Asdrúbal Chávez
Director of PDVSA

Asdrúbal Chávez graduated as a Chemical Engineer from Universidad de Los Andes in 1979. He joined the venezuelan oil industry in 1979 at PDVSA’s El Palito refinery, as Startup Engineer for PAEX, the refinery’s major expansion project. He held various positions in areas such as Industrial Services, Distillation and Specialties, Conversion and Treatment, Crude and Products Movement, Programming and Economics, and Process Engineering. In 1989 he was assigned to UOP, in the USA. In 1990 he was named Leader of the Project to expand El Palito’s Crude and Vacuum Distillation units. From 1995 to 1999 he held various supervisory and managerial positions, and in 2000 PDVSA´s Presidency seconded him on a temporary basis to the Ministry of Production and Commerce to assist it, first in the restructuring of the Ministry, and then in the Economic Constituent Process. In 2001 he was assigned to PDVSA’s Bitúmenes del Orinoco (BITOR) subsidiary as Human Resources Manager, and led the team that worked on the restructuring part of the company’s expansion project. In 2002 he was named Assistant to the BITOR Board of Directors, and in January 2003 he was appointed Manager of the El Palito Refinery. In August 2003 he was named Executive Director for Human Resources at PDVSA, and in March of 2004, he was appointed Executive Director for Trading and Supply, having also been leader of the team which negotiated the 2004-2006 Collective Labor Contract. In January 2005 he was appointed Director of PDVSA, responsible for Commerce and Supply and President of PDV Marina and BITOR, PDVSA´s subsidiaries and Director of CITGO Petroleum Corporation, PDVSA affiliate based in Houston, USA.

[1932]

61. Now the claims don't have links to them, but we'll work with that

1. I don't believe Chavez has consistently used the law you think he has used. One station didn't have its license renewed, and I believe the facts supported a pretty good argument for that station losing its license to broadcast on public airwaves, and the programming that now uses those airwaves is providing a real public service. Furthermore, that one station that lost its license is free to broadcast on sat and cable.

2. If you google the HRW rep who does write those pieces about Chavez, I think there's a great argument that can be made that he does have a bias. And if you wonder why anyone from a NGO which gets 90% of its funding from corporate sponsors would be motivated to do that, there's a great book called The Twilight of Equality by Lisa Duggan which makes a good argument for why that we would be the case.

3. Chavez's father is a politican, right? And he's a member of an opposition party, no? And if you think Adan doesn't deserve his job, you haven't seen his resume. I have read about three biographies about Chavez and Adan's background and achievements are almost as impressive as Hugo's. If you want to make an argument about nepotism, you'd at least of to meat the burden of proof that Adan's not competent. And if there was corruption, Chavez's would be preventing his father from getting elected. Also, what do Hugo's kids do? Isn't one a state at home mom who lives out in the country, and another is a high school teacher or something like that?

4. I saw a story that the murder rate has exploded IN THE COUNTRY because landowners are murdering peasants rights activists. Show me the links to your stories and will check the methodology and we'll see what other people are saying about them.

5. That's just a lot of crap. Of course there's no way to prove that anything Hugo is doing now (revitalizing the agriculture industry, which has been ignored since oil was discovered, or starting value-adding industries to build on the country's natural resources, like aluminum) is going to help the economy over the next 100 years, but there's a better argument for that happening then the argument you just made. And you really need to read Richard Gott's book on Venezuela. It's a book length argument against your paragraph.

What I see in your post is a lot of misinformation and a lot of uninformed comment. I'm happy to get into more detail on any of this. So, if you want to match up links and facts to any or all of your numbered paragraphs, let's go.

[1932]

62. Now the claims don't have links to them, but we'll work with that

1. I don't believe Chavez has consistently used the law you think he has used. One station didn't have its license renewed, and I believe the facts supported a pretty good argument for that station losing its license to broadcast on public airwaves, and the programming that now uses those airwaves is providing a real public service. Furthermore, that one station that lost its license is free to broadcast on sat and cable.

2. If you google the HRW rep who does write those pieces about Chavez, I think there's a great argument that can be made that he does have a bias. And if you wonder why anyone from a NGO which gets 90% of its funding from corporate sponsors would be motivated to do that, there's a great book called The Twilight of Equality by Lisa Duggan which makes a good argument for why that we would be the case.

3. Chavez's father is a politican, right? And he's a member of an opposition party, no? And if you think Adan doesn't deserve his job, you haven't seen his resume. I have read about three biographies about Chavez and Adan's background and achievements are almost as impressive as Hugo's. If you want to make an argument about nepotism, you'd at least of to meat the burden of proof that Adan's not competent. And if there was corruption, Chavez's would be preventing his father from getting elected. Also, what do Hugo's kids do? Isn't one a state at home mom who lives out in the country, and another is a high school teacher or something like that?

4. I saw a story that the murder rate has exploded IN THE COUNTRY because landowners are murdering peasants rights activists. Show me the links to your stories and will check the methodology and we'll see what other people are saying about them.

5. That's just a lot of crap. Of course there's no way to prove that anything Hugo is doing now (revitalizing the agriculture industry, which has been ignored since oil was discovered, or starting value-adding industries to build on the country's natural resources, like aluminum) is going to help the economy over the next 100 years, but there's a better argument for that happening then the argument you just made. And you really need to read Richard Gott's book on Venezuela. It's a book length argument against your paragraph.

What I see in your post is a lot of misinformation and a lot of uninformed comment. I'm happy to get into more detail on any of this. So, if you want to match up links and facts to any or all of your numbered paragraphs, let's go.

[EFerrari]

64. This is really the wrong thread to pull this sh!t -- except

as an illustration of someone tossing propaganda around without a clue.

"Transparency International" hosts such panelists as Paul Wolfowitz. (Now that I've figured out Freedom's Watch, it might be fun to do something on these guys.)

FAIR and leading intellectuals including Nobel prize winners have already weighed in on the RCTV bullshit and you're linking to right wing think tanks. We already know what they "think". Chavez is El Diablo.



The HRW article on the judiciary recommends that Chavez work with the Oas whose own independence is questionable.



The HRW article on the media criticizes BOTH the partisan media and the Chavez government. Did you even read this?

[Riktor]

67. Thanks

I wasn't aware of Transparency International's connection to the RW, so I'll withdrawal that from the debate. I was under the impression there was a nonpartisan organization that ranks countries by corruption (I came across it in my studies of the foreign policy of the former Soviet states), so I must have had it confused with something else. Thank you for pointing that out.

Now, onto your other criticisms:

The HRW article on the judiciary recommends that Chavez work with the Oas whose own independence is questionable.

Whether or not the independence of the OAS is questionable doesn't absolve the complaints lodged by HRW. You're nitpicking a periphery of the main argument as opposed to the main argument itself.

The HRW article on the media criticizes BOTH the partisan media and the Chavez government. Did you even read this?

I'm not taking sides between Chavez's media and the partisan media, merely pointing out his lack of respect for freedom of the press. The article backs this up, regardless of what the partisan media is doing.

[EFerrari]

75. Let's see if we can clear up these two points.

I said: The HRW article on the judiciary recommends that Chavez work with the Oas whose own independence is questionable.

You said: Whether or not the independence of the OAS is questionable doesn't absolve the complaints lodged by HRW. You're nitpicking a periphery of the main argument as opposed to the main argument itself.

It's not the periphery but the heart of the matter. If the criticism is that the judiciary in Venezuela isn't independent enough of the Executive, referring the process to an organization not independent of American corporate interests is not a solution.

To be fair: The OAS seems to be extricating itself a bit from the corporate claw as Latin America continues to move away from the same. It will be interesting to see how successful the OAS is.



I said: The HRW article on the media criticizes BOTH the partisan media and the Chavez government. Did you even read this?

You said: I'm not taking sides between Chavez's media and the partisan media, merely pointing out his lack of respect for freedom of the press. The article backs this up, regardless of what the partisan media is doing.

The press in Venezuela is not free. It is owned and manipulated largely by the same oligarchy that nearly got Chavez killed. That is the context. And, the HRW position, to their credit, acknowledges this context. HRW is every bit as critical of the media as it is of Chavez's handling of the media, which so far has consisted of enforcing laws already on the books.

That being said, the HRW position is a minority position -- even the OAS declined to interfere in the RCTV case.

[Riktor]

76. Alright, I'll run with these

It's not the periphery but the heart of the matter. If the criticism is that the judiciary in Venezuela isn't independent enough of the Executive, referring the process to an organization not independent of American corporate interests is not a solution.

While referring the process to the OAS may not be an appropriate solution, that does not disqualify the assertion Venezuela's judicial system lacks political impartiality. It sounds as if you are saying, "because the suggested solution doesn't appear valid, then the problem doesn't exist", which would be a fallacious conclusion.

Amnesty International also issued a report on human rights in Venezuela in 2005, which can be found http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/ven-summary-eng#3">Here. Their criticisms of the judiciary are similar, and lack any references to the OAS.

The press in Venezuela is not free. It is owned and manipulated largely by the same oligarchy that nearly got Chavez killed. That is the context. And, the HRW position, to their credit, acknowledges this context. HRW is every bit as critical of the media as it is of Chavez's handling of the media, which so far has consisted of enforcing laws already on the books.

Again, I think you're missing the bigger picture. While Chavez's actions are permissible by Venezuelan law, that doesn't morally justify them. Regardless of who controls the Venezuelan press, it is clear Chavez is making no attempt to free it. Rather, he is using "emergency" laws stifle his critics, however wrong they may be, by seizing control of the airwaves through his executive power.

[EFerrari]

77. Okay, let's see. I think the problem in the judiciary and the media

are related, i.e., both were owned by the oligarchy. How to get from that situation to a democratic solution is definitely a challenge the Chavez government and the Venezuelan people face. No doubt about that.

You said: While referring the process to the OAS may not be an appropriate solution, that does not disqualify the assertion Venezuela's judicial system lacks political impartiality. It sounds as if you are saying, "because the suggested solution doesn't appear valid, then the problem doesn't exist", which would be a fallacious conclusion.

To be more clear: there will be a struggle over the judiciary which OAS can't resolve. Venezuela has to do that. And clearly, all the players will attempt to control the Courts or at least, to gain an advantage. But it's untrue that the Chavez government is using extra legal measures to gain the advantage. This will be an ongoing political struggle just as it is everywhere.


You said: Again, I think you're missing the bigger picture. While Chavez's actions are permissible by Venezuelan law, that doesn't morally justify them. Regardless of who controls the Venezuelan press, it is clear Chavez is making no attempt to free it. Rather, he is using "emergency" laws stifle his critics, however wrong they may be, by seizing control of the airwaves through his executive power.

If Chavez is trying to stifle his critics, he's doing a piss poor job. He is not using "emergency laws" that I know of -- have a link for that claim? And, what moral justification do you need to not renew a license of an outlet that is seditious? There is a wide gulf between dissent and sedition, and RCTV obviously crossed that gulf.

The airwaves don't belong to the oligarchy but to the Venezuelan people. Just as ours are supposed to belong to us. The plan, iirc, is to replace RCTV with a PBS type station, to democratize the channel once owned by the oligarchy.

[Riktor]

83. That makes things a bit clearer...

To be more clear: there will be a struggle over the judiciary which OAS can't resolve. Venezuela has to do that. And clearly, all the players will attempt to control the Courts or at least, to gain an advantage. But it's untrue that the Chavez government is using extra legal measures to gain the advantage. This will be an ongoing political struggle just as it is everywhere.

As stated in the 2005 Amnesty International report on Venezuela, the majority of instances of police brutality and human rights violations have undergone no investigation by the Public Prosecutor's Office. If such a position were controlled by the opposition, wouldn't it seem more logical for the PPO to vigorously pursue instances of brutality at the hands of the executive branch?

I believe this is cause for some concern. Either the PPO is sympathetic to Chavez's administration and is deliberately ignoring the actions of the executive branch, or the PPO is opposed to Chavez's administration, and the police and military are not fully under Chavez's influence.

Also disconcerting is Chavez's reaction to these allegations. While the National Assembly promised investigations, Chavez accused human rights workers of deliberately inciting political unrest, which subjected them to harassment and intimidation by police. Specifically, COFAVIC, which has worked for human rights in Venezuela for over fifteen years, was denied police protection after they criticized the administration for not prosecuting instances of brutality and human rights violations which took place during the 1989 confrontation with the opposition.

If Chavez is trying to stifle his critics, he's doing a piss poor job. He is not using "emergency laws" that I know of -- have a link for that claim? And, what moral justification do you need to not renew a license of an outlet that is seditious? There is a wide gulf between dissent and sedition, and RCTV obviously crossed that gulf.

My criticism isn't aimed at the decision to deny RCTV's license renewal.

During the coup of 2002, Chavez utilized an "emergency" law which allowed the executive to halt regular programming in order to air taped speeches from Chavez and various other officials and pro-government programming. These speeches interrupted reports of demonstrations and violent clashes. Those stations that refused to air Chavez's speeches were shut down.

Obviously, this has drawn criticism from free speech advocates, who feel Chavez abused the law by broadcasting pro-government propaganda rather than providing the Venezuelan public with any meaningful information on how the coup was unfolding.

Here's a few links to these allegations (some of them are clearly biased, so bear with me):

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18348.htm - US Department of State

http://www.freemedia.at/cms/ipi/freedom_detail.html?country=/KW0001/KW0002/KW0032/&year=2002 - International Press Institute

http://www.cpj.org/attacks02/americas02/ven.html - Committee to Protect Journalists

Of course we could argue back and fort as to how these sources chose to spin the situation, but it is hardly disputable Chavez exercised his authority over the airwaves during the 2002 coup attempt.

The airwaves don't belong to the oligarchy but to the Venezuelan people. Just as ours are supposed to belong to us. The plan, iirc, is to replace RCTV with a PBS type station, to democratize the channel once owned by the oligarchy.

If that is the plan, then so be it. However, ever the skeptic, I'll believe it when I see it.

With the information present, it appears Chavez prefers an authoritarian path to socialist revolution. He has expanded the powers of the presidency to include ruling on matters of economy and crime by decree and he seems rather opposed to any criticisms aimed against his administration, no matter who is behind them.

If that's your thing, so be it. However, I prefer democratic socialism, having observed the folly of those who attempt to direct socialism from the top-down.

[EFerrari]

84. Ah, during the coup attempt, Chavez was a hostage.

He had no opportunity to screw with programming. So, yes, it is absolutely erroneous to say that Mr. Chavez was directing the airwaves from his off shore location where he was under guard.The documentary made as the coup attempt unfolded records what RCTV did during that time. If you haven't seen it, you should. "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised."

And, the temporary powers that Chavez has been granted were legislated, not grabbed. They have a time limit and are task specific.

[Riktor]

104. Sorry, I misspoke.

The government commandeered the media in the days leading up the 2002 coup, April 8 - April 11, to be precise. Sorry for the confusion.

This has been reported by a number of outlets, including NPR (though I lack a link for that one... I heard the report whilst driving home from work about two years ago). Here's what the State Department has to say:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18348.htm

The law allows the Government to call national broadcasts (cadenas) requiring all broadcast media to pre-empt scheduled programming and transmit the broadcasts in their entirety. Domestic and international observers criticized the Government for excessive abuse of this right. For example, April 8 and 9, the Government aired more than 30 cadenas to block commercial broadcast media reporting on massive opposition demonstrations

Now, whether or not their assessment of the government's motives are accurate (and since there's no way of proving it, there's no point in debating it), the Chavez government did actively engage in commandeering airwaves in the days leading up the 2002 coup. Again, according the State Department, this really only effected Caracas, as stations equipped with satellites broadcast their regular programming to the rest the country, unbeknown to the government.

I will look into that documentary. I've heard good things about it.

And, finally...

And, the temporary powers that Chavez has been granted were legislated, not grabbed. They have a time limit and are task specific.

Again, ever the skeptic, I will believe it when I see it happen. I have already seen Russia take the path of the super-presidency, and it wouldn't surprise me if another leader decided "it's good to be da king". I'm not saying this will happen, just that I won't be surprised if it does.

[EFerrari]

108. Skepticism is healthy. In Venezuela, these temporary

powers have been granted before to other executives so, it's not out of the ordinary in this case. We'll see how he does.

[Riktor]

123. That works for me

I subscribe to the Joe Strummer theory of authority, which stipulates "always assume whoever is in charge is going to screw you." Right, Left, Communist, Fascist, it doesn't really matter to me. If you give some one authoritative power, the potential for abuse drastically increases. This is why I refuse to fall in line behind those who hold him up as idol. Rather than jumping on board now, I'd much rather wait and see how things turn out, provided the US doesn't try to pull another Augusto Pinochet-style debacle.

[EFerrari]

109. Here's a link on the media in Venezuela, btw.

This is the Venezuelan government's site, so you know which way it leans. I've never caught them fabricating, though, and their documentation (footnotes) are good primary sources.

enezuela.com/downloads/RCTV.htm

[WilliamPitt]

98. Yo Riktor

See post 97 below.

:toast:

[sendero]

106. How free and independent..

... is OUR judiciary in the face of the "unitary executive"?

Does Venezula have to be 10% better than us, 50% better or perfect?

If you can't see that almost our entire media is controlled by the right wing and monied interests, and that they have been and are TERRIFIED of a successful socialist-styled state, ESPECIALLY in Latin America, well where have you been?

When I look at the lies the MSM routinely spouts about everything I really know about, I have NO PROBLEM AT ALL believing that most of their pronouncements about Chavez are plain lies.

And FINALLY, why is it ok for the US to engage in "free trade" with a repressive Communist country (who recently by proxy voilently put down another peaceful protest in Myanmar) but to get all outraged at the trifles Chavez is accused of? Here's a hint for you, follow the money.

[WilliamPitt]

97. Yo sf and Riktor

You and Riktor, in my humble o, are giving a clinic on how to debate on DU with wit, wisdom, style, facts, and courtesy.

Thank you both. It's nice to see.

:toast:

[Riktor]

105. Thanks

Thank you for the kind words, though I have to admit half the credit goes to SF for his/her excellent debating skills.

Anonymity and deindividuation are the defining characteristics of the online forum environment. Coincidentally, they are also the two most important factors that influence abusive and cruel behavior (Zimbardo 1971). Believe me, I don't let the condescension get to me because it is enough to send any social psychologist into a sustained gut-laugh.

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

113. LOL! Maybe Zimbardo should take a look at GD.

:rofl:

[Riktor]

124. I don't think he could handle it...

... I mean, if he had to shut down the Prison Experiment after two weeks for "ethical concerns", the GD should really blow his mind.

[EFerrari]

133. The last time I saw him was a few weeks ago.

He was being filmed by BookTv and said, more or less flatly, that we will probably discover that Pat Tillman was killed by his own unit. Very sad but a measure of the man's mettle.

[Riktor]

139. I think that is fairly conclusive

Arguments supporting the fragging of Tillman are fairly well substantiated, and I wouldn't doubt Zimbardo's ability to assess the situation.

If you haven't checked it out already, Zimbardo has a lecture up on iTunes U called "The Lucifer Effect", in which he describes immoral behavior as a product of a faulty social system. He spends quite a bit of time describing the military and how its training facilitates inhumane behavior. It's free, and definitely worth a listen. Zimbardo is truly one of the great psychologists. I'd put him up there with Maslow, Skinner (I don't buy into behaviorism, but his contributions to psychology cannot be understated), and Milgram. What I wouldn't give to have a beer with that man.

[EFerrari]

115. Nice post, Hitler.

lol

[Riktor]

128. Duuuuuuhhhh, TROLLBAIT!!!!!

What other common accusations can we come up with?

Freeper!
Heritage Foundation Stooge!
Troll!

:tinfoilhat:

This place can be truly hilarious at times, can it not?

[EFerrari]

130. Laughing at us now, are you, Pol Pot.

:rofl:

[Riktor]

135. Oh, yeah?

Well...ummmm....errr... you have the fashion sense of Augusto Pinochet, but not quite Muammar al-Gaddafi.



VS.



Heh. I sure showed you...

[Richard Steele]

18. Please see post #1. nm

[Riktor]

46. I did...

... and it was one grammatically incorrect sentence.

Care to expand the argument?

[Richard Steele]

49. I truly doubt I'd be able to help you understand; I cannot awaken someone who's PRETENDING to sleep.

[Riktor]

51. Wonder Prose...

... but ultimately irrelevant. Do you have any rational debate to offer, or are you content to snipe away with haughty condescension?

[Richard Steele]

66. Jesus himself wouldn't waste time with your style of self-touching nonsense. See "Matthew 7:6".

nm

[Riktor]

68. No thanks, I don't read fiction. (nt)

[Richard Steele]

69. That's believable. Your attempts at writing it are VERY demonstrative of your grasp of the genré.

nm

[IsItJustMe]

19. Get off the FAUX for gods sakes.

[Riktor]

45. Ironclad agrument.... curt, concise, and irrelevant

[ConsAreLiars]

63. You realize, I am sure, your post contains nothing of relevance to the original post and in fact

is a perfect example of the kind of professional propagandizing that the OP was trying to draw attention to. The advice to the reader was to look at the larger picture, ask who benefits by the one-sided caricatures and half-truths, and then ask which side they are on. Your position is apparent, and a good case in point. However, it addresses none of the questions or issues I raised.

(edit to fix typo)

[Riktor]

70. On the contrary...

I believe both sides of the Chavez debacle embrace "one-sided caricatures and half-truths", as you put it.

I don't think Chavez is the boogie man Bush makes him out to be, nor do I doubt he has done some good for a number of Venezuelans. However, I don't buy into the cult-of-personality, idol-worship nonsense espoused by his supporters; You can't criticize the man around here without having some nonce pounce on you as if you called his father a pederast.

So, to address your point, I think it fairly obvious both groups, those who support Chavez and those who do not, benefit from highlighting a few of his qualities while ignoring the rest. In typical right wing fashion, the cons will always point out Chavez's socialist platform and his "anti-American" (anyone else sick of that phrase, too?) rhetoric as arguments in and of themselves. Meanwhile, certain members of the left highlight Chavez's opposition on globalization, his litany of social programs, and his criticism of the American right's imperialist policies as heroic.

In many ways, I see Chavez as a kind of Che Guevara for the current generation. Like Che, he's either loathed or loved, and rarely evaluated from a neutral standpoint. Like Che, he's done a few good things and a few questionable things, and, the good things he has done are overlooked by his detractors, while the questionable things he has done are overlooked by his supporters.

[ConsAreLiars]

92. I assume you haven't read my comments in post #21,

or you feel so gratified by setting up bogus strawmen and then attacking these imaginary foes that the facts don't really matter. That the whole set of facts or larger context don't matter to you as a partisan -- that is a problem.

Again, which side do you think you are you on, and why? What is at stake? Is the framing of the conflict through which see your participation a valid one? Or are you being misled? Who benefits?

[Riktor]

99. Your premise is fallacious

I'm not making strawmen, I'm pointing out your argument is a textbook example of an excluded middle.

What side do I think I am on? None of the above.

Why? Because "taking sides" is indicative of the subconscious desire to compartmentalize information into a secure world view, and because the scope of information reality presents is far too complex to fit into prescribed boundaries. To suggest otherwise is delusional.

What is at stake? Nothing at all. As cultural relatively succinctly states, "different strokes for different folks". If the leader is democratically elected, it is outside ethical confines to either support him or seek his downfall. Venezuela has the right to self-determination, and they don't need me, or you, telling them what to do.

Is the framing of the conflict through which see your participation a valid one? Seeing as that I am a non-participant, I would have to reply in the positive.

Or are you being misled? Or are you? Nothing can be proven with 100% certainty, and each man's perception of reality is unique. Your question assumes there is a knowable "truth", and is therefore loaded.

Who benefits? Nobody. My personal opinions of Chavez are rendered irrelevant by my adherence to the premises of cultural relativity. In which case, no one benefits, or is in any way effected by my point of view. How people choose to run their country is their business, regardless of how I may feel about it. At the end of the day, I don't live in Venezuela, and it is therefore not my place, or anyone's place for that matter, to dictate how they should govern themselves.

[EFerrari]

112. I'm going to fuss with your conclusion that nobody benefits.

Our illegal immigration mess is directly related to the disruption of democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean by our government shoulder to shoulder with corporate interests. I believe it is true that we have more undocumented workers here from the countries that we have messed with most -- Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and poor Haiti.

So, we do benefit in a material way from the real spread of democracy in Latin America while BushCo et all do not. They make money sacking those countries and they save money in low wages when those populations are pushed north.

And if Blackwater gets that facility down your way in Potrero and gets a contract guarding the border, they'll make money managing the catastrophe they themselves created. Pretty smart business model, disaster capitalism.

John Pilger makes amazing documentaries that are largely suppressed in the United States. His last one is "The War on Democracy" and it's about this topic. It is available for viewing on line now.

[Riktor]

126. That's more like it, I'll take shot at this

Our illegal immigration mess is directly related to the disruption of democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean by our government shoulder to shoulder with corporate interests. I believe it is true that we have more undocumented workers here from the countries that we have messed with most -- Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and poor Haiti.

That is precisely the case, although you forgot Cuba and Nicaragua. The same goes for former colonies, like the Philippines.

So, we do benefit in a material way from the real spread of democracy in Latin America while BushCo et all do not. They make money sacking those countries and they save money in low wages when those populations are pushed north.

Alright, allow me to clarify this.

When you asked, "Who benefits?", I assumed the question to mean "Who benefits from your point of view?". Obviously, if my point of view was, "Chavez is a dictator and needs to be deposed", it would lend credibility to the Bush Administration's position, which ultimately attempts to recreate the status quo of the past century or so; American oppression and exploitation of Latin America.

However, my point of view is that the Venezuelans have the right to self-determination regardless of what I think of Chavez's style of governance. If what you say is true, and I am willing to believe it is, Venezuelans are happy with their government, so it would be unethical of me to lecture them on American Democracy (which barely works anyhow), or how what I believe to be the perfect society.

I believe this position to be neutral. While Chavez's picture won't be hanging on my wall next to Einstein's and Gandhi's, there is no way in hell I would comply with any US attempt to interfere in Venezuela, or any other nation for that matter, for its own economic interests.

Anyhow, if I misunderstood the question, I apologize.

And if Blackwater gets that facility down your way in Potrero and gets a contract guarding the border, they'll make money managing the catastrophe they themselves created. Pretty smart business model, disaster capitalism.

Wow. I didn't hear about this one. I'd like to read about it, do you have a link?

John Pilger makes amazing documentaries that are largely suppressed in the United States. His last one is "The War on Democracy" and it's about this topic. It is available for viewing on line now.

I have seen segments of some of his documentaries in a class I took on Revolutions and Social Movements. It's pretty invaluable stuff.

The professor was really good, too. Jim DeFronzo, I believe his name was. Before I left with my undergraduate degree, he had been forced to stop teaching the course because of "consistently low test grades", though other professors had indicated the university had received complaints that DeFronzo's course was highly critical of US policy in Latin America.... which it was, but not unjustifiably.

[EFerrari]

127. I did forget Cuba, Nicaragua and the Phillipines. Long list.

Link to the Pilger film:

http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1119458605&fr=yfp-t-303-s

A link to the Blackwater Potrero project:

http://www.sdreader.com/php/cityshow.php?id=1566

/oops

[Riktor]

129. Far too long a list, in my opinion...

Thanks for those links.

That Blackwater deal is nuts, but considering the strong Republican sentiments here in San Diego County, they'll probably land the deal.

[EFerrari]

131. I'm afraid the money will win. But, the upside is San Diego

is in commuting distance for a lot of people who have their number.

And, links are my pleasure. Someone gave them to me. :)

[Riktor]

136. One thing I have learned...

... since moving here is the term "commuting distance" is relative. When I lived on the East Coast, acceptable "commuting distance" is like, half an hour to 45 minutes worth of driving. Along the 5, the 8, and the 805, it could take you that long to go ten miles. I'm still adjusting to California drivers... doesn't anyone use turning signals in this state?

[EFerrari]

137. No, they don't. And as Bob Hope said, we get our licenses

in the mail. lol

[WilliamPitt]

96. ...and feeds children with food bought by oil money that once belonged to rich folks.

That's against the rules.

[yurbud]

24. indeed. trying to buy friends. If only our pols tried to buy us off the same way...

[RufusTFirefly]

8. I'm a Chavez admirer, but something still worries me...

American attacks on truly democratic leaders as oppressive dictators have a strange way of becoming self-fulfilling. Here's why: The steady infiltration and corruption of the government by CIA et al has a way of making even the most fair minded leader grow paranoid. The temptation to crack down on these traitors is understandable but all too easy to condemn out of context. In the mean time, continued outside threats often force besieged leaders to shift money away from the social programs that made them popular in the first place and into efforts to defend against outside interference. The corresponding alienation from the masses is all too understandable.

Poor Mossadegh in Iran made a huge mistake in allowing protesters to stir up trouble in the streets of Tehran, even though he fully realized they weren't homegrown opposition, but instead were being funded by the U.S. and Britain. Had he cracked down on them as the traitors they were, he would've been damned as anti-democratic. Instead, as a man who believed in the ideals of the U.S. Constitution more passionately than the Americans who were plotting his overthrow, he continued to let the bankrolled dissenters march in the streets. As a result of his faith in democratic ideals, Mossadegh left himself utterly vulnerable to imperialist overthrow. Within days the skittish Shah was back in power -- operating with a brutal secret police that had been specially trained by Americans -- and Mossadegh was gone.

It takes a very special kind of leader to stand up to the strain of these outside pressures and still maintain the ideals that got him elected in the first place.

I'm not a Believer, but I hope that someone or something grants Hugo the strength he will require.

[lostnfound]

11. Idealists have a hard time holding on to power. nt

[EFerrari]

28. You raise a very important point and if the Chavez government

goes wrong, it could well be because of this dynamic. For the sake of the people of Venezuela, I hope it doesn't.

[me b zola]

71. Yours is probably the best--and most reasoned--post that I have read re Chavez

:thumbsup:

[Selatius]

10. For the record, I think Chavez' social programs are needed, but I don't feel he is above...

criticism. The process that was laid down as far as renewal of broadcast licenses, for instance, I think it's flawed and that there should've been a mechanism of public review such as a trial mechanism or an open hearings mechanism. As it stands, the laws written left it up to the total discretion of the executive branch.

That aside, I generally find that much of the criticism hurled at Chavez comes with a bunch of distortions included as well, so it makes it difficult to separate out fair criticism from the rest. I can see that it would simply be easier to lump the fair criticism and the propaganda together and excuse it as a bunch of musings from corporatists rather than spend the time to try to separate the truth from the crap, but the truth demands stricter standards than that.

I don't mind a little socialism added into the economy. Frankly, I think the world could use a bit more socialism added into the economy than currently exists. It'll make life easier for everyone, but that can only come if the people who run the world recognize that the needs of others must be balanced against their own want of material gain. Many, frankly, don't want such a balance; they want their pursuit of material gain to be superior to the needs of others.

[EFerrari]

14. The problem is that on those threads, it is the people who have an interest

in Latin America that generally take the time to try to sort out the truth from the cr@p.

And that's a valuable exercise because it not only clears up the media distortions regarding Chavez but teaches us something about the underhanded tactics that the corporatists use ON US, too -- like the fake grassroots groups, the planted demonstrators, the propaganda presented as hard news.

[ConsAreLiars]

21. Although some try to frame the "criticism" as an attempt to inform some imaginary true believers

that is obviously not true. No one other than an obvious troll would ever argue that any political figure is perfect or that Chavez is some kind of deity.

So the purpose of the criticisms is not to defeat the straw man they have created, but is in fact a simple matter of taking sides against Chavez and the social transformation of Venezuela that is taking place.

Why people take the the side they take depends in part on how they understand the world and the nature of the conflict they are participating in. This is why the media try to frame such discussions in abstractions using emotionally loaded words like "freedom and democracy" to characterize the extension and defense of corporate domination in the middle east and elsewhere.

[EFerrari]

29. BushCo is now using Chavez fear more broadly -- to derail

the democratizing wave flowing over Latin America, imo. Last week, we caught someone from a RW "think tank" using Chavez to tar a left learning candidate in Paraguay.

For me, this context is bigger than Mr. Chavez, although I admit to getting a kick out of how he taunts BushCo.

[IsItJustMe]

15. I also see the light on this issue. A pitty most of the heard buy into the msm propaganda blitz,

and yes, here too.

[Sparkly]

16. How do you discredit accounts and opinions that say it's you who've bought a myth?

For example:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/francisco_rodrguez/2007/01/francisco_rodriguez_on_chavez.html

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3685

[yurbud]

23. as OP said, CONTEXT. What's going on in rest of world? What are critics doing on same issues?

For example, righties have criticized Chavez for using oil wealth to give discounted heating oil to poor people in the US, saying Chavez should take care of social problems at home. However, if Chavez was overthrown or chose to submit to IMF program, whatever social spending was going on would be cut. Likewise, they criticize him for taking away the broadcast license of a network that openly admitted PARTICIPATING IN A COUP against Chavez. The network can still broadcast on cable and satellite. By contrast, Dan Rather was chased off the air for merely airing a story critical of Bush's military service. And so on.

[EFerrari]

27. Context is important, granted. But there is a big effort to muster

winger "intellectuals" into print. Once you become familiar with their rhetoric, you can pretty much count on tracking them back to AEI, The Heritage Foundation and their spawn. See below.

[yurbud]

31. I totally agree. I was providing an additional check

[EFerrari]

32. And, rightfully so. We're gaslighted 24/7, every reminder helps.

It's been sort of fascinating watching how Chavez is trashed just as Gore was, as Dean was, as Kerry was.

Our adversaries have a limited quiver. But, they use it to maximum effect.

[yurbud]

34. in THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED, the TV network put up pics of Chavez & Osama

photoshopped obviously, and used their usual personal smears including saying he was crazy. It was literally like watching Fox in Spanish--same script, different language.

[EFerrari]

35. That's a great description: Fox News in Spanish.

And, we probably paid for it.

[Judi Lynn]

82. I'm sure you're right! Remember, while Nixon was setting up Allende

to be destroyed, he had our CIA funnel MILLIONS to the large Chilean newspaper, El Mercurio, to lay the groudwork, pumping out daily poison to mold public perception in favor of a right-wing coup. There's a ton available on it which would make your hair stand on end.

We certainly are the ones who paid for it, or our parents, and grandparents. TONS of money. That's one example of publicly known use of foreign press to destabilize a democratically, popular leader. Another benefit of writing the stories and having them published in another country is the ability, then, to quote these stories (manufactured here, actually) as originating in that country. Sweet deal for the right-wing buttinskys here, isn't it?

[EFerrari]

117. And now they're doing the same thing here and to us

as we saw with the White House leak to the NYTs regarding Saddam's fictional WMD -- that DeadEye Dick and the rest of the Vampires all quoted on the talk shows the weekend it came out. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

25. By considering the source. Here's the sourcewatch listing

for the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Foreign_Policy_Research_Institute

[Judi Lynn]

43. Thanks for the link! It reminded me that someone on the anti-Latin American unity team openly

admitted once in one of his posts (I can't remember who this guy is, or if he still posts here) that he works for a think tank. He was very shrewd, so it's very likely he's still knocking around.

At the link you posted, it's written: The FPRI is an ends focused think tank.

Great, huh? When have any of these monsters been otherwise, anyway? In utero? Maybe that's why they're all so sentimental about embryonic life. It reminds them of their lost innocence, which, unfortunately, was at the preconscious stage.

[EFerrari]

55. I don't know about in utero, Judi Lynn.

:rofl:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. 　For one thing, the U.S. government has a pattern of trying to discredit

anyone who works for true reform (as in upsetting their basically feudal systems of agriculture or providing schooling and health care for the poor) in Latin America.

In my lifetime I've seen the harassment and/or overthrow of

1. Joao Goulart in Brazil (1964), replaced by nearly twenty years of military dictatorship

2. Salvador Allende in Chile (1973) replaced by Augusto Pinochet for nearly 30 years

3. The Sandinistas in Nicaragua (early 1980s)--We now know what leftists suspected the whole time, that many if not most of the charges against them were fabricated by the neocons

4. The invasion of Grenada after the overthrow of Maurice Bishop, whom the Reagan administration had harassed mercilessly (1983).

I was alive at the time the CIA overthrew the Arbenz government in Guatemala, but too young to remember.

It is also possible that relations with Cuba could have turned out differently.

So when I hear the U.S. press uniting against a Latin American leader, I get strong feelings of deja vu.

[EFerrari]

36. Didn't Castro come here for help before he turned to the Soviet?

And, my understanding is, he refused to turn over Cuba's resources to American corporations which is why he incurred American wrath. Is that roughly right?

As far as Nicaragua goes, when the whole story of the "Contra War" comes out, well, we don't want it to come out any more than we want to know the true story of what the Reagan government did to the people of El Salvador or of Honduras and Guatemala.

[killbotfactory]

37. Yes, Fidel met Nixon when he visited Washington DC.

Nixon basically dismissed him as a commie and started planning his overthrow.

[EFerrari]

38. This would have had to be 'way before Tricky Dick. n/t

[EFerrari]

39. It was in 1959 -- from the Wiki entry, all caveats apply:

n February Miró suddenly resigned and on February 16, 1959, Castro was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba.<1>

Friction with the U.S. developed as the new government began expropriating property owned by major U.S. corporations (United Fruit in particular) and announced plans to base the compensation on the artificially low property valuations that the companies themselves had kept to a fraction of their true value so that their taxes would be negligible.<47>

Between April 15 and April 26, Castro and a delegation of industrial and international representatives visited the U.S. as guests of the Press Club. Castro hired one of the best public relations firms in the United States for a charm offensive visit by Castro and his recently initiated government. Castro answered impertinent questions jokingly and ate hotdogs and hamburgers. His rumpled fatigues and scruffy beard cut a popular figure easily promoted as an authentic hero.<49> He was refused a meeting with President Eisenhower. After his visit to the United States, he would go on to join forces with the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev.<46>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro#Years_in_power

[YankmeCrankme]

52. This is one of the things that sticks in our (corporate America) craw

"Friction with the U.S. developed as the new government began expropriating property owned by major U.S. corporations (United Fruit in particular) and announced plans to base the compensation on the artificially low property valuations that the companies themselves had kept to a fraction of their true value so that their taxes would be negligible."

Hoisted by their own petard. It was okay to fleece the people of Cuba of the rightful taxes due them, but when on the receiving end of their own scheme they cried "foul". lol

[EFerrari]

54. That's right. And, we've made them pay ever since for what they did

to UNITED FRUIT.

[killbotfactory]

73. It was when Nixon was VP under Eisenhower.

http://every-picture.blogspot.com/2006/05/castro-and-nixon.html

[EFerrari]

89. Got it! Thank you. My frames got sideways. n/t

[Chimpy McCokespoon]

81. Don't for get Gautemala '54 - Arbenz regime toppled by CIA

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/index.html

Arbenz was elected President of Guatemala in 1950 to continue a process of socio- economic reforms that the CIA disdainfully refers to in its memoranda as "an intensely nationalistic program of progress colored by the touchy, anti-foreign inferiority complex of the 'Banana Republic.'" The first CIA effort to overthrow the Guatemalan president--a CIA collaboration with Nicaraguan dictator Anastacio Somoza to support a disgruntled general named Carlos Castillo Armas and codenamed Operation PBFORTUNE--was authorized by President Truman in 1952. As early as February of that year, CIA Headquarters began generating memos with subject titles such as "Guatemalan Communist Personel to be disposed of during Military Operations," outlining categories of persons to be neutralized "through Executive Action"--murder--or through imprisonment and exile. The "A" list of those to be assassinated contained 58 names--all of which the CIA has excised from the declassified documents.

[Judi Lynn]

85. Thanks so much for posting these, Chimpy McCokespoon, So glad to see this link.

Welcome to D.U.! :hi: :hi: :hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

88. I didn't forget it, but I was too young to remember it

:-)

[ConsAreLiars]

40. First, assume everything you read is both partisan and incomplete.

Because it is. So read a range of things.

Then evaluate the sources. Who do you trust? Who does the writer work for or with? Does s/he or the backers have an economic stake in spinning the story? Are there facts presented, and if so are those facts both true and highly relevant to the case being argued? Who benefits if you are persuaded? What is at stake in the larger picture?

The link sfexpat2000 provided is a good starting point for some of that research.

[EFerrari]

56. Sometimes, one can eyeball the layout of an aritcle and get a sense

of which way the piece leans.

This is how the Foreign Policy Institute piece is built:

The headline: Why Chavez wins (That's pretty neutral, isn't it? No tip off there.)

The subtitle: Anti-American autocrat Hugo Chávez was sworn in for a third term as Venezuelan president after promising to nationalize "strategic" sectors of the economy and bring "21st Century Socialism" to the masses. But his appeal among Venezuela’s poor is based on a lie. A new analysis of his government’s own statistics finds that his policies don’t actually help them.

(Okay, whoa Nelly, that's not neutral and more, not scholarly. No academic I've ever known would have the aim of crassly calling someone a liar outright -- they'd show it instead. If you have a good argument, you don't need to name call.

And more, these claims are really broad. They are more than can be proven in the space of the article -- whether true or not. At this point, your sensors should be on alert.)

[ConsAreLiars]

57. Quite right, but it is an acquired skill.

Sparkly posed the question as someone who has difficulty recognizing propaganda for what it is. Your bolded bits are familiar indicators to some of us, but Learning how Power works its will through media operations and such takes a bit of effort.

It is not standard high school fare, and the major media will only drop a hint or two, recognizable only if you already know how things work and know how the game is being run.
And their (media and schools) overall "meta" message is that the officials running the US government are "the good guys," just with different views on how to do good in the world for benefit of the people.

[EFerrari]

58. It is an acquired skill but not that hard to learn.

It's just recognizing patterns.

- Check the title and subtitle for words that are too positive or too negative.

- Check the first and last paragraph for the same.

- Figure out what the main message is, either in the first or last paragraph: If it's "Chavez is a dictator" or "Chavez will save the Western Hemisphere" and the article is two pages long, the author is cheating because such a huge claim would need a whole book or two to prove.

- See if you can figure out whose side the author is on. Do they publish at truthout or at The Heritage Foundation? What else have they written? Who the author is and what the venue is can tip you off, too.

Maybe other people can add or refine this.

[ConsAreLiars]

59. The wikipedia article on propaganda is well worth reading.

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

Another aspect, rather than just seeing the techniques, is identifying the class interests that are involved when the larger picture are examined, rather than just the details of a specific piece.

[1932]

74. Speaking of propaganda, here's an interesting analysis of RCTV licensing coverage

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070613_chavez_and_rctv.php

[Judi Lynn]

78. It's always so sad when the people attempting to resurrect U.S. control of Latin American countries

flatly refuse to read the evidence. I've read your article before, and believe every word of it is completely helpful, and illuminating. From the article:

In a rare example of media honesty, the Los Angeles Times reported last month that RCTV had initially been focused on providing entertainment:

“But after Chavez was elected president in 1998, RCTV shifted to another endeavour: ousting a democratically elected leader from office.” (Bart Jones, ‘Hugo Chavez versus RCTV - Venezuela's oldest private TV network played a major role in a failed 2002 coup,’ Los Angeles Times, May 30, 2007; http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe- jones30may30,1,5553603.story?ctrack=1&cset=true)

Controlled by members of the country's ruling elite, including station chief Marcel Granier, the channel saw Chavez’s "Bolivarian Revolution" in defence of Venezuela's poor as a threat to established privilege and wealth.

Thus, for two days before the April 11, 2002 coup, RCTV cancelled regular programming and instead ran constant coverage of a general strike aimed at ousting Chavez. A stream of commentators delivered fierce criticism of the president with no response allowed from the government. RCTV also ran non-stop adverts encouraging people to attend an April 11 march aimed at toppling the government and broadcast blanket coverage of the event. When the march ended in violence, RCTV ran manipulated video footage falsely blaming Chavez supporters for the many deaths and injuries.

On the same day, RCTV allowed leading coup plotter Carlos Ortega to call for demonstrators to march on the presidential palace. After the overthrow appeared to have succeeded, another coup leader, Vice-Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez, told a journalist: "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you." Another grateful leader remarked: "I must thank Venevisión and RCTV." (Fair, op. cit)

RCTV news director Andres Izarra later testified at National Assembly hearings on the coup attempt that he had received clear orders from superiors at the station:

"Zero pro-Chavez, nothing related to Chavez or his supporters... The idea was to create a climate of transition and to start to promote the dawn of a new country." (Bart Jones, op. cit)

While the streets of Caracas erupted with public outrage against the coup, RCTV turned a blind eye and showed soap operas, cartoons and old movies instead.

On April 13, 2002, RCTV’s Marcel Granier and other media moguls met in the Miraflores palace to offer their support to the country's new dictator, Pedro Carmona who, at a stroke, demolished Venezuela’s democratic institutions - eliminating the Supreme Court, the National Assembly and the Constitution.

Finally, when Chávez returned to power (April 13, 2002), the commercial stations again refused to cover the news.
(snip/...)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's good to point out that in the last election, Hugo Chavez was refused the right to buy spots for his re-election, while every effort was made to give wide coverage to the opponent. How profoundly dirty is THAT? Did we hear one squeak about it from our own corporate media sources? Of course not. No yammering about the astonishing dirty underhandedness of it all whatsoever.

In other words, what filth can be employed by the right-wing is ALWAYS appropriate, and above criticism and is strictly condoned by our own right-wing controlled corporate journalists, and the corporate controlled wire services.
As soon as they can manage it, ALL information other than that allowed here by our own corporate interests will be a curious, almost familiar memory, relegated to the remote past, if something BIG doesn't happen soon.

[KoKo]

86. There so much I like about Chavez backing away from being an American Govt. Puppet

and so far not able to be "taken out" or "manipulated" by our American South American interventions that I'm hardly a good person to post. Because, I fall into the Chavez supporters categories.

I've been around awhile and seen what our US interests have done to South America and Haiti, Carribean and Guatemala and the rest.

I think that the Chavez Revolution in South America might be hope for change that the Neo-Cons claws have to retract from there because their WHOLE INTEREST is focused on the Middle East...from whence comes their REAL POWER that they had to make SA go to the "back burner" for awhile. Their "Blackwater Forces" are strung to think in Bush's Middle East Remaking for his Saudi Interests....so South America is on "wait and hold." Of course our CIA is busy in Columbia, Peru and Paraquay where the Bushies and their cronies are buying up land for "water rights and ranches" for their future exile away from their War Crimes. :eyes:

[EFerrari]

87. Paraguay seems to be fighting back because the RW outlets

are letting loose on the left leaning candidate.

Go, Paraguay! :bounce:

[RainDog]

110. the Chavez coup was a major turning point for me

I read Greg Palast in Jan or so of 2001. He said a coup was in the works so I was looking for this to see if he was a reliable source (actually, I already believed he was a reliable source so I was just looking for it.) In April, sure enough, the NYTimes had a front pager about the coup. Fleischer was welcoming the new govt of Ven. and I had that sick feeling, the one I got when I found out about the nuns who were murdered in the name of "freedom fighters" under Reagan -- led by the same group in power now.

When the coup was undone, the NYTimes buried the story in the back of the A section.

Too many Americans don't know that Bush, et al have tried to assassinate Chavez and maybe that might be one reason he makes his strange statements about Bush.

The good thing for South America now is that the U.S. is so bogged down in the Middle East that they aren't as strong on interferring with govts in the nations in S.Am. This might even be seen as the continuation of the course South and Central American nations have been on that was temporarily hindered by U.S. interference earlier.

The U.S. has no right and no business interferring with Venzuela's political course. I don't idolize Chavez at all, but he and Evo Morales are offering something to the region that people there haven't seen in a long time.

The scare factor in the U.S. has everything to do with oil and biz profits and nothing to do with giving a crap about the people of Venuzuela.

Google has The Revolution Will Not be Televised, from the Chavez govt pov, and there's also a response from the oligarchs side. Good to see both, imo. I think Chavez has more justification than they do.

[redqueen]

114. Thank you! "Which side are you on?"

Aww, you reminded me of the time when this country saw a strong & growing workers' rights movement. *sigh* Love it!

[redqueen]

118. Wow.. surprised at how little response this has

from those who seem to enjoy insulting & smearing anyone who defends Chavez in those ubiquitous hit pieces.

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

119. ConsAreLiars did a great job with this thread.

:)

[redqueen]

120. So did you!

:applause:

[EFerrari]

121. But he set the tone, which was thoughtful.

It really is more fun to figure stuff out than to cap people like so many wack-a-moles.

:hi:

:

[ConsAreLiars]

140. Thanks. I wanted to do something to counter the noise machine. But I agree with redqueen that your

posts were critical in keeping this thread from degrading. My visceral reaction to seeing the standard disinformation repeated is to assume that the poster is fully aware of the sources and purposes of the "facts" and arguments. Certainly true in many cases, but not all. (Fortunately I type verrry slowly and inaccurately, so I usually resist the temptation to participate in the feces tossing games.)

By responding to the standard fare with such well-documented, articulate, and essential information, you accomplished two things. One was to provide that useful information to readers of the thread. The second was to keep others with shorter fuses and less willingness to reprise old evidence from resorting to simple denunciations. Keeping the posts reasonable and helpful in tone discouraged the usual anti-Chavez gang from joining the fray, since their usual tactic has been to just turn up the heat until the flames destroy the whole thread.

Several others have also helped in the same manner, and Judi Lynn's posts, in particular were very informative. Several others as well, of course, and thanks to redqueen for highlighting the fact that is really is a matter of "which side are you on?" And if someone can't or won't answer that question, well, as Howard Zinn said, "You can't be neutral on a moving train." ( http://firstrunfeatures.com/howardzinn.html )

[Judi Lynn]

122. We didn't see that "piling on" effect on this one, did we?

That only happens when they get a really nasty smear article, right from the propaganda mill.

There's always a rush to get in there and take a shot, and it takes the readers and thinkers longer to go get the links to answer the ones who live for events like that.

There's usually a rush AWAY from threads which don't encourage full hate expressions of the Venezuelan people's own landslide-elected President.

[EFerrari]

132. It's like we've been contaminated by the hatred that Gingrich et all

have been fostering all these years. :scared:

I really appreciate your political grasp of Latin America, Judi Lynn. Fact is a good antidote to that kind of reactivity.

[Karenina]

125. What I find completely HYSTERICAL

is that some Amis froth at the mouth with the very mention of the name CHAVEZ. Few speak Spanish or have ever been there or even met a Venezualan of any stripe. Meanwhile THEIR "*leaders" continue to commit atrocities ALL OVER THE GLOBE which they are, of course, HELPLESS to prevent. Too busy trying to survive etc. ad nauseum. They CAN however, draw on their depleted energy to DENOUNCE someone in a far-off land for any and every fart, whose only real crime against them has been calling their *asshole out and delivering much-needed resources to their neglected poor. It's. Just. So. PATHETIC. :rofl:

[MedleyMisty]

134. I just wanted to say that I have really enjoyed this thread

It shows the best of DU. You all rock, and thank you so much for the links and the information.

[slipslidingaway]

138. Great post and thread, thank you and a big

:kick: